What Singapore stands for. [Hint: ReportingMania]

What does Singapore stand for? Prepare to be enlightened.

S is for Strawberry Cheesecake  - The favorite ice cream flavor of the 2017 Asia Sustainability Reporting Summit creator and host, Mr Rajesh Chhabara. He is making no promises that Strawberry Cheesecake ice cream will be served at the summit, but if it is, it's all for ME😀. 

Rajesh is managing director of CSRWorks International, a leading boutique sustainability consulting firm in Singapore. Deeply passionate about sustainability, Rajesh specializes in sustainability strategy, sustainability reporting, stakeholder engagement, supply chain and training. Rajesh has over 20 years of experience in sustainability in diverse industries across Asia. His sustainability strategies have helped clients win global rankings and recognition. He is an inspiration for us all and is the undisputed leader of #ReportingMania in Singapore and Asia.

I is for Insight - Two full days of #ReportingMania will fuel us with enough insights to last us a full year until the next Asia Sustainability Reporting Summit. Whether your thing is Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) Reporting or regional trends in sustainability reporting regulations or dealing with inconvenient reporting topics, this summit is going to ooze with insights, all there for the taking. If you have been feeling a little short on insights after the summer break, just come along.

N is for No PowerPoint - haha -well, probably ALMOST no PowerPoint. What's wrong with PowerPoint anyway? Well, it's true that sometimes the PowerPoint becomes the conversation instead of supporting the conversation. Too many long decks with colors that blind you and words you can't read with too many long diatribes have characterized conferences since the days of Fred and Wilma. Now, in 2017, the Asia Sustainability Reporting Summit promises, yes, I know it's weird.... conversation. We will be getting past the slides and experiencing authentic voices. Rajesh talks about why this summit is different - including No PowerPoint. "First of all, this Summit is the only regional conference is Asia dedicated to sustainability reporting. The Summit will be addressed by more than 50 speakers, each one of them bringing a wealth of expertise. The Summit’s format is also unconventional. There are no boring monologues or lengthy power point presentations. Each session has been designed to have engaging panel conversations on practical topics seeking active participation from delegates. There are eight powerful masterclasses offering great choices to beginners as well as experienced reporters. In every sense, the Summit is really a unique opportunity for anyone interested in sustainability reporting."

G is for Goal - The goal of Rajesh, our conference wizard, says the 2017 Summit is just the beginning of a great journey to becoming Asia’s most engaging conversation about sustainability reporting. The goal is to make the Asia Sustainability Reporting Summit the most exciting sustainability event of the year. Rajesh promises: "Attendees can look forward to learning from top experts, sharing their own experience, exploring solutions to common challenges, understanding future trends and more importantly networking with their international peers." A worthy goal. Doesn't that make you want to be there to help make it happen? [Hint: of course.] 

A is for Always On - In Singapore, the #ReportingMania conversation will be Always On at the September summit. If you think you can come and idle around for two days, think again. No nodding off in the plenaries. No snappy snoozes in the breaks. No power naps in the restrooms. Snoring will definitely be frowned upon. It's going to be an intensive conversation and it's not going to stop until the last delegate has left (or until the ice cream runs out, whichever is earlier). For all you reporters out there, here's a chance to talk about reporting without someone saying every five minutes: "Who reads reports anyway?" (The last time someone asked me that, I said, "Who doesn't?")

P is for People - The 2017 Asia Sustainability Reporting Summit will be attended by hundreds of delegates from at least 15 countries. That's a lot of people getting excited about #ReportingMania. After all, what is sustainability reporting about if it's not about people? Most of us think a sustainability report is some sort of publication. But it's not only that. It's the culmination of many people performing responsibly and collaborating to tell their story. Reports are more than words on a screen. Reports are about making a difference. By people, for people.

 

O is for Opportunity - No sustainability conversation is complete without opportunity. Opportunity is what the visionary Rajesh Chhabara saw when he thunk up the Asia Summit. His vision in a nutshell: "As a Sustainability Consultant and Trainer, I enjoy helping businesses adopt sustainability strategies to become better and smarter business. Even though sustainability reporting is relatively new to Asian businesses, an increasing number of companies have started producing sustainability reports. As such, sustainability reporting community is rapidly growing in Asia. I thought we should create a regional platform for the reporting community to come together, learn from each other, celebrate their successes and find solutions to common challenges. This is how the Asia Sustainability Reporting Summit was born. The inspiration for creating the Summit also came from the huge success of the Asia Sustainability Reporting Awards or ASRA, another powerful platform we built three years ago to honor and recognize sustainability reporting leaders."

R is for Reporting - Rajesh explains: "The number of companies with no sustainability report is much larger than the companies which produce sustainability reports [in Asia] A very small number of companies chose to report on voluntary basis. In the past 2-3 years, several stock exchanges in Asia have introduced regulations requiring their listed companies to publish annual sustainability reports. Because of this there is a big surge in the number of reports from Asia. Unfortunately, sustainability reporting in Asia is mostly compliance driven, at least for now. However, there is a growing number of high quality reports, as we see every year at the Asia Sustainability Reporting Awards (ASRA). ASRA is now recognised as Asia’s top recognition for sustainability reporting. We are seeing significant increase in the number of entries as well as in the quality of reports. Last year we received nearly 450 entries from over 100 companies from 16 countries. This year’s entries are already open and the trends are looking very strong. I am confident that the number of companies participating this year will be much higher than the last year. I would like to mention that this year’s ASRA have a new category: Asia’s Best SDG Reporting. ASRA continues to be a non-profit project with highly independent judging process."

