Nine things of note in Strauss Group's ninth report

The Sustainability Reporting journey is always so fascinating. The companies that I love to work with treat Sustainability Reporting as an opportunity for deep reflection, discussion, debate, consideration, revision, re-framing and renewal. While these processes often happen throughout the year, the choice to publish a Sustainability Report by a certain date ensures that these process streams are priority-funneled into one orderly alignment of content that becomes the company's account of its impacts and its unique sustainability story.

Strauss Group has been doing this now for the past nine years, and while you might think that it's easy to simply pick up with each new report where the last one left off, this is never the case. Our world is so dynamic, our days are so crammed with everything and great companies do so much in one year, that each new Sustainability Report is a new challenge and a new opportunity. Hence the reflection, debate and renewal. And this this case, Strauss Group's ninth Sustainability Report is a unique story, a creative presentation and a compelling read.  

1. Listening, Acting, Improving
This year, the focus for Strauss was Listening, Acting, Improving. It was driven by deep introspection throughout the year, and consultation with stakeholders, especially consumers, who provided important and insightful feedback to Strauss Group about things that go right to the core of the business and the way the business is conducted. Osnat Golan, VP for Communications, Digital and Sustainability at Strauss Group made the point: "During the past two years, we have learned that the highest priorities for our consumers are fair pricing and helping to curb the rising cost of living, as well as advancing healthy nutrition through our products." This year, Strauss Group's report reflects the actions the Group has taken in direct response to stakeholder concerns and expectations.

2. Fair product pricing
There are few, if any, food companies that address pricing policy in their Sustainability Reports. What is the responsibility of a food company to price food products so that a broader spectrum of the population can afford to buy them? How many companies acknowledge this as a responsibility? I suspect that Strauss Group is pioneering in its approach to respond to the rising costs of living and the affordability of basic foodstuffs by reducing consumer list prices across a range of products in the order of between 2.5% and 22.8% in its home market in Israel in 2015. In a year when consumers were continuing to assertively state that food pricing has put certain products beyond their reach, Strauss became the first company (and the only one to date) in the local market to listen, act and improve. These price reductions are significant. After all, corporate responsibility and sustainability is not just about saving the planet. It's also about contributing to the quality of life on the planet. Fair pricing is a highly sensitive, subjective and complex issue - it takes a bold company to accept "fair pricing" as an objective and take measures to implement a fair price policy for consumers.

3. Supporting employees
The second initiative that ran alongside support for consumers in 2015 was support for employees. Employees are consumers too, and if the cost of living rises, they feel the pinch just as other consumers do. Many companies today accept the concept of "living wage" and implement policies to compensate employees in line with a target wage level. At Strauss in Israel, following the direct input of hundreds of employees in feedback meetings over the past two years, Strauss understood the need to protect lower income employees and took this seriously as an element of the company's approach to corporate responsibility and its social license to operate. In the past two years, Strauss boosted benefits for employees at the lower end of the income scale and in 2015, set the way for several very significant additions, including a fixed proprietary minimum wage around 7% higher that the legally mandated level, child care support worth thousands of dollars per year for eligible employees and the opportunity to contribute to an employer-matched tax-free savings fund that helps employees protect their future with an accessible savings program. In addition, employees receive a host of other benefits to help them cope with the economic challenges of simply making it through the month in the black.

4. The Kitchen
The progress made at The Kitchen is worthy of note in Strauss Group's ninth report. The Kitchen is a pioneering initiative by Strauss with the support of the Chief Scientist of Israel, designed to advance food-tech in Israel to deliver new technologies that improve the sustainability of food production or deliver new benefits for consumers. This is a contribution to the advancement of the food industry - the technologies that are developed will not necessarily used by Strauss Group in their operations. With an investment of $25 million over 8 years (40% funded by Strauss, the remainder by the Israeli government), in its first year of activity, the Kitchen has already propelled three amazingly innovative food-tech startups into a new sphere of development and commercial activity. Entrepreneurs would have a hard time accelerating their development without such support. Enabling them to get on the map is a significantly positive sustainability impact.

 

5. The performance

In one year, since the last report, Strauss Group has made significant progress on several fronts, and the performance highlights are delivered up front for readers who want an overview and not an extensive read. One summary infographic for each main section of the report does a good job in pointing readers in the direction of what's most significant.

6. The design elements

Of course, Sustainability Reports are about content, not design. But design that brings reports to life makes it fun for us to read the content. It demonstrates an intent to produce a document that will encourage readership, rather than a stuffy old PDF crammed with text that turns you off before you get to page 2. In 2015, the folks at Strauss Group's long-standing report designer, Studio Merhav, have excelled themselves in creative design that supports the narrative and makes this report a delight to read. Infographics blended with photos and freehand design cause you to stop and look at the imagery as you read the report, giving you time to consider the meaning and the messages that they reflect. A world away from the Stock era and hand-cupped globes of the early days of reporting. Here are a few examples. Aren't they fabulous? 

 

7. Environmental data presentation

Another design feature in this ninth report is the presentation of environmental data. Instead of the usual graphs and charts, environmental data is presented in a way which makes it fun to actually look at the numbers. This presentation supplements the detailed performance tables over several years that are included in the report for those who want the specific numbers. But for most of us who want to see the big picture quickly, this presentation does the job. 