E is for Experts - Little quiz: How many experts can you cram into a Sustainability Reporting Summit over 2 days? 10? 13? 18.34? Noooooooooooo. 50. That's how many folks will be on stage sharing their expertise with hundreds of delegates, all experts in their own right as well. So 50 plus hundreds is the right answer. But, you knew that, right. That's why you registered. Not registered? Go register.

So, by now, your have realized that S I N G A P O R E stands for #ReportingMania. Come and get some. 🌟

elaine cohen, CSR Consultant, Sustainability Reporter, former HR Professional, Trust Across America 2017 Lifetime Achievement Award honoree, Ice Cream Addict, Author of three totally groundbreaking books on sustainability (see About Me page). Contact me via Twitter (@elainecohen) or via my business website www.b-yond.biz (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm). Need help writing your first / next Sustainability Report? Contact elaine: info@b-yond.biz 

Elaine will be chairing the Asia Sustainability Reporting Summit in Singapore on 19-20 September 2017 and the edie Conference on Smarter Sustainability Reporting  in London on 27th February 2018

The missing piece of the materiality puzzle

Earlier this year, I had quite a lot of fun as a GRI-appointed Quality Control Officer, whose role is to attend GRI training courses as an observer and report back to GRI if certified GRI training is being conducted professionally, competently and in line with GRI standards. This is fascinating for me, mainly because it's so interesting to hear what training delegates ask about and comment on during the course. In one session, a delegate asked the ultimate G4 (now GRI Standards) question - the very same one that I asked GRI Standards leading architect Bastian Buck of GRI, three years back:

Is it OK to write a G4 report with just one material issue? 

The answer of course is Yes and No.

Yes, because technically, if you have determined that your organization has only one material impact, then disclosing this and using GRI to report it does actually tick the box.

No, because, I believe, no organization can be so simple that its impact is entirely mono-dimensional. Even micro-businesses operate across more than one dimension. No business has just one stakeholder.

Behind this ultimate question, then, is the deeper consideration of how organizations define their most material impacts for the purpose of strategy development and reporting. It's not so much about whether you can ride the framework with one material issue; it's about the value you derive from understanding what's material for your business. 

Materiality and Strategy 

One of the positive developments following the introduction of G4 was the elevation of materiality from dormant to active in the minds of companies and reporters. Transitioning to G4 has generally appeared to cause companies to engage in some level of thinking about what's material and how to define it. In some cases, this has been a meaningful exercise where materiality is the result of insightful stakeholder dialogue and the precursor to a multi-year sustainability strategy and basis for reporting. In other cases, we are still seeing the disconnect - where companies have, on the one hand, a sustainability strategy and, on the other hand, a list of material issues that bears no resemblance to the strategy and a report which covers everything except what is deemed material. The next stage in materiality maturity is helping companies to see that this all plays out on the same playground. Sustainability strategy has to be the result of materiality analysis. Materiality can never be in a vacuum.

Materiality and Impacts
Which brings me to another interesting and highly geeky thing I did this week. I listened in on the GRI Global Sustainability Standards Board (GSSB) meeting (for the second time). It's fascinating to be a fly on the wall as the GSSB debates the different aspects of developing GRI Standards. I have to commend GRI and GSSB on full transparency here - all the meeting documents are available and the meeting itself is audio live-streamed (shame about the video!) - and it's a truly illuminating discussion... if you are a reporting geek like me.

One of the topics that came up this time around was the definition of materiality and the clarification of this in the new GRI Standards. GRI maintains that to date, people have "misinterpreted" the definition of materiality, and that the new terminology in GRI Standards makes this much clearer. GRI Standards 100:1.3 states: "Relevant topics, which potentially merit inclusion in the report, are those that can reasonably be considered important for reflecting the organization’s economic, environmental, and social impacts, or influencing the decisions of stakeholders. In this context, ‘impact’ refers to the effect an organization has on the economy, the environment, and/or society (positive or negative)."

In G4, material impacts were defined as follows:

In the GRI 100 Glossary of the GRI Standards, it is now clarified as follows:

A Sustainability Report should therefore report impacts OF the business and ON the decisions of stakeholders. It is not about the impacts of sustainability on the business. The guidance matrix in the GRI Standards remains the same in the GRI Standards is it was in G4 (though the colors have changed a little 😌) (NB: I remind you that a matrix is NOT necessary for GRI Reporting - a list of priority issues is perfectly adequate.)

This the application of this matrix - or specifically, the focus of each of the axes -  has commonly been misused in G4 reporting.

3M's 2016 Sustainability Report, for example, uses reputation on the Y axis and stakeholders on the X axis:

The Fedex 2016 Global Citizenship Report uses stakeholders and business success:

Both these approaches do not reflect the actual intention of the GRI framework. The GRI approach is designed to create a report that reflects impacts on the economy, people and planet. The shape and size of the impact of your specific business is key to defining your positive (or negative) contribution to society. The primary focus in sustainability reporting should be the size and nature of the impacts OF your business and how your business affects our lives. In the GRI Standards, that should now be crystal clear. The outcomes of the way your business addresses mitigating negative impacts or enhancing positive impacts is reflected in your reputation, business success and value creation.

In the conversation at the GSSB, where I was a fly, a concern was raised that some companies have spent fortunes on materiality assessments that include this measure of "importance to business success". "What should they do now?", was the question. Well, it's not the end of the world. There is some overlap. Quite often, these issues will naturally coincide. Almost always, in fact. But in the next review of material impacts, there's an opportunity to better align with the letter and spirit of the reporting standard (and stakeholder expectations).

Which brings me to the more important question: How do you prioritize material impacts?

Materiality and Prioritization

The big weakness in the GRI Standards is the lack of robust guidance for defining the process for prioritizing material impacts. GRI could have been prescriptive in this area. The GRI Standards omit the guidance that was contained in G4 around the stages of defining material impacts: identification, prioritization, validation and review. However, even that guidance did not prescribe a robust process for getting from the universe of many impacts to the fewer most material impacts.  Few companies, if any, actually report this process in a way that help us understand the voices that counted in prioritizing specific impacts.

It's easy enough to define the landscape of relevant issues. But the prioritization has often been reduced to a number-crunching exercise, where different groups give scores to different topics, the numbers are added up and voila - you have a matrix. The outcome of this process can vary widely depending on which voices you count, what weight you give to each voice, how each voice assesses the value of each impact and the weighting factors you use to roll that up into one coherent list of issues. These details are rarely disclosed by companies. The entire basis upon which material impact reporting rests is therefore not transparent and possibly, not robust.

Lloyds Bank publishes a Materiality Report.

The bank describes its process for defining material impacts:

This looks like an invested process. A universe of 50 issues was established. Representatives of six stakeholder groups (including employees as one group) took part in an online survey to rank the issues in order of importance. The online input was supplemented by the opinions of Lloyds external Stakeholder Advisory Group who provided "proxy representation on behalf of some of these groups". The responses were weighted according to "stakeholder group sample and data quality with priority given to direct feedback and Stakeholder Advisory Panel feedback". Then it was all rolled up into a set of 14 issues in 5 categories that appear to have equal priority as the most material impacts.

The issues look to be a reasonable mix of what we might expect a large banking group to prioritize at a general level. But they could also be the issues of any bank anywhere in any country. Trust in business, job creation, access to products and services, customer satisfaction - this tells me nothing about Lloyds Banking Group that is specific to that company. This begs the questions: How detailed was the initial universe of material issues? How was the weighting of stakeholder responses constructed?

Another bank, for example, presents a more company-sector specific picture. Westpac Australia's materiality matrix includes impacts such as positive impact finance, financial capability and empowerment, digital product and service transformation (an issue which is sweeping the banking industry worldwide for obvious reasons) and macroeconomic and demographic trends that are current in the materiality assessment period.

 

Westpac's matrix refers to impacts that are important to stakeholder and important to the business, but, despite this bank's detailed disclosure of stakeholder issues and responses, we are still left in the dark about the process used to assign prioritization to these top 18 material impacts. What influenced the positioning of the dots on this matrix? How were the different stakeholder inputs evaluated?

Next week, I will be presenting the findings of an analysis I performed on behalf of BSI, the UK's national standards body, of sustainability performance and reporting standards that are used predominantly today. The presentation will serve as a basis for dialogue at an event hosted by BSI to consider where standardization or additional focused guidance may assist companies in advancing sustainability performance and reporting. 

If materiality is central to reporting, does the process of defining materiality not merit greater structure and transparency? Good process, good outcome. But what is the process for determining materiality? Every company uses its own logic to develop a process that delivers a result. But if the process is flawed, then the result is flawed. How can we know that companies are reporting the most material issues? If the process is different in every case, the outcomes are not comparable. One of the recommendations I am tabling for discussion next week is that there should be robust process standards for the determination of material impacts. What do you think? I'd welcome your thoughts as we consider this fundamental question that goes to the heart of relevant corporate transparency. The actual event is fully booked with a long waiting list, so if you have a strong view, write to me here or comment on this blog. I am very interested to hear your views.

In the meantime, the good news is that companies are making efforts to define material impacts. Even an imperfect, undisclosed process is a start. As I often say, 80% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

 

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of Understanding G4: the Concise Guide to Next Generation Sustainability Reporting  AND  Sustainability Reporting for SMEs: Competitive Advantage Through Transparency AND CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices . Contact me via Twitter (@elainecohen)  or via my business website www.b-yond.biz   (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm).  Need help writing your first / next Sustainability Report? Contact elaine: info@b-yond.biz   

52 low-carbon ways to get to the 5th annual edie Sustainability Reporting conference

I am sure you won't want to miss out on all the fun at the Fifth Annual Sustainability Reporting conference coming up (very) soon in February 2016 in London.