8. The credits

Not many companies include credits to those who work on the report. Strauss Group has always done that. Credits to providers who have worked on the report is an expression of the respect Strauss has for other businesses, small businesses, as it happens, and demonstrates another aspect of both transparency and social responsibility. (At this point, it's appropriate to disclose that I worked on this report, together with my team at Beyond Business - the fourth report we have supported for Strauss Group alongside additional consulting work on different aspects of strategy development. It is always a pleasure and an honor to work with Strauss.)

9. Daniela

The achievements of Sustainability Reporting Managers often go unsung in our reporting world. A few present at conferences, a few write blogs, but most of the hard work in reporting is driven by passionate, skilled and impressively dedicated individuals who mobilize entire organizations in order to get a result their companies can be proud of - most of whom we never get to know. The achievements of Reporting Managers are no small thing, and real credit is due to them. So it is with Daniela Prusky-Sion, Strauss Group's Sustainability and Internal Comms Director, who has led this work for several years. Daniela is a dynamo, never tiring in her efforts to do things better, do things right and do more things to advance Strauss Group's strategic approach to sustainability and improved contribution. Reports under her watch get better and better.

As usual, take a look! Give feedback!

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 

The Commoditization of Materiality Feedback

A popular post of a while back related to us poor cheapskate consultants not accepting to do work for free. I got a lot of feedback on that post, all of it positive and supportive. This time, I want to refer to a different challenge, as while some of the symptoms generally show up in the same form, this is rather different.

Let's start with a case in point. I recently received the following email - representative of several of those I receive on an every increasingly frequent basis.

Dear Ms. Cohen, We are undertaking a review of our most material corporate responsibility (CR) issues and would greatly appreciate benefiting from your expertise and perspectives. XXXXXXX has commissioned sustainability consultancy XXXXXXXXX to undertake half hour telephone interviews and facilitate the materiality analysis. The Interviews will be between XXXXXX 10th and XXXXXX 28th. The topics covered in the interview are: • What do you consider to be the most important CR issues relevant to XXXXXX? • Which areas do you see as current XXXXXXXX strengths and weaknesses related to CR? • Do you have any expectations or suggestions for XXXXXX future CR focus? In appreciation of your participation, we will make a $100 donation in your honor to XXXXXXXX, which helps to reforest communities devastated by natural disasters. Please let me know by this XXXXX 7th if you are interested in participating and we will follow up to schedule a 30 minute phone call at your convenience. 

And this was my response (to which I have received no reply:)):

Many thanks for your invitation. I believe XXXXXXXX has shown significant leadership in sustainability matters and in general, I have a high level of admiration for your work. However, I will respectfully decline to participate in your stakeholder interview session. As a consultant in the sustainability and CR space, I assume you approach me for my professional opinion, rather than just any person who might use XXXXXXX services. The issues I could mention "off the cuff" from my general knowledge of the sector are probably fairly obvious and similar to those which other stakeholders will raise and therefore wouldn't add much value. Therefore, providing a professional response would require specific research and preparation on my part for which I charge a fee. If you are interested in a professional consultation, I could provide you an offer for such services. However, I do not feel I can meaningfully contribute in a 30 minute conversation without proper preparation. Thanks for your understanding and good luck with your process  

Now, the point there is not that I am being asked, again, to give professional opinion for free, but the way in which companies are going about obtaining input for their materiality processes. These bulk approaches to anyone and everyone are anything but focused and designed to deliver a result which, in my view, will be of rather limited relevance to the companies involved.

I call this the commmoditization of materiality feedback. Instead of being knowledgeable, focused, relevant, and driven by both a level of expertise in the subject matter and a knowledge of the company in question, and also some basis of relationship with the company involved as an interested stakeholder of the company, materiality input is becoming broad-scale, technical, hit-and-miss and reminiscent of the days when we all ticked boxes in order to demonstrate sustainability progress. Ticking the materiality feedback box is apparently the activity du jour. Cast your net wide and you catch some fish, but let's not forget, all fish were not created equal.

In the case of the above company, I would barely call myself a stakeholder, beyond the fact that, as a citizen of the world, I am a stakeholder of every company in the world that has an impact on anything in the world. But that's taking the concept of stakeholder to unmanageable proportions.

GRI defines stakeholder as (my highlights):

"Stakeholders are defined as entities or individuals that can reasonably be expected to be significantly affected by the organization’s activities, products, and services; and whose actions can reasonably be expected to affect the ability of the organization to successfully implement its strategies and achieve its objectives. This includes entities or individuals whose rights under law or international conventions provide them with legitimate claims vis-à-vis the organization. Stakeholders can include those who are invested in the organization (such as employees, shareholders, suppliers) as well as those who have other relationships to the organization (such as vulnerable groups within local communities, civil society)."

As a consultant and critic of reporting, I may refer to this company's report on the CSR Reporting Blog or other reviews I publish. But I still don't think this meets the definition of stakeholder as it's doubtful that my writings can reasonably be deemed to affect the organization etc.