As usual, we promise you a spectacular line-up of movers and shakers totally fabulous speakers and panelists in a day to learn and share across a wide range of sustainability reporting topics. As usual, in the short time we have in the run-up to the conference, I'll be interviewing some of our speakers and whetting your appetite for dialogue and debate on the day. Watch this space! Here's the top billing:

So, now that you have decided to attend (book here) (write to me here for a discount code), here are 52 low-carbon ways to get to the conference:

1. Walk
2. Run
3. Crawl
4. Jog
5. Amble
6. Limp
7. Skip
8. Skate
9. Iceskate
10. Skateboard
11. Bike
12. Trike
13. Hop
14. Hitch
15. Segway (Take care on cliffs)
16. Wheelchair  (Break your leg first)
17. Pram (A baby somewhere won't mind)
18. Supermarket trolley (Remove shopping first)
19. Scooter
20. Rickshaw
21. Carpool
22. Motorbikepool (Spellcheck doesn't like this one)
23. Camel (Let me know if you want me to bring one from the Negev desert)
24. Donkey
25. Horse
26. Big dog
27. Reindeer and sleigh (February is off-season)
28. Teleportation
29. Ride a drone
30. Send yourself by Royal Mail  - second class (It's faster than first)
31. Zipcar
32. Pretend to be me
33. Pretend to be lunch
34. Pretend to be ice cream
35. Virgin trains - first class. (You get great food and it's fun)
    
    

    

    Seen on a toilet seat on Virgin train first class to London

    

    Dinner on a Virgin train first class to London

36. Attach yourself to a Sustainability Report. (Reports get free entry)
37. Bring chocolates. (Quality Street is my fave) 
38. Bring afternoon tea. (Love scones)
      
39. Say "I love Sustainability Reports" very loudly 25 times at the registration desk
40. Come from the past in Dr Who's Time Machine
41. Dry-ski
42. Pretend you are an infographic
43. Say your middle name is G4
44. Speak Chinese (Always wished I could read all those reports published in Chinese)
45. Get pally with edie.net (the conference organizers)
46. Swim (February is always rainy in London)
47. Piggyback
48. Ride a homing pigeon
49. Drink biofuel
50. Use Waze 
51. Become bionic
52. Think positive (It won't get you to the conference but you'll be in a good mood)

I hope these suggestions have been helpful.

Look forward to seeing you in February. 

I'll be using method number 32, pretending to be me, so if you are planning to use that one too, better get there early.

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of Understanding G4: the Concise Guide to Next Generation Sustainability Reporting  AND  Sustainability Reporting for SMEs: Competitive Advantage Through Transparency AND CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices . Contact me via Twitter (@elainecohen)  or via my business website www.b-yond.biz   (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm).  Need help writing your first / next Sustainability Report? Contact elaine: info@b-yond.biz  

Stakeholder engagement is here to stay

Stakeholder 1: I love being a stakeholder. It's so engaging.
Stakeholder 2: Yes, I agree. I love to engage.
Stakeholder 1: So, who are you engaging with these days then?
Stakeholder 2: Well, anyone who asks, really. I'm not that fussy.
Stakeholder 1: Yes, me too. I am a pro-engagement stakeholder.
Stakeholder 3: Hi guys. How's the stakeholder engagement thing going these days? I am making a killing.
Stakeholder 1: What do you mean?
Stakeholder 3: Well, I am getting invited to offer my expert opinion for a range of companies and they pay me loads of money just to tell them what I think. That's what they call engagement these days. It doesn't matter if  I use their products or services. They just want me to reply to their questions.
Stakeholder 2: But how do you give an opinion if you don't use their products?
Stakeholder 3: That's easy. I just tell them what they want to hear.
Stakeholder 1:  How do you know that?
Stakeholder 3: It's what everyone says, you know, climate change is important, treating employees well is important, ethics and integrity is important, human rights are super-important. It's not rocket science, you know. I say the same things to every company.
Stakeholder 2: But why do they ask you? I have been around far longer than you and hardly anyone asks me.
Stakeholder 3: Well, maybe you told them the truth.
Stakeholder 1:  You also have to remember that all stakeholders were not created equal. Stakeholder 3 is a real thought-leader. He has written a book. He speaks at conferences. People think he knows about companies even if he doesn't. They think it's good to have his name in the Sustainability Report.
Stakeholder 3: (blushing) Yes, not all stakeholders are equal. I admit that I enjoy all the fuss and attention. My kids stopped listening to me a long time ago. Now at least, someone is asking what I think.
Stakeholder 2: Well, I don't agree with this. I think companies shouldn't pick and choose their stakeholders. They should engage with ALL stakeholders and not discriminate.
Stakeholder 1:  And how exactly do you propose that a company does that? Some companies have millions of stakeholders.
Stakeholder 2: SurveyMonkey.
Stakeholder 3: Oh dear. If everyone starts using SurveyMonkey, I'll need to go back to teaching at the university in order to make a living.
Stakeholder 1: Oh, I am sure it's not that bad. There will always companies be that prefer to have big names in lights.
Stakeholder 3:  (blushing again) Maybe you are right. I love the lights.
Stakeholder 2:  I am thinking of sectorizing myself. You know, adding Sector Expect Stakeholder to my resume. So that companies that want a sector expert will know to come to me.
Stakeholder 1: Which sector?
Stakeholder 2: All sectors. It doesn't really matter.
Stakeholder 3: That's a great plan.
Stakeholder 1: But what if there are companies that really want to know the truth? You know, really want an honest informed opinion about their material issues to inform their sustainability strategy?
Stakeholder 3: Hahahahahahhahaha now you really made me laugh.
Stakeholder 2: Hahahahahahahahaha, me too. Not in our lifetime, buddy.
Stakeholder 1: OK, OK, I was just kidding. Stakeholder engagement is here to stay. Just like we love it.

How real is stakeholder engagement? Who is actually a stakeholder? How do companies engage with stakeholders? Whats on the cards for stakeholder engagement? Is it here to stay? And if so, what does it look like?

More on this in what promises to be a kick-ass discussion live online, hosted by 2degrees on Tuesday December 9th (next week) at 15:00 GMT. Tune in to hear and engage.. yes, engage.... with Rowland Hill (Marks and Spencer Sustainability Reporting Manager), Rachel Depree, (Sky, Senior Engagement Manager), Peter Collins (RSA Insurance Group, Group Head of Corporate Responsibility) and Oliver Hurrey of 2degrees, and myself. Check it out here and register. No powerpoints. No scripts. No pressure. Just a genuine discussion and sharing of insights and opinions on what stakeholder engagement has become, what it should be and where it's going. Approximately. It should be fun. Especially if we all disagree :-)

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of Understanding G4: the Concise guide to Next Generation Sustainability Reporting  AND  Sustainability Reporting for SMEs: Competitive Advantage Through Transparency AND CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices . Contact me via Twitter (@elainecohen)  or via my business website www.b-yond.biz   (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm).  Check out our G4 Report Expert Analysis Service - for published G4 reports or pre-publication - write to Elaine at info@b-yond.biz to help make your G4 reporting  even better. 

Why YOU HAVE to attend.......

..... the fourth annual Smarter Sustainability Reporting conference. It's on February 24th, 2015 in London.  It's THE annual conference all about sustainability reporting that I chair every year. No, it's not just for reporting geeks, though geeks are thoroughly welcome.

And the reason YOU HAVE to attend is that, for three years now, we have held these totally amazing, informative, content-rich, expertise-packed, opinion-forming, insight-generating, brain-cell-activating, networking-supporting conferences and we still do not have the answer to the question: What is Smarter Sustainability Reporting? We've debated, discussed, shared, chaired, talked, balked, asked, answered, thought, contemplated, ruminated, instigated, irritated, cajoled, encouraged, suggested, digested and just about everything else you do and don't do at conferences... and we still don't have a definitive answer. That's sad. We may have had an answer in the second conference, but then the world changed and we went back to the drawing board at conference three. At this, the fourth annual, we simply have to have an answer. Maybe YOU are the one who can help?

We have a great line-up of expert speakers and panelists - and still more to confirm.

• Nelmara Arbex, Chief Advisor on Innovation in Reporting, Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 
• Sarah Grey, Markets Director, International Integrated Reporting Council, IIRC
• Steve Kenzie, UK Network Secretariat, Global Compact Network
• Simon Howard, Chief Executive Officer, UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association (UKSIF)
• Dr. Paul Toyne, Sustainability Director, Balfour Beatty Construction Services
• Louise Tyson, Head of Reporting, BP
• Katie Buchanan, Head of Sustainability and Reporting, Virgin Media
• Irene Jakobi, Sustainability Manager, Telekom Austria
• Mardi McBrien, Managing Director, Carbon Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB)
• Shaun Davis, Group Director of Safety, Health, Wellbeing &  Sustainability, Royal Mail
• Crystal Crawford, Corporate Responsibility Manager, Liberty Global
• Verity Lawson, Sustainability Reporting Manager, British American Tobacco
• Michaela Rose, Sustainability Advisor, Forum for the Future

You would think that these fantastic experts would have ALL the answers but I can promise YOU, they can't do it on their own. They need YOU.

How do YOU define Smarter Sustainability Reporting? What makes smart smarter? And what makes reporting reporting? From GRI G4 to integrated reports to carbon disclosures to investor interest to innovation to local/global to transparency, creativity and materiality and a whole lot more, we'll be looking to get at the answer that has been evading tens of speakers and hundreds of delegates since the start of our conference series. Do YOU know? Are YOU harboring a totally intelligent response that we are all waiting for? Are YOU willing to share? Will YOU come to the conference and enlighten all of us? 

If YOU decide to come and help us out, I can offer YOU a discount (being the chair has some privileges) and I can promise to be eternally grateful. And so will everybody else. YOUR presence and contribution is absolutely what will make the difference.

That's not to say that in three years of conferences we haven't answered other questions about reporting, the reporting landscape, trends, challenges, risks and opportunities. A mix of practitioner and subject-matter experts, we have always had rich debate and generated a host of action-oriented insights. The feedback from attendees has always been strong. Each conference has been remarkable. The desire to share and learn more about what's going on in reporting is obviously very much alive for both reporting geeks and reporting non-geeks. That's why we keep doing it. 

You may be wondering by now, what's the point of having a conference every year that can't answer its own question? I remember someone quoting some smart famous person who said: if you keep doing the same things, you keep getting the same results. Or something like that, probably more elegantly put. Which is exactly why we continue to shake things up every year. No two conferences are the same. We have a different agenda, different speakers, different round-table talk sessions, different panel discussions and different areas of focus. We don't keep doing the same things but we still don't have the answer to this really truly completely fully exceptionally elusive question: What is Smarter Sustainability Reporting? Obviously, we have been missing something. Yes. We have been missing YOU. So, please come. Please share. Please tell us YOUR answer. Please help make this conference even  more remarkable. 

So: Block out the date in your diary. Contact me for a 15% discount code. Register. Get prepared to share. And watch this space in the run-up to the conference for more posts in conversation with some of our speakers.

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of Understanding G4: the Concise guide to Next Generation Sustainability Reporting  AND  Sustainability Reporting for SMEs: Competitive Advantage Through Transparency AND CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices . Contact me via Twitter (@elainecohen)  or via my business website www.b-yond.biz   (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm).  Check out our G4 Report Expert Analysis Service - for published G4 reports or pre-publication - write to Elaine at info@b-yond.biz to help make your G4 reporting  even better.   