I suspect we will be seeing many more companies attempt to engage us all in their new we-have-seen-the-light materiality investigations. This is a good thing. Materiality is becoming part of the new sustainability awareness of corporations. Companies are wanting to get focused. That's fabulous. But moving in a new direction requires a new mode of transport. Trying to get to a different place using the same behaviors that landed you here ain't gonna cut it. You just end up in another wrong place.

The objective of the stakeholder material engagement process is not to reach out to as many voices as possible. The objective is to reach out to the voices that count. Voices count because they belong to meaningful stakeholders, who have some form of relationship with the company, or who are leading external expert voices in matters relating to a company's sector and have, or can develop, enough specific knowledge to provide focused and useful input. In my view, it is far better to have conversations with a few relevant people that engage at a deeper level than to consult the masses and get input which is so broad and varied that it is of no use in making decisions. With great respect for James Suroweicki whose book I tremendously enjoyed, I fear that stakeholder engagement is not a case for the "wisdom of crowds". It's a case for widsom. Period.

In this sense, company XXXXX above was moving in the right direction - by asking to have a telephone conversation rather than send me a SurveyMonkey link. However, in selecting me, a stranger to their company and one who is not known for expertise in their industry sector, it indicates to me that the approach to materiality analysis is off track. It's like me asking a train driver if she thinks I should buy a new refrigerator. The train driver might have an opinion but well, unless she is a former refrigerator saleswoman, is her input really of so much value? (PS. I don't need a new refrigerator at present, but if anyone has any suggestions just in case .... )

The new drive for focused materiality is causing companies to rethink the way they develop sustainability strategy and report on performance. I am genuinely seeing companies wanting to change and leading processes to help them define material issues. It is happening. It's actually really encouraging. It's also engendering a phase of materiality experimentation. That's also good. Many roads lead to materiality, as someone wise once said. I think.

But let's not ignore the dangers. Tickboxing is a bad habit in terms of sustainability. Whether this is tickboxing a number of stakeholders we interviewed or sent a questionnaire to, or tickboxing a list of material issues that appears in a SASB standard or in the newly-published 10 GRI G4 Sector Disclosures without having done the analysis and engagement work, it's bad. Stakeholder engagement and dialog is not something you can commoditize. It always has to be targeted, relevant, meaningful and supportive of processes which have decisions at the end of them.

A respected colleague-consultant, Dwayne Baraka, recently published a guide to materiality, and it might be relevant for the companies that are currently grappling with defining or validating materiality ... including XXXXXXXXXX ... to read it.

In the meantime, anyone who has invented a questionnaire-fatigue antidote stands to make millions over the next few years.  

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, winning (CRRA'12) 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 at www.twitter.com/elainecohen   or via my business website www.b-yond.biz   (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm)

What makes a Sustainability Report good or bad?

My friend and CSR & Sustainability Consultant Juan Villamayor, who writes a great blog, is also writing a dissertation on the quality of Sustainability Reporting. In return for the promise of loads of ice-cream the next time I am in Barcelona, I agreed to provide Juan with my thoughts in response to his question:

What makes a Sustainability Report good or bad?

After I had drafted my response, pretty much off the cuff, I thought I would share it, in case anyone else is writing a dissertation. More ice cream for me, right ? Here is more or less what I wrote:

What makes a Sustainability Report good?

Ultimately, the test of a good or bad Sustainability Report is in the value it adds to a business (and by implication, to the stakeholders of that business). This may be internal value (management processes, engagement etc.) or external value such as building trust and managing risk. Unfortunately, companies rarely measure the value they gain from Sustainability Reporting, though most confirm that they do gain value. I would love to see some research about the specific impact of reporting on companies.

Assuming the report adds value, what makes a report good or bad depends on who is interested in it. Most reports are written for a range of stakeholders and therefore try to cover a balanced set of issues. However, depending who you are, this may or may not be enough. If you are an environmental activist and cannot find clear, relevant environmental impact data, you will be disappointed. If you are in a local community which has been affected by the company's operations, and cannot find information relating to the company's local impacts in your area, you will be disappointed. If you are an employee and read about information which you did not previously know, you may become more engaged and proud, or you may feel disconnected to read in a report what you might have expected to hear through an internal communication process. If on the other hand, you are a professional reporter, and expect reports to reflect a discipline of transparency, measurement and provide data about the company's sustainability impacts, then you tend to look for (not in order of importance) :

The Company's Role in Society

One of the first things I look to a Sustainability Report to do is enlighten me as to how the company sees its role in society. Sustainability is not just about improving impacts and behaving ethically. It's about doing business in a different way which makes a social contribution. I like to see companies define that contribution before they get into the detail of how many tons of paper they have recycled. This provides context for the report.

Material Issues

A materiality matrix (see interactive example from BASF here) which identifies the specific most important issues that the company faces in sustainability performance which has been developed using input from external and internal stakeholders, is important. Specific companies are at specific risk and face specific opportunities, as well as having very specific impacts on people and planet. Materiality helps us understand what these are and react accordingly.