Would you work for free?

At some level, it's extremely flattering to be asked to speak at many events, conferences, congresses and provide expert input to large corporations for their stakeholder engagement efforts. It's really great to be considered an expert that people want to hear. Developing detailed expertise in specialist fields such as Sustainability Reporting, CSR for HR, the new G4 GRI Guidelines, Sustainability Strategy, SME Reporting, Stakeholder Engagement and CSR and Social Media, things which I am generally known for, takes time, money and consistent effort. But feeling flattered does not pay the bills. People don't become experts by chance. They work at it. Fortunately for me, the things I work at becoming expert in are the things I am most passionate about in my life, but nonetheless, I spend hours upon hours building my own knowledge in many different ways, including those which cost money such as attending expensive conferences or training programs. I am sure other consultants do the same. Building expertise is a major investment. It's great when people recognize that you are an expert.

 

I am often approached (several times a week) by many different companies, organizations, groups or individuals to use my expertise to help them. Some want my input to their stakeholder engagement process, some want me to go lecture at a meeting or conference, some want me to review their sustainability reports, or blog about them, some want me to provide advice for a paper or thesis they are writing, some want me to run a training session .. etc... the number and range of requests are endless. When it's students of CSR or Sustainability, I always try to help as much as I can. If it's an academic institution or an NGO, I do my best to help. It's when for-profit companies or corporations ask me to use my time and expertise to help them, expecting I will do so for free, because it gives me exposure or provides me with a way to contribute to the greater good, I draw the line.

 

A recent post by Toby Webb, of Ethical Corporation, resonated with me. He was coming from a different angle. In a post entitled "How not to engage stakeholders by email" , he makes the point that the new way of engaging stakeholders by sending bulk emails to a range of people and asking for input is not effective. He calls it the tick-box way of stakeholder engagement. While there is some place for online surveys in any company's arsenal of communications tools and channels, there is something that rings true about this. However, my point here is not so much about the effectiveness of this approach, but about the expectation that individuals will be prepared to invest time, effort and expertise with no compensation. 

 

A couple of cases in point (out of several) from this last week.
 

First: Large global company conducting a stakeholder engagement exercise. I didn't respond to the first request (time, time, time) and I got second request by email which went like this:

Early last week you have received below email from xxxxxx, Head of Corporate Responsibility (CR) at  xxxxxx, inviting you to take part in the company’s CR materiality analysis. As you are a critical stakeholder, xxxxxxx would like to seek your opinion through an online survey (see link below) followed by a short phone discussion (approx. 1 hour, to be scheduled once survey is filled in).

The request is to complete the survey (I did, it took about 10 minutes) AND then spend one hour on the phone.

Second: Commercial training company running a summit which costs over $2000 per delegate for three days. I was invited to be a guest speaker on one of the panels. I asked for travel reimbursement and of course a fee for speaking. This was the response.

"We wont be able to cover any of the associated expenses, since you do represent the service providers sector. We have identified you very relevant to the topic, and are happy to offer you participation on a complimentary basis, hoping the event would offer you the value in return."

Would you work for free? I raised this question in a Facebook Group for CSR people in Israel, and the unequivocal advice was NO... as a professional expert, you should ask a fee for your professional input and services, even if the overall purpose is to help save the planet. One member of the group, Rei Dishon, pointed me to a fabulous decision tree flowchart which says it quite well (you have to click to enlarge and read it).

Basically, I have learned the hard way that participation free at events with the promise of "exposure" and "value" almost never brings either. I also learned that if big corporations want the expertise I work so hard to develop, they should pay for it. I give a lot of expertise away free... via my blogs, and to NGOs and academic institutions and to many many students who ask me for advice and help. Corporations should expect to pay. It's the ethical way.

In this new age of stakeholder engagement, and possibly with greater focus on process in the development of materiality analysis with the new G4 guidelines, and the ease of pushing out online surveys and accessibility of us all through email, we can possibly expect that more and more corporations will be turning to us all, "critical" stakeholders, to provide input. This is progress, Toby's effectiveness argument notwithstanding. However, such input has value. And in seeking it, companies should understand the value that stakeholders want in return. It's not enough to promise to be a better or more sustainable company. Different stakeholders will want different things. Some may not want financial remuneration. Some may. But stakeholder engagement has a price and may start to be one of the new currencies of our complex evolving world of sustainability. Companies will need to start factoring in the costs of more extensive interaction. They will also need to know that their online requests for input competes with several other similar requests, and at some point, becomes a turn-off for the very stakeholders they address as "critical". Differentiation, targeted selection of which stakeholders to approach, and how, and consideration of stakeholder needs, in this area too, will become skills companies will need to develop. 

Here's another example from this week.

xxxx is working to better communicate about our corporate citizenship programs. We value your feedback so we can best describe xxxxx's commitment to responsible operations as well as investments and involvement in our communities. Thank you for sharing your perspective by clicking on this link and answering the survey's seven questions (which we estimate will take only 2-3 minutes of your time). Many thanks and kind regards
 

I found this approach reasonable. Short survey. Nicely worded request. But it's a global company whose products I do not use (to my knowledge) and with whom I have never had any interaction. How did I get on their list? Nonetheless, I'm inclined to do it. For nothing in return. I hope they use the input. But, if I get ten of these in the same week, I won't respond to all of them.

 

Anyone who offers to compensate me with ice cream, of course, has a great chance of getting a positive response :)

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, winning (CRRA'12) Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of Understanding G4: A concise guide to next generation sustainability reporting AND Sustainability Reporting for SMEs: Competitive Advantage Through Transparency AND CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices Contact me via www.twitter.com/elainecohen   or via my business website www.b-yond.biz   (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm)

CSR is personal at Intel

We often think about CSR as companies just doing their thing. What we sometimes fail to recognize is that the CSR of companies is the sum of the actions of individuals, all working to make a contribution in what is often a very complex web of corporate, global, local, internal, external, social, environmental, business and a million other considerations. The personal experiences of people working in CSR are always interesting. No matter how many times you read a company's CSR report, there's no comparison to getting the real story from the ones who make things happen. The background, challenges and perspectives of real people telling their real stories about CSR in their company is always enlightening, informative and usually inspiring. In this particular case, I am referring to real people from Intel at a meeting with them this week which was certainly enlightening, informative and inspiring. But as most of you didn't attend the meeting, you can find Intel's 2010 CSR report here :)

The occasion of the meeting was a Round Table event in Israel for local CSR practitioners with four Intel leaders, working in the CSR terrain:

Gary Niekerk, Director, Corporate Citizenship, Intel’s Corporate Affairs
Julian Lageard, Senior Manager, Global Public Policy, EU environmental laws

Dan Doron, Director, Construction, Intel Israel

Revital Bitan, CSR Manager, Intel Israel

RtoL: Dan Doron, Gary Niekerk, Revital Bitan, Julian Lageard

Over 20 representatives from local companies attended.

My take-outs from the personal contribution of these Intel leaders discussed in this meeting are:

Plan local employee engagement with CSR issues

Dan Doron made a presentation about how Intel Israel has led an internal campaign to engage and enthuse local employees on ESG matters. This has included developing a cross-company platform ESG Forum and integrating all individual initiatives into one umbrella program, identifying section leaders and establishing a platform for planning, learning, sharing and action internally and externally, to leverage Intel's efforts with local government, non-profits and community stakeholders. A new ESG strategy has been developed and this year, Intel Israel has published a focused Environmental Report covering all environmental impacts. This has been underpinned by a branded internal communication campaign to support the ESG Forum activity and grow employee awareness for Intel Israel’s green activities.

Green never happens unless you make it happen. Employees are the lynchpin for green activity. By making ESG local, personal, planned, measured and transparent, Israel is setting itself up for success.

The CSR voice represents the external stakeholder perspective

Not everyone can be an expert in sustainability issues and not every business decision will be considered with sustainability issues in mind. Decision-makers have different experience and understanding of CSR issues, which is why the CSR voice is so important at early stages of all business decision-making. Gary Niekerk sees his part of his personal role as bringing the external reality and perspectives of stakeholders to the table at the time decisions are being made. An example is a local Intel subsidiary whose pollution control permit had lapsed and savings were to be gained by delaying the renewal, while continuing to operate entirely legally and in line with all regulations. By tabling the stakeholder perspective and the potential erosion of local stakeholder confidence should they hear that such a permit was not up to date, the CSR voice was able to ensure the decision went in favor of immediate renewal, thereby maintaining respect for stakeholder interests and heading off a potential reputation risk.

Take proactive action to clean up the supply chain

Long gone are the days when most ITC companies were vertically integrated. The development of complex supply chains with high outsourced requirements means that companies must broaden the scope of accountability and ensure they understand impacts of the supply chain on their business. One outstanding example of Intel leadership is around the issue of conflict metals. Intel purchase components which contain a range of metals which, once smelted, are not traceable back to their mined source. As Gary said, "Everyone says it comes from Rwanda! Rwanda would have to quadruple in size in order to supply all these metals attributed to it!" Intel thus embarked on a pioneering journey to a metals certification system. After visiting 25 metal smelters around the world, Intel initiated a dialogue with other players in the electronics industry to establish a standard for smelters by which the source of metals such as tantalum, tin, tungsten and even gold can be guaranteed as sourced from non-conflict countries. Intel plans to publish names of certified smelters and purchase only components made with metals from these approved sources.

Regulators need educating

Julian Lageard gave an enlightening talk about his role as a public policy specialist. He is based in Brussels and has a voice in pre-decision processes relating to the formulation of new environmental regulation. Technology is changing fast and regulators are not experts. In order to develop fair, balanced but progressive and demanding legislation, European regulators need to know the issues. Regulations such as RoHS and REACH and substance restrictions in electronics such as lead and more are likely to increase in scope and intensity. We are facing a "tsunami of regulation on nano materials" for example, says Julian, as well as other themes regulating water consumption, power saving technology, fluorinated gases, emissions trading, packaging and more. Much regulation which is passed in Brussels for Europe, which now has 27 member states, may also end up becoming global legislation. It is important for a company such as Intel to ensure the legislation is developed in full knowledge of the issues. Julian's personal role is to ensure that Intel is part of sector associations which contribute knowledge of facts, issues and implications on the environment to help regulators understand CSR and sustainability concepts in order to develop the most appropriate legislation. This is a form of stakeholder engagement activity, as well as risk management, which is based on Intel being a trusted voice in the industry. And CSR is all about trust.