Outcomes

I look for the outcomes or impacts of the company's Sustainability activities, not just performance. So if a company has been investing in environmental technology, I look to see if environmental impacts have improved. If the company has been investing in the community, I look to see what community outcomes have been achieved. A simple "train timetable" of what we have done and how much we have spent is rarely satisfying.

Framework

Most companies today have adopted the GRI framework to compile their report and include a GRI Index. I find this very helpful for navigating the report and finding specific information that I require. With such a framework, it is easy to see what has been reported and what not, against a template of universally relevant key issues. Even if the GRI Framework is not used, another type of framework or structure may be fine, but the inclusion of a content index is most helpful.

Authentic Style and Tone

I look for a style and tone which is authentic and not obviously copy-written – one which explains technical terms and helps tell a story rather than just state the dry facts.

Clear Data

I look for data which is presented coherently and where the basis for calculations are clear, so that you know what's included and what's not. I was recently reading a report that provides a figure for Motor Collisions per 100 employees. There is no basis for the calculation. Does this mean all employees or only employees that have a company vehicle? Is it all collisions or only collisions caused rather than experienced? Data must be presented in a way we can understand, and it is interesting to see prior year data for more than one or two years, so that you can get a sense of continuity.

Targets, Progress and Future Plans

I look for SMART targets , and understanding of not only what progress has been made to achieve the targets so far, but also what plans are in place to continue to do so (see SCA's Report for a good example of this). Simply stating that the company will reduce carbon emissions by 20% by 2020 is not terribly convincing. What is convincing is the plan to achieve this.

Stakeholder Voices

I love to see people in the report – all businesses are about people – employees telling their stories, external perspectives and well-written real-life case studies all add to the credibility and easy-reading factor of the report. (Check out this fabulous report from Impahla Clothing)

How Sustainability is Managed

I believe there is importance in how sustainability is managed in an organization – whether there is a Board Committee, a dedicated Sustainability Leader and a corporate Steering Team of some sort. I always look in the report to see who is responsible for leading sustainability strategy and who is on the frontline of execution. A robust structure gives credibility and confidence that progress can be made and objectives can be achieved. (see page 48 of the Toyota Report for an example)

Accessibility

Easy navigation of all the report content – a hyperlinked downloadable PDF is my preference (see Cisco's example), as I can read it without an internet connection. Report-builder features for web-based reports are important (see Timberland's example). I hate flipbooks and other pyrotechnical web presentations, though opportunity to add comments, such as the SAP report , is a nice touch. A good report website is attractive and accessible to many. Either way, it must enable you to get to what you want fast. Not many people read a report from end to end in the order of the contents list.

And finally, I look for Linkage – the link between the company's sustainability performance and its business success. Most companies don't really know how to express this, and there is some expectation that Integrated Reporting might provide a route to expressing this meaningfully. Today, when I see it, it's a bonus, but my starting point premise is that I won't find it in Sustainability Reports, which is quite ironic really, when you think that many companies engage in sustainability in order to support sustainable positive business performance. (I like the way BT does this)

Finally, finally, I look for Assurance. Today, most companies do not use external assurance or verification and those Assurance statements I read are often partial or completely inadequate, so I tend to assume that I won't find a good Assurance statement which is the result of rigorous process and adds credibility to the report. Here again, when I find a great Assurance Statement, it's a bonus. (here is an example from Bureau Veritas, assuring the Nestle 2011 CSV Report)

Those are my shoot-from-the-hip things that work well for me in Sustainability Reports.

Then I thought about answering the question the other way around:

What makes a Sustainability Report bad?

Here, aside from saying the opposite of all the above, I think most of us know the answer to this – marketing orientation without substance, highly selective "good news" coverage with no context or substantiating data, and difficult, stiff, narrative with a tick-box approach to performance.

Truth is, most reports are neither totally good nor totally bad. but who am I to judge? I can say what works for me, but every stakeholder will have her or his own view.

A Sustainability Report is, simply put, what stakeholders make it.

And this brings me to my final point:

What makes a Sustainability Report really, really good?

Feedback.

Yes.

Feedback.

A Sustainability Report which gets no feedback hasn't hit the radar. And that's bad.

Be a great stakeholder. Give a Sustainability Report your feedback.

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, winning 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  (Beyond Business, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm)

Five insights on Accenture and Women

Let me start at the end. After reviewing Accenture's global 2010-2011 Corporate Citizenship Report, recently released, I have been encouraged by Accenture's performance in gender diversity and advancing women. In many ways, I now believe that Accenture is showing leadership in providing a working environment which repects women's leadership and encourages women to advance.

But that's the end. The beginning is that I wasn't fully convinced of this after reading the Accenture Corporate Citizenship Report. Fortunately, I didn't stop at reading the report. I talked to Accenture. And this is the story. From the beginning.

I didn't have time to study Accenture's report in full (it's online and available as a download) but I  can never resist having a quick look at new report releases, so I did, just in passing, in-between things. Kinda by auto-pilot, my screen navigated to the page entitled "An inclusive, diverse environment".

 What stood out for me on this page is this:

My first reaction was this:

I was disappointed. For the past 5 years, female intake has been static at 34-36 percent. And the number of women senior executives has been static at 16-17 percent of the  senior executive workforce. Accenture has a Diversity Council and a Diversity Advisory Forum. There are leadership courses for women and a Women's Network. Accenture celebrates International Women's Day and in 2010, senior women participated in events in 146 locations across 35 countries, and in 2011,  events took place in  162 locations across 40 countries. Accenture conducts research every year on women in business, and has Women's Mentoring Programs which pair women with senior executives. Yet only 17 percent of the senior executives are women.

Accenture writes: "Increasing the representation of women and minorities among our leadership and welcoming all diverse employees will remain ongoing priorities for us." For the past 5 years, there appears to have been almost no increase of women representation in the senior executive ranks, despite this having been, apparently, a priority during these years.

It therefore seemed to me that, whatever Accenture has been doing for the past five years, it hadn't worked. Whatever Accenture plans to do for the next five years, has to be different. As I have said in the past, down with womenwashing!. "Fixing" women through leadership programs and women's networks doesn't create space for women to move into leadership positions.

Admittedly, Accenture has three women on the Board of Directors (out of a total of 10 non-management Directors) and 26% (5 out of 19) of its global Executive Leadership Team are women, which stacks up pretty well against most large companies and other companies in this sector. However, this just made me wonder why more women do not achieve senior executive status, and, apart from continuing the current initiatives, what Accenture plans to do differently to ensure that 17% could become more than 17% in the next few years.

  

But then......

I contacted Stacey Jones, who is Accenture's reporting contact point for Corporate Citizenship to see if there is perhaps an explanation that I am missing. I was totally impressed that Stacey came back to me immediately and we chatted by phone about what Accenture is doing to advance women. This is fabulous responsiveness, way beyond that which I experience from most companies (and I write to many!).

And then ......

From our conversation I understood that the "senior executives" is actually quite a small proportion of the overall management population at Accenture, as 17% is based on a group of some thousand within the company’s population of nearly 250,00 employees. The percentage of women overall in all management positions is much higher.

I also saw that the total workforce increased by 40% in the same 5 years, so the female workforce in 2007 was 61,200, while in 2011, it was over 80,000. This means that absolute numbers of women in senior positions has increased, even if the percentage figure does not reflect this. Maintaining this level, then, actually represents an achievement.

In addition, Stacey talked with passion about the programs to advance women at Accenture, especially the Diversity Council. "Diversity Council membership includes representation of our most senior male and female executives who have key leadership positions within the business. They play important roles in succession planning and sponsoring women to be groomed for leadership positions and ensuring they have the opportunity to advance. I have been here for 18 years, and I personally observe the investment of time and energy that goes into creating an inclusive culture that works for women."

All this was enough to convince me that there is genuine openness and encouragement for women's advancement at Accenture.

And so .....

I changed this post from what have been a rather critical post to one which highlights the value of stakeholder engagement. Here are my five insights:

Number Uno: As stakeholders, take the time to give feedback and ask questions.

Had I not fed back my observations to Accenture, I would have written an overly critical piece. Knowing what I do now, this would have been unjustified. I like being critical :), but I prefer to be fair.

Numero Two: As corporations, listen and be responsive to stakeholders.

My conversation with Accenture provided them with some value. Through my feedback, they were able to gain some new perspectives about how to present their performance in the Corporate Citizenship Report and a couple of insights into aspects of diversity management.

Number Trois: Things are not always what they seem.

It's always worth checking the facts and hearing the other side of the story. It's easy to jump to conclusions, and be judgmental, especially when the numbers seem straightforward. But just asking a simple question led to a great conversation and a much fuller understanding of the situation on my part. It's easy to be critical of companies. It's less easy to take the time and consider a more balanced view. 

Nombre Four: Transparency builds trust.

This is the whole point of Sustainability Reporting. Transparency opens you up to scrutiny. It exposes you to criticism and external interventions. As a result, I now have a much higher level of trust in Accenture's reporting, and corporate integrity, and Accenture has avoided what might have been some rather unpleasant publicity, and has gained new insights about their reporting.

Nummer Cinq: Make sure your Sustainability Report has an accessible contact point.

If the whole point of Sustainability Reporting is to engage stakeholders, make sure you publish an accessible contact point. It's so frustrating when you send an email and it ends up in a black hole. Accenture's timely and friendly response is a best practice example of stakeholder engagement and deserves a CSR Reporting Blog Double Cone Award.

The End.

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  (Beyond Business, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm)

What is your feedback worth ?

I was taking a look at Deutsche Post DHL recently published Sustainability Report called Living Responsibility Report 2010 and came across their way to encourage readers to give feedback.

I wonder why Deutsche Post placed a cap on the number of feedback forms that would qualify for the Euro 5 donation (up to a limit of Euro 1,000) ? Were they worried that more than 200 people would provide feedback requiring them to donate horrendously large amounts of Euros to Plant-for-the-Planet? If 1,000 people took the time to read the report and fully complete the questionnaire, this would amount to a donation of Euro 5,000. Believe me, if 1,000 people genuinely took the time to do this, I believe it would be worth far more than Euro 5,000 to Deutsche Post. What do people think when they see this offer? Does it incentivize them to respond? Would they wonder if it is worth bothering to fill in the form, because if they are feeder backer number 201, no cash is thrown in the pot? Is the donation any form of motivator?

Deutsche Post is not the first reporter to offer incentives for providing feedback. OneSteel offered a 16 MB iPad for filling the survey response form on their first standalone sustainability report for 2010 (a much sexier offer, if you ask me :))

Of course, the problem with providing feedback on sustainability reports is that they always seem to end up in some black hole and you never quite know whether anyone ever read the feedback or did anything with it. This is one of the big breakthroughs of the SAP and the Guardian online report execution - feedback is open and online and gets a reply.

Most companies make a plea to receive feedback but it is hard to tell if this is lip service or genuine interest in what people have to say. I tend to get about a half 'n half response from the companies I write to directly with feedback - half respond, half don't.  I never get a response to any of the specific feedback forms I submit.

I believe that the best incentive for encouraging stakeholders and report readers to give more feedback is not the promise of an iPad or even the possibility of a donation to a good cause. It would be the promise of ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. I believe people want to see their feedback acknowledged and responded to. People provide feedback because they want to make a difference. They are not just taking the time to generously provide free advice to companies for the greater good. They want to have influence and impact. So come on reporters, if you want people to respond to you, make an upfront commitment to valuing their feedback. Let people know you are serious.

I found a nice example from DiGi.com Berhad, a Malaysian mobile and internet service provider. In their Sustainability Report 2009, they offer us the possibility of getting a response to our feedback. (I haven't tested this out yet, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt for the time being :)).

Of course, reporting companies could always make a commitment to respond, a promise of a Euro 5 donation to a good cause AND an iPad for the winning feedback..... throwing in a pint of Chunky Monkey would make it really effective.

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, Sustainabilty 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)

13 takes on the SAP 2009 Sustainability Report

Finally, I have gotten around to doing what I love doing. Reviewing one of the great new CSR reports to be issued in the past few months. The SAP 2009 Sustainability Report.

It was hard to miss the commotion around the launch of the SAP report,  proclaimed by many as the most innovative and forward-thinking, hi-tech, interactive and engaging report in the history of CR reporting. I have bounced in and out of the online report a few times, findng the online format a touch cumbersome to navigate, despite its objective of delivering a compelling interactive experience. Now it's time to take a deeper look, and whilst I am at it, consider just how much interactivity this interactivity pioneer has interactivated in its first few months of issue. Let's do it this way: 5 things I like about the SAP report. and 8 things I dont ..err... 8 things I like less. Good news first, as always.

I like:

The Tour of the SAP 2009 Sustainability Report. If you can't be bothered to read the whole thing, then 7.43 minutes of highlights and insights for a Magical Mystery Tour of this report is  time well spent. Nicely done. An Executive Summary on video.

The open feedback facility on every page. "Issue Experts" and other SAP people conduct open dialogue in response to feedback and queries so that all of us folks who thought it and didn't feedback it can get the benefit anyway. Very nice feature which I hope will be adopted by many other Companies. Comments are not moderated which demonstrates great transparency in this Brave New CyberSpace World.  It kind of turns the report into one long blog. Hmm. Now there's an Idea ... a Sustainability Report in the form of a BLOG. What a great thought. Remember: you saw it HERE first. Also, when you post a comment in the SAP report, a pop-up enables you to share your comment to Twitter, FB and LinkedIn. Nice feature.

The materiality matrix. I LOVE materiality matrices. This one is great. Not only does it clearly MAP the SAP issues, it gives detailed descriptions including commentaries by external experts on each issue, describes the changes in materiality focus year on year AND it enables you to play around with the bubblewrap-style matrix and reposition everythng that's important to SAP so that it defines what's important to YOU, and feed it back to SAP. Really neat. I could play with this for hours. And when you save your new SAP Materiality Matrix, a little pop-up pops-up and says " Thank you for your valuable feedback!"  Such a polite report :)

The SiteMap: This is about the best way to navigate this report, enabling an overview of the different sections. It is, in effect,  the Report content list.

The Advisory Panel Statement:  I liked this statement, finding it to be balanced and astute in its commentary on SAP's advances in sustainability processes and also the limitations of this report. This adds a degree of credibility to Sap's efforts and reporting.

I less like:

No download: I find it soooo tiresome and time-consuming reading reports on line. Online reading is ok for blog posts and other articles with short bytes. The SAP report is long enough to make me tire of the online version after half a dozen clicks. Sorry SAP. A PDF download, as an additional option, is a format which I find much easier and much more efficient for reading the entire report. The online is great for dipping in and out but makes for a disjointed reading experience as moving around is interrupted with click and wait to load the page. Drives me insane. I like to work fast and totally online reports often slow me down and this SAP report is no exception.

Feedback feature: When you go to enter comments, the comment box expands and overrides the page you want to comment on. Since I turned 21, my memory just ain't what it used to be, and if I cannot see what I am commenting on, I forget what I wanted to say. Yep, fact of life. I had to comment with the report open in two web pages, and toggle between them. Rather tiresome.

The Sustainability Map: This is a product marketing brochure for SAP solutions. It looks nice and organized well, but it's promotional rather that substantial. It's not reporting the IMPACT of SAP's sustainability solutions, it's describing SAP's offerings. I believe SAP must think in terms of measuring the way the company is creating a difference in the market place and reporting on that, rather than focusing on the way it maintains a presence.

It's Boring: This report may be interactive, but it is  boring. The style and tone is dry and consists of mechanical,  descriptive, often technical commentary. Where is the true spirit in this report? It seems to be taken up in the self-congratulatory smugness of the online presentation rather than the way sustainability comes alive at SAP. Where are the SAP employees in this report? What about a few faces and names of key players (beyond vids of the CEO's and Sustainability Director)? A few case studies. Anecdotes. Chunky Monkey. Something to inspire.

It's shallow in key areas: The report content doesn't dive deep enough into core issues that are of critical importance to SAP's culture and development as a sustainable business. The section on Women in Management does not adequately explain why SAP's results are consistently poor despite a string of initiatives to make women superwomen. The section on Employee Engagement which dropped 84% to 69% in 3 years - an alarming result - a third of the workforce are not engaged -  doesn't inspire confidence that SAP knows how to address this as an organization. Customer Satisfaction declined by two percentage points from 93% to 91% in 2009. Is this significant for SAP?  The commentary does not really describe specific efforts that will ensure higher levels of satisfaction in the future aside from a change to customer service options and no increase in service fees.

It's tactical not strategic: This Sustainability Report gets high marks for transparency and interactivity. However, it is focused on SAP inputs and not outcomes. Despite spending rather a lot of time in the report, I still fail to get a clear substantiation of the contribution SAP is making to advance a sustainable society. The few case studies from Lexmark, Rohm and Hahs and John Deere do not really provide clear measurable benefit, they are more like technical specifications for software solutions. This report lacks a concept and a theme which tells the story of SAP's sustainability. The Advisory Panel says that SAP has unambiguously embraced the role of enabler. Well, frankly, if they hadn't made this point, I am not sure anyone would have got it. SAP needs to stand back from the technological magic and think about what they really want to use this report for and how to project their  real contribution, beyond making money.

No Sustainability Action Plan: Contrast this report with the "we said, we have, we will " of master-reporters Vodafone and you realise that the SAP report really does not achieve clarity about its sustainability journey. I wasn't able to get a sense of overall plan, performance against that plan, or quantifiable future targets. Maybe I just got tired of clicking and waiting.

So, on balance, the "less likes" rule the day for me. I commend the team at SAP for the most significant feature of this report - open live unmoderated transparent feedback -  and for a report which meets the highest transparency level of the GRI framework. Clearly, much effort has gone into this report and it certainly is a worthy player which can proudly take its place amongst the better reports of 2010. Personally, however, as you can see, there is much about this report that I found less engaging and less mature in terms of what I might expect from a highly developed sustainably conscious company such as SAP. Still, any Company who is open to feedback will surely continue to evolve and improve, so I am confident that the SAP 2010 report will be an absolute blockbuster :) 

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, Sustainabilty Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Contact me via www.twitter.com/elainecohen  on Twitter or via my business website www.b-yond.biz/en Beyond Business Ltd,  an inspired social and environmental consulting and reporting firm.

Thumbs Down Deutsche Telekom

This follows on from my post about Deutsch Telekom's 2010 Corporate Reponsibility Report and allegations of anti-union practices. As I usually do, because I believe we have a responsibility to dialogue with companies and engage with them on their reporting, I wrote to the Deutsche Telekom to ask for some clarification. You never know, perhaps it's all a storm in a tea-cup.

My e-mail to the address indicated in the report bounced back. Dud e-mail address. It happens.

I then filled in the online form on the Deutcshe Telekom website. This resulted in a standard response advising me that they "appreciate my interest in Deutsche Telekom" and that I can find all "public informations" on their website.

Ok, I thought, maybe I need to fill in the online contact form speficially on the CR website repeating my request for specific information on a specific subject. I did. This was the response:

Frankly, I have nothing more to say.

elaine cohen is co-founder and co-CEO of Beyond Business, a leading social and environmental consulting and reporting firm. Visit our website at www.b-yond.biz/en

Inhance Sustainability

Occasionally, on CorporateRegister.com, I come across a report that doesn't quite fit the standard categorization of CSR or sustainability report. This is why the report from Inhance Investment caught my eye. It is called Stakeholder Engagement Report, Dialogue to Deeds, 2010. Inhance is a Canadian mutual fund company with approximately $75 million of mutual fund assets under management, active in socially Responsible Investment (SRI). Founded in 2001, Inhance is based in Vancouver and is owned by Vancity, one of Canada’s largest credit unions.

The report, 13 pages short, opens with "Over 2009 we engaged 23 companies on emerging ESG risk. Key areas of engagement include: climate change, product safety, ecosystem integrity, community relations and diversity. In early 2009 we also negotiated withdrawals on six shareholder resolutions filed in 2008 for 2009 annual general meetings."

In the area of climate change, Inhance contacted 8 companies who had declined to report to the Carbon Disclosure Project. "In particular we focused on the need for company boards to be aware of the evolving regulatory regime for climate change, and the opportunities in renewable energy, conservation and efficiency improvements." Inhance names the companies, but fails to report on whether there was any response to their contact, which is a shame. On hydraulic fracturing, the process used to release reserves of natural gas using high pressure water pumps, Inhance contacted six companies about their practice in this area, and received responses from three.

Similarly, Inhance was active in the food area, contacting General Mills about misleading claims of reduced calorie breakfast cereals which were the result of playing around with portion size and not product modifications! Also, Inhance has taken up the use of BPA in packaging at General Mills and Pepsico. On diversity, Inhance engaged with five companies lacking in either gender or visible minority diversity at the board level.

There are two points to make here, one good, one could-be-better.

The good is that this sort of activity from Investment Houses and mutual funds is highly welcome. Inhance's proactive stance and reachout to companies is exactly what more investment companies and investors and analysts should be doing, as most public conpanies will "voluntarily" change only when they are given a little encouragement on behalf of people who want to invest in them. This is a critical route to more sustainable practices and I am happy to see Inhance reporting on this. It's the vigilante work of the CSR community.

The could-be-better is that, having decided to produce a nice shiny report, couldn't Insight have gone the extra mile and reported on outcomes of engagement rather than just initiation? Wouldn't it be nice to know that all their hard work in talking to companies had actually yielded some benefit ? (assuming it did).  

Anyway, their report is a 13 page document which takes 5 minutes to read, but it's worth it. The principle of identifiying issues you feel strongly about and making sure companies know it is a golden rule of stepping up sustainability. Give feedback. Ask questions. Request change.  

elaine cohen is co-founder and co-CEO of Beyond Business, a leading social and environmental consulting and reporting firm. Visit our website at www.b-yond.biz/en

Feedback makes CSR sustainable

This is the first of three posts about feedback to companies on their CSR performance and CSR reporting. Anyone who tracks my conversations around cyberspace will know that I talk a lot ( a LOT) about this. In fact, I think the GRI should include an indicator which specifically requests the number of individual pieces of feedback that companies get on their reports (currently clause 4.17 of the GRI framework refers only to the "key topics and concerns that have been raised through stakeholder engagement". For some companies, this might mean 3 stakeholders. For some companies, 3 is generous) . 

Feedback is  what makes CSR sustainable. The CSR Feedback Series will cover: (1) (this one) Report Reviews  (2) The way companies report about feedback (3) CSR Reporting and Employee Feedback. Stay tuned. Here's part 1:

I was delighted to notice in the Verizon CSR Report for 2009 the inclusion of a mention of my feedback in the form of an Expert Review of their 08 report published on CorporateRegister.com. Verizon noted the three external independent assessors who had reviewed their report: BSR, AccountAbility and Beyond Business, my consulting company. See a photo shot of the section in their report below:

This was particularly gratifying, not only to appear in such revered company as BSR and AA, but also because Verizon clearly reviewed my feedback and took it seriously. This, after all, is the way we influence companies to do better.

During the past 16 months or so, I have completed over 40 Report Reviews both for CorporateRegister.com and for Ethical Corporation (which I started with the May 2010 magazine issue with my review of the Bacardi report). 

The most recent reviews were H&M 2009 report, which I called "Good substance, bad style"  (I reviewed their report also in 2008) and IMC2  2009 report, which I called "Charm with outcomes" , reflecting a certain increasing maturity of their reporting. ( I reviewed both prior reports).

Report reviews are my way of providing considered feedback to companies about their reporting. A good throrough read of a report, even a shorter one, and a careful assessment takes some hours to compile. All in all, I calculate that my investment in formal reviews accounts for about 2  working weeks per year. In addition,  I write this blog, of course, which offers a lot of feedback on many reports, without the detail of a full review. I also write directly to many companies, some of whom respond, and I fill in feedback forms where provided by companies. There is nothing that makes me happier than companies who ackowledge and use this feedback. (All this is voluntary, unpaid investment in providing feedback. I am not including  here the paid service I provide to companies for pre and post publication  reviews of their reporting). 

Many Companies take the initiative write to me or engage me in informal discussion about my report reviews. Mostly, they are grateful to receive feedback. Sometimes I may have been a little more critical than they deserve, though, more often than not, modestly, they tell me that I have identified the gaps or difficulties they themselves were aware of. This is nice, because it shows that reporting issues do show up in reports, no matter how companies try to gloss over certain issues (for, perhaps, understandable reasons). More importantly, companies who engage in feedback about their report show that they are proactive about engaging stakeholder views and are open to hear things that may help them improve their presentation of their sustainability performance, transparency and accessibility of their reporting. This, for me, is the ultimate objective, as I repeat: Feedback is what makes CSR sustainable. (I kinda like that sentence.)

That's it for Part 1. Part 2 just as soon as I can get to it. In the meantime, I will be reviewing the current Verizon report mentioned above. Though the fact that they mentioned my last review in their report will not buy them any traction, I will be just as mean and nasty as I usually am hahahahahahahhahahahaha

elaine cohen is co-founder and co-CEO of Beyond Business, a leading social and environmental consulting and reporting firm. Visit our website at www.b-yond.biz/en or tweet me at www.twitter.com/elaiecohen