There were many other great insights coming out of this meeting, which local Israeli companies would do well to heed and emulate. Intel in Israel is a big player, employing over 7,000 people in 5 sites (manufacturing and development centers). Israel can definitely be described as "Intel Inside" and hopefully, Intel's CSR Leadership, engagement and transparency will catalyze a ripple effect in Israel, leading CSR strategy development by local companies.

Disclosure: Intel Israel is a client of my company, Beyond Business.


elaine cohen, CSR consultant, Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices   Contact me via www.twitter.com/elainecohen  on Twitter or via my business website www.b-yond.biz/en  (BeyondBusiness, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm)

Who moved my Cottage Cheese 2.0 ?

The world of social media has its upsides and its downsides and recent events in Israel prove that you never know which side is coming next!  We have all been witness to major social media campaigns serving uprisings in the Middle East about freedom, the fabric of democracy and human rights, while acknowledging the critical role that social media has to play in the role of disaster relief and recovery. More and more Corporate Social Responsibility Reports are now online, and with them, the link to Facebook pages, Twitter accounts and Linked In conversations. Just recently, I wrote about the digital advances of the Strauss Group in Israel whose recent CSR report publication was digital, facebooked and launched with a live-streamed stakeholder engagement discussion.

I am not sure that Strauss really expected their conspicuous (and earnest) commitment to dialog and engagement to be put to the test so quickly in what has become one of the almost unheard-of protests by the normally fairly lethargic Israeli public. What's it all about? You may find this hard to believe.. but the issue that has engaged (at the last count) 93,269 consumers in a Facebook campaign is all about... the price of cottage cheese! 

No, it's no joke. The Israeli public is  finally moving out of its comfort zone and leveraging 2.0 tools of the day (in some very creative ways) to make their voice heard in a campaign which has become the talk of the nation in just a few short days and which may well be the first iconic 2.0 consumer Israeli pushback.

Cottage cheese in Israel is one of the most basic elements of the local diet with Israelis spending almost half a million $ a year on the stuff. The price of cottage cheese has risen by 39% in since 2008 and the price that sparked the protest is close to 8 shekels ($2.33) for a 250 gram carton. See this article written for Bloomberg News for more background. The protesters argue that cottage cheese is a staple and should be priced accordingly. 

The major cottage cheese producers in Israel are Tnuva who holds 70% of the market, Strauss Group and Tara. Both   Tnuva's Facebook Page and Strauss's Facebook Page have been inundated with comments, questions, complaints, photos and even a video clip with a Cottage Song comparing the price of cottage cheese to taking out a mortgage. Now it's cottage cheese, tomorrow it's your house! 

The subject has been on the daily news and was the highlight of, coincidentally and perhaps unfortunately, a high-profile annual Food Conference taking place just this week, at which the big shots representing all the relevant food manufacturers were present. The Minister of Finance may not have clicked "like" on Facebook but he certainly backed the consumers' corner, threatening to reduce protection on the local milk market and allow foreign exports, or even bring back price control on these products. The manufacturers, however, are seeking joint solution - farmers, regulators, retailers and all those involved in the supply chain - claiming they are being witch-hunted on price drivers which are not entirely their responsibility. Consumers are not convinced. The call to boycott cottage cheese throughout the month of July continues and 200 more people just "liked" the Facebook campagin in the time it has taken me to write these few lines.

What can we learn from all this and where's the sustainability message?

Consumer 2.0 is alive and kicking. If the most apathetic consumer in the Western Hemisphere is getting riled about cottage, then we can truly believe that consumer 2.0 is here to stay and that every consumer issue will now be an Issue 2.0. The full arsenal of social media tools are available to Consumer 2.0's and no manufacturer has any corner to hide in. As I have said in the past: either you are transparent, or you are transparent. 

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Not much point in declaring that you are committed to dialog if you do not engage when the issues get scary. It's one thing to open up your "good news" corporate responsibility report for debate, and seek feedback, as many companies do. It's another to respond promptly and pertinently to consumers when they voice a concern about the way you are conducting your core business and its effect on them. Both Strauss and Tunva have responded on their Facebook pages, in alignment with the Messages at the Top of their Companies, which are not quite satisfying the angry protesters, but they are nevertheless responses, and for that, they should be commended.  

When the market's don't self-regulate effectively, regulation happens. Here we see a beautiful case study in market dynamics. Sooner or later, someone wakes up. If the businesses involved do not skillfully manage this cottage cheese situation, the government will do it for them. What's preferable? Concede the battle (partially at least) in order to win the war, or have the government decide for you and restrict your trading practices indefinitely?  I can think of many who would opt to take control rather than be controlled. Before anyone moves your cheese, you better be sure you move it yourself.

There's opportunity in crisis:  The cottage cheese scenario an example of a situation in which a smart company can win major reputation (and business) points, By responding humbly, by accepting accountability, by taking practical steps to address a situation which is clearly high on the materiality stakes, the protest can be broken and a competitive edge can be secured. Fear of precedents should never immobilize real action. However, the realization that there is already a precedent (in the way consumers are finding their Voice 2.0) should lead to new ways of thinking and responding. What we need is Response 2.0 to Consumer 2.0 about Issue 2.0 in the battle of Cottage Cheese 2.0.

In the meantime, maybe I will start a Facebook campaign to make ice cream a basic human right.

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices Contact me via www.twitter.com/elainecohen  on Twitter or via my business website www.b-yond.biz/en  (BeyondBusiness, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm)