How will you simplify your supply chain this year?

Here's a little one-question one-answer quiz.

Question: 

What's the second best thing you can do to mitigate supply chain risk in 2016? 

Answer: (please select one)

a) Attend the Sedex 2016 conference

b) Attend the Sedex 2016 conference

c) Attend the Sedex 2016 conference

d) Attend the Sedex 2016 conference

Whether you selected answer a) b) c) or d), read on. Learn more about why the Sedex Conference in March in London in 2016 should be part of your schedule.  

I grew up in the supply chain. In my formative years as a young manager with Procter and Gamble, I was responsible for logistics in Scotland and Northern Ireland in my very first management role, and then, over eight years until I decided to move on to pastures new, I took on successively diverse and challenging roles across different aspects of the supply chain in Europe including purchasing, customer service, distribution center management and more. And today, working with clients on strategy and reporting, I always feel at home discussing the opportunities (and risks) relating to ethical and sustainable supply. In that context, Sedex often crops up as one of the most influential players in the field of sustainable sourcing and responsible supply chain practice. I am looking forward to attending the 2016 conference, not only because I'll have the chance to speak (you all know how I love to talk), but mainly because I have the feeling that I am going to learn 

a lot.

Sedex is a not for profit membership organisation dedicated to driving improvements in ethical and responsible business practices in global supply chains. As the largest collaborative platform for sharing ethical supply chain data, Sedex is an innovative and effective supply chain management solution, helping companies to reduce risk, protect their reputation and improve supply chain practices. 

I could write reams about the vital importance of ethical supply chain management and the increasing risk as businesses become more global in scope and more complex in scale. It's also a gobbler-upper of resources. Monitoring, audits, training, communications, evaluations, assessments in a context of increasingly strict regulatory requirements means that both customers and suppliers must invest significant resources to stay not only cost-effective but also low-risk. At the same time, the supply chain, if you treat it right, can be a fabulous source of innovation and creativity, enabling business expansion and growth. And of course, no Sustainability Report is complete without critical supply chain disclosures. It seems that Sedex is in the right place at the right time. And by attending the Sedex 2016 Conference (#Sedex16), you will be too! Check out the agenda here.  

I posed a few questions to the Sedex CEO, Jonathan Ivelaw-Chapman, about supply chain sustainability and the conference. Check out his insights: 

What's the most important aspect of your role at Sedex? What's most challenging and what's most satisfying? 

Jonathan: Since joining Sedex, what has struck me is our people and the passion they bring to the organisation. For me, it’s our values and our people that are the most important aspect at Sedex. The most satisfying part of what I am doing is seeing our employees engage in future-thinking in fresh and innovative ways. They are all here because they care and are passionate, and the talent and energy we have seems endless. This is wonderful to observe and participate in. 

Coming from the technology industry, where for nearly 30 years, hype, language and behaviors were all about self-justification and increased investment, I now sense an exit to the “hype” that we have all experienced. I want to help avoid any similarities to the IT industry, by bringing clarity and affordability into the sustainability industry. The challenge for Sedex is to help our industry and membership navigate in an increasingly complex sustainability world. We will do this by simplifying our language, facilitating opportunities to work collaboratively, and giving our members an industry roadmap, with a vision of the way responsible sourcing can work. 

The Sedex Conference 2016 theme runs under the banner of simplification. Everyone seems to talk about the sustainability landscape becoming increasingly complex! How realistic is simplification?

Jonathan: The business and sustainability landscape is rapidly changing. From natural resource scarcity to human rights, child labour to an evolving regulatory landscape, our industry is facing a range of challenges. With all these new topics coming up, sustainability is becoming a complicated space with new initiatives, frameworks, certifications, and schemes, creating silos in industries, countries, topic areas themselves.

Sedex is already looking at simplifying supply chains and recognising the interconnectivities between different issues such as bribery and health and safety and whether there could be more effective ways for companies and their suppliers to manage these issues as one as opposed to treating them in silos. 

There is no need to re-invent the wheel but rather try to scale up – pick what’s relevant to you and collaborate with other stakeholders. We might not have all the right answers just yet, but we are getting there. The conference will provide a great forum to discuss and address the challenges and hear from the industry leaders on how they are going about simplifying the challenging issues and approach to tackling them. 

What's going to be different about the SEDEX Conference 2016? What highlights should we look out for? 

Jonathan: This will be our largest conference so far, bringing together around 1,000 leaders in responsible sourcing for two days of discussions. The conference will be live-streamed and for the first time, we will also have live interviews with conference speakers straight from the conference hall. The conference agenda will cover the most relevant topics for supply chain sustainability – from modern slavery legislation, how organisations can quantify, value, and improve their impact on society, to best practice in agricultural sustainability measurement and reporting tools and resources and much more. 

We have an exciting line up of speakers – from multinational companies such as Kellogg and Mars, to organisations such as International Trade Centre and Thomson Reuters across plenary sessions, master-classes, workshops and spotlight talks. 

For the first time ever we will also host the VIP Networking Dinner event at the Barbican’s tropical plant conservatory in the heart of the City of London. Our conference delegates often ask for more opportunities to network and this dinner, designed for just 150 guests, will provide an exclusive opportunity to connect with industry experts and discuss hot sustainability topics. We are delighted to have John Morrison, Executive Director of the Institute for Human Rights and Business, speaking during the dinner. As a well-known and influential voice on business and human rights, and a highly engaging and knowledgeable speaker, John's speech will be a real highlight of the evening.

***********

And now another little one-question one-answer quiz:

Question: 

What's the first best thing you can do to mitigate supply chain risk in 2016? 

Answer: (please select one)

a) Attend the Sedex 2016 conference

b) Attend the Sedex 2016 conference

c) Attend the Sedex 2016 conference

d) Attend the Sedex 2016 conference 

Look forward to seeing you there!
Drop me a note if you'd like a 50% discount on the standard ticket price on registration. Who wouldn't?



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 new GRI 3.1 guidelines explained

One of the big advantages of being an Organizational Stakeholder of the GRI is the opportunity to attend no-charge webinars on diverse and interesting aspects of reporting. Sometimes the webinars are corporate Sustainability Officers presenting their experience of the challenges, successes, best practices etc of reporting, and sometimes it's the GRI expert staff providing news and updates. I try to attend every one and blog about as many as I can, time permitting. It's almost worth being a GRI Organizational Stakeholder just for these webinars :)

This week, I was online with Letshani Ndlovu and Bastian Buck of the GRI as they walked us through our paces on the new GRI Technical Protocol and the updated 3.1 Reporting Guidelines.

The new GRI Technical Protocol

The Technical Protocol (TP) was created to provide process guidance on how to define the content of a sustainability report. This includes deciding on the scope of a report, the range of topics covered, each topic’s relative reporting priority and level of coverage, and what to disclose in the report about the process for defining its content. In defining content, we all know by now that "materiality" should be a prime consideration. The TP gives a detailed explanation of materiality, starting with: Material topics for a reporting organization should include those topics that have a direct or indirect impact on an organization’s ability to create, preserve or erode economic, environmental and social value for itself, its stakeholders and society at large. Why is this important? Because: Sustainability impacts create both opportunities and risks for an organization. The ability of an organization to recognize opportunities and risks, and act effectively in relation to them, will determine whether the organization creates, preserves or erodes value. Each organization defines its own material issues, using feedback from stakeholders as well as internal and external scans of sustainability impacts.

Defining the reporting content is an "iterative" process which can be shown in the following diagram:

For details of how to apply all these stages, download the Technical Protocol from the GRI website. Note that the TP is an advisory document and supports reporters in providing responses to Profile Disclosure 3.5: "process for defining report content". This assumes, of course, that a reporting company uses a process to defining reporting content... and strange as it may seem, most do not. The TP should help companies move away from "shopping-list" mentality to a "what's material" mindset and guide reporting content accordingly. A defined approach should be used for prioritizing material issues and this should be "systematic, documented and replicable, and used consistently from year to year. Changes to the assessment approach, and their implications, should be documented." This should also help those providing assurance for Sustainability Reports. Note that the TP is a supporting document and does not directly influence the assessment of the report's Application Level.

The new 3.1 Guidelines

The 3.1 guidelines are a stepping stone to the big promise of G4 in 2013 and address just three specific aspects of the current G3 framework relating to: community impacts, human rights and gender equality.

Community impacts:

This replaces the former SO1 performance indicator with three new ones which refer to (1) the percentage of operations with implemented local community engagement, impact assessments and development programs, (2) those with significant actual and potential negative impacts on communities and (3) prevention and mitigation measures to address these negative impacts. The assumption is that everyone is always delighted to report about positive impacts (yes, we know!), so requiring reporting on negative impacts balances up the picture.

Note that the GRI does not define performance indicators for community investment in the form of strategic philanthropy, donations, pro-bono support or employee volunteering programs. Actually, this is one of the most commonly found elements in Sustainability Reports but the GRI does not consider this to be related to the core business model. Bastian Buck explained that these aspects are an "add-on" and therefore not an essential part of a sustainability program. I recently performed a benchmark study for a client on community investment reporting by 12 large companies in the hi-tech sector (more about that in a future blop), and it is notable that this is (a) always reported and (b) vastly inconsistent in the way it is reported.  I disagree that this is not core to a company's business model. Community investment is I believe quite a strategic element of sustainability programs, serving to help companies get closer to stakeholders, enhance reputation and most significantly, attract, retain, develop and engage employees. Even if the GRI does not consider this as material as the negative impacts, the fact is that every reporting company wants to report about this. Why not make the GRI framework a little more accommodating and provide guidelines and indicators for reporting on these issues as well? 

Human Rights impacts: 

The updates in the Human Rights section of the GRI Guidelines are based on the work of John Ruggie, the UN Special Representative on Business and Human Rights and his "Protect, Respect, Remedy" guidance. Several of the framework Management Disclosures have been updated to reflect this new thinking on Human Rights and two new indicators (HR10 and HR 11) have been added relating to (1) the percentage and total number of operations that have been subject to human rights reviews and/or impact assessments and (2) the number of grievances related to human rights filed, addressed and resolved through formal grievance mechanisms. The methodology for conducting human rights assessments is not prescribed, leaving companies to decide for themselves what a human rights assessment actually is and to what extent due diligence should be applied. Is a human rights assessment sitting round a table at HQ discussing potential issues or is it a third party verified audit of all human rights risks in all parts of the supply chain? Reporters will have to work this out for themselves, but I feel that new 3.1 indicators could have been a little sharper in their requirement of minimal accepted good practice in defining and assessing human rights impacts for reporting purposes. 

Gender Equality:

The focus here is on non-discrimination against women and the advancement of women's rights. There has been much work done in recent years relating to women's rights which are enshrined in internationally accepted basic human rights documents and are internationally recognized as being fundamental to sustainable development. Yup. We agree, don't we gals? The 3.1 framework includes several changes to Management Disclosures to include more specific reference to gender equality, an update of LA14 Performance Indicator (this has been updated to refer to salary AND remuneration ratios between men and women, rather than just salary alone, recognizing that there can be major differences between the two), and a new Performance Indicator LA15 which covers return to work and retention rates after parental leave by gender. What constitutes "return to work" and "retention rate" is left to companies to decide. However, much of the complexity here is precisely in the nature of these definitions: Does return to work mean return to the same of similar job with the same prospects for advancement? Does retention rate mean one month, three months, one year or more after returning to work? In response to LA15 we will need to be aware of the small-print nuances in gender equality accounting and whether meaningful measures are used as a basis for reporting.

The 3.1 guidelines are available now (download here) but they will not become mandatory for the declaration of report Application Levels until they are incorporated into the new G4 which will replace G3. In declaring a reporting level, companies will be able to choose to continue to report against G3 or step up their game and report against 3.1, but in either case, A, B or C Application Levels are available.

 
Confused? No Problem. All you need is a good consultant :).

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)

B2B Yes you can! Danisco shows how.

It is quite a pleasure to write about a recently published Sustainability Report - this time from Danisco, the Danish bio-based food ingredients supplier. It is a pleasure not only because the Danisco report is somewhat different from most of the reports you will see flying around these days, but also, because, by way of disclosure, I supported Danisco in the development of this particular report. Don't get me wrong - Danisco did all the hard work - I came in at the back end of the process to offer some specific assistance to the reporting team. Anyway, let me tell you a little about Danisco and their 2010 Sustainability Report. 

Danisco uses raw materials from nature and transforms them into ingredients which contribute to the improved sustainability of our lives - mainly ingredients which improve the quality and health properties of what we eat, but also of things we wear, drive, use and interact with in many different ways. In fact, I had been familiar with Danisco as a food ingredients supplier - I had no idea of the wide range of applications their products can serve. Danisco is based in sunny Copenhagen, Denmark, employes 6,800 people, and operates from over 49 manufacturing sites around the world. Danisco’s ingredients are used globally in a wide range of industries including bakery, dairy, beverages,  animal feed, laundry detergents, tyre manufacture, and bioethanol. Danisco's Sustainability Director, Jeff Hogue, is a frequent social-media-ite and tweets as @JeffreyHogue.

The most significant thing about Danisco's sustainability impacts are that they are greatest once the shipments have left the plant. Many companies' significant impacts are indirect in this way. But Danisco's impacts are two degrees removed - first they sell to manufacturing businesses, then the manufacturing businesses sell their brands to the final consumer. So, although Danisco might not be a household name (well, except perhaps, in Copenhagen),  Danisco makes a far greater impact on our lives than you might guess, doing so through the way the Company develops innovative technology and new products, and supports and collaborates with its customers who make the end products we consume. Take bread, for instance. Danisco tells us that  "In the UK alone, more than 320,000 tonnes of bread is discarded each year because it has lost its freshness. Methane produced by that waste equates to more than 1.4 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents." Addition of Danisco enzymes can help  keep bread fresher up to seven days longer, potentially saving two million tonnes of flour per year and making more bread available with no increase in flour. In the UK alone. Think of that as applicable worldwide. Big numbers. How many times have you thrown out bread that became stale and unappetizing ? It happens, right ? Danisco doesn't make bread. But through Danisco's work with bread-manufacturing companies and bakeries, the consumers have access to a much more sustainable product and lifestyle.

Another example? Take this story about milk in Kenya: " In 2007, worldwide milk production is estimated to be 655 million tonnes with over 30% produced in developing countries. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) forecasts that demand for milk in the developing world will double by 2030. Developing countries are not self-sufficient with milk, and dairy imports to developing countries in value terms grew by 43% between 1998 and 2001.The vast majority of the milk in developing countries is produced on small-scale farms (fewer than five milking cows), without cooling systems. The FAO estimates that 25-50% of the milk from small-scale farmers is wasted." Danisco is working on a technology involving adding an enzyme to the milk at the point of production which would extend the life of milk for 12-15 hours without cooling - thereby avoiding most of the waste in this supply system. This development offers a tremendous economic, social and environmental benefit, a true sustainability springboard. Danisco does not produce milk either. As consumers, we are happily unaware of the positive impact on the sustainability of our lives that the Danisco range of products offer, yet we gain the benefit in many of our everyday consumption patterns. One final example of a super development is in the area of car tyre production - in a collaborative project with Goodyear, Danisco is developing a bio-based, renewable synthetic rubber for use in car tyres with an investment of $50 million, to support our move away from dependency on fossil-based fuels. Renewable car tyres. Danisco are not in the tyre business, but when you are taking your new hybrid out for a spin, you will be able to rest assured that fuel consumption is low not only in the engine but also in the road-grip. These examples represent the core "ingredients for sustainability" proposition that is the backbone of Danisco's sustainability strategy and 2010 report.

Danisco's reporting squarely places these issues in context. Going way beyond the Company's internal, direct, impacts - and these are reported comprehensively (massive reductions in waste, total carbon emissions, water consumption and wastewater generation in the environmental sphere and significant positive workplace improvements including reduced accident rates etc,)  Danisco's report addresses overarching challenges our global society faces in the run-up to 2050, where the global population will increase to 9 billion (from 6.8 billion) and will need solutions to food security issues, dependence on fossil fuels and petroleum-based chemicals, and  growing health issues. Danisco explains the naure of these challenges, the associated risks, and strategy that Danisco has developed to adapt its core business proposition to support finding the right solutions - the right "ingredients for sustainability". 

As mentioned, I am entirely not impartial in relation to this particular Company report, though I spare you many other interesting aspects that I would have been pleased to mention (I know blog-readers have short-attention spans) but I hope this will not prevent you from taking a look at the Danisco report and pondering the broader issues we face as a society and the role that responsible businesses play, even those whose brand-names doen't jump out at us from the supermarket shelf or the car showroom. And when B2B Companies tell you that CSR doesn't apply to them because they don't produce consumer-facing brands, you can quote the Danisco report as absolute proof of the opposite.

elaine cohen is a CSR Consultant, Sustainability Reporter and Co-Manager of Beyond Business, a leading social and environmental consulting and reporting firm. Visit our website at www.b-yond.biz/en

Does size really matter ?

Should small Companies report ? Do you agree with the statement that "CR reporting is for companies with large footprints" ? Does the size of the Company, and its footprint dictate whether a Company should be transparent and accountable to its stakeholders? Is it true that "that large companies have many more resources than small firms" and therefore, large Companies can afford to report and small Companies cannot ? Should a small Company content itself with "more written policies and statements about our impacts"?

The quotes (in red) above are from Toby Webb, the founder and manager of Ethical Corporation.(The questions are mine!)  I have met Toby briefly a couple of times, when I have attended Ethical Corp's conferences, which are very good. I regularly follow his blog Reflections on Ethical Business which I genuinely find to be one of the best blogs around on CSR, full of sharp insight and commentary. Recently Toby posted "Twelve reasons why I won't read your corporate responsibility report", and my response, which was basically that the twelve reasons Toby mentions for not reading CSR reports, are precisely the reasons he should read reports (call me argumentative if you like, but check it out), led to a ping-pong of why reporting is for all organizations, irrespective of size (me) versus why a small business doesnt need, or have the resources, to report (Toby). This prompted me to bring  the ping-pong on to my territory, a blog about reporting, for all organizations (ALL organizations) and elaborate on why I believe this to be so.

What is reporting ? It's a process by which a business, after reasonable dialogue with stakeholders, considers the most material issues for them, the stakeholders, and for its business sustainability, and is transparent about how it performs on matters of stakeholder interest. Reporting is part of the loop of dialogue - we listen, we act, we respond, we listen again. The report is the periodical output of this cyclical process. The process itself builds relationships, trust, management discipline, identifies risk and oportunity, contributes to positive reputation and enhances investor interest, to name but a few benefits. The resources required to produce a report are do not need to be overwhelming - more often than not, the design, printing and dispatch of reports can cost more than the investment in wirting them, or the consultant fee. Most of these cost elements can be avoided by a producing a PDF download or an online report, with modest graphics. The content is what counts. In a small business, personnel resources may be more limited, but the issues are far less complex than in a big global business, and require less personnel.  So i think this  we-ain't-got-the-resources line is a cop-out for not applying rigorous thinking to sustainability, or accepting accountability. Oh, and let's face it, no-one reads reports, anyway, right ?

Let's take a look at some stuff relating to SME reporting:

In Spain, 822 SME's  now produce CSR reports. Why ? It enables them "to increase their competitiveness in a setting where transparency and distinguishing features play an important role. ...... the preparation of the reports initiates the enterprise in the main aspects of CSR while encouraging it to develop its skills of self-diagnosis." This is reported on the Instituto de Crédito Oficial website, an organziation which assists SMEs to report.

The Global Reporting Initiative website has a  section dedicated to support for SME's , and  lists a whole string of SME's who report. In an interview with  Scott McAusland on the GRI website, he says that SME's " account for about 90% of businesses worldwide and 50 - 60% of employment."  Often SME's are part of MNE (multinational enterprise) supply chains, and therefore may have a need to demonstrate ethical, accountable and transparent behaviour in order to stay competitive.

CorporateRegister.com's 2010 CR Reporting Awards has a special category for SME's , as in previous years. You can find many SME reports in the CorporateRegister.com database. The European Commission produced an excellent guide for SME's for communicating CSR.  Whilst the focus of this guide is communications, of which reporting is only one element, it lists many compelling reasons for SME's to communicate abobut their CSR activities, with a CSR report included in the different channels reletvant to different stakeholder groups.

In a post back in July 2009, called You don't have to be BIG to do CSR, I gave an example of an SME from Moldova who reported many positive impacts which almost certainly no-one would ever know about had they not reported themselves. Local competitiveness and reputation are just as crucial here as for bigger businesses.

Many of the reporting SME's confirm that both the process and the report deliver significant benefits as mentioned above. It is important to note that the process cannot succeed without the product of that process - the report itself - a periodical health-check of strategy and metrics, and renewed commitment. A report is the most appropriate vehicle for this - as part of a total csr and communications strategy. I dont see this as a privilege reserved  for only the big blockbuster corps.

What might a Company like Ethical Corporation have to gain by a reporting process and publication of a report? 

• Stakeholder engagement and materiality analysis could throw up new insights about ways to serve stakeholders and do more, better, business. At worst, it will provide an external reality check of how the Company is percieved by those who can influence its sucess.
• An environmental risk and impact assessment, followed by an Environmental Policy and Action Plan could deliver several benefits - cost savings through improved internal environmental practices, travel habits, printing and sustainability in events management.
• A statement of mission, values and perhaps even a Code of Ethics could serve to align employees and all contributing writers to the Company's "what we stand for" and support the building of alignment, trust and reputation. Marketing practices for example are an important element of this too.
• A review of Human Resources practices - even with a small team - could assist the business in improving employee engagement and beoming more attractive to potential employees.
• A review of how the Company contributes to the public good through its business activities, and involves its employees in community activities or supporting social causes could contribute to positive reputation, improved egagement and skill development.
• And more than anything else,  scoping of Ethical Corporation's indirect influence on its many readers and conference attendees could provide the business with a platform to measure and increase its influence and potential readership. Through a "Green Conference Facilities", for example, the Company could provide attendees with an opportunity to make their own contribution to environmental sustainability.
• And finally, the compiling of all of this into a periodical, coherent report would provide a basis to maintain this cycle of planning and improvement, track performance and maintain a leading edge.  

Would this sell more mags or bring more people to summits ? Maybe not in the short term. But we all know that sustainability is a long haul and not a quick-buck thing. And it really doesn't matter how many people the Company employs or how many $ it earns. It's all about impacts. As Dolly Parton said, as far as i recall, "If you think you are too small to influence, you have never been in bed with a mosquito".

Note that i haven't even touched on the sense of duty we might assume of a Company whose core business is communicating about business ethics and "encouraging debate on responsible business" . The GRI produces a report, BSR produces a report, The Guardian produces a report.

Enough said.  I don't hope to convince Toby or Ethical Corporation, and i understand that every business must choose its own ways of doing things. My comments could apply to any small business, not just Ethical Corp. I just felt the need to share my perspective in good spirit on something i have, as you may have noticed, strong views about. And by way of disclosure, I am a CSR report-writing consultant so i am not totally objective.  Thanks to Toby for allowing this debate on his blog  - I expect i am getting on his nerves a bit. Oops!  Next time i see him at a conference I will buy him a Chunky Monkey!

elaine cohen is the joint CEO of BeyondBusiness, a leading reporting and social-environmental consulting firm . Visit our website at: www.b-yond.biz/en

buy it ethically

Back to embedding... this time i will take a look at the procurement section of the Ethical Corporation's latest research publication on How to embed Corporate Responsibility across different parts of your Company. This is a 100 page report published at end September 2009. It provides an analysis and case studies covering 5 organizational functions: Human Resources, Finance and Accounting, Communications, Procurement and Logistics and Operations. Last time i blogged about embedding in the Human  Resources function. This time, being an ex Supply Chain executive (8 years in Supply Chain function with P&Gin Europe, including several years of Purchasing), I will cover csr in the buying office. 

The Ethical Corporation guide highlights examples of how companies address CR challenges in supply chain activities and procurement operations, and how sustainability and ethics are embedded in the supply chain, with reference to codes of conduct and even data sharing and collaboration with competitors (anti-trust regulators permitting!). The section is full of fascinating case studues from HP (target setting in the supply chain), Green and Black's (engaging NGO's to develop supply chains), Innocent drinks (contract terms) ,Sedex (supply chain goals) and Pepsico (cooperating with competitors). The report lists some conclusions  - guidelines which all buyers should heed - i cannot list them all (you know why!) , but the first one is be transparent about your suppliers. That's an interesting point, not something the average buyer thinks about, i suspect. Certainly one which i never considered when i was buying tens of millions of $ of raw materials for P&G products many moons ago.  

Think about it. You are the buyer for your Company. Everyone knows who your suppliers are. How risky is transparency ? It's less risky if you manage it. What if your suppliers are exploiting children in their supply chain? What if they are abusing human rights? What if they are releasing tons of contaminants into a local river ? What if they are involved in bribery and corrupt business dealings ? What if they have been involved in discriminatory behaviour? What if they are using illegal raw materials, or operating with unsafe practices in their plant?  I could list hundreds of cases in which corporations have been penalised or incurred cost penalties because of the actions of their suppliers  - Mattel and Hasbro due to illegal practices by Chines toy manufacturers,  Nestle's issues in sourcing milk from Grace Mugabe at the expense of local farmers, issues for Primark on child labour in the supply chain and many more. What is the risk that these issues come back to haunt you, because this is part of your responsibility for your supply chain. How do you safeguard against this risk?  It's one thing to have such issues in your supply chain, it's another if you never even talked to you suppliers, made your expectations of ethical business clear, or inspected them in some way.
As the buyer for your Company, what questions do you ask of your suppliers ? How do you manage the issues that your suppliers can potentially create for your business? This is part of buying CSR due diligence. Transparency is decidedly less risky if you have a policy and practice designed to identify and reduce risk.
This question is not new for the apparel industry, and Levi Strauss was the first apparel brand to establish a supply chain sourcing code and publicly disclose all its suppliers. Since then, many other apparel brands have followed, but other industries such as toys, electronics, computer hardware etc are slow to follow. CSR in the supply chain is a frequent section in CSR reports. Gone are the days when corporations can plead ignorance of what is happening in their supply chains, and gone are the days when stakeholders accept "We didn't know" as a viable response. So if you are a Purchasing Manager, and you aren't aware of the risks in your supply chain, my advice is do something about them before they do something about you!

elaine cohen is the joint CEO of BeyondBusiness, a leading reporting and social-environmental consulting firm . Visit our website at: www.b-yond.biz/en

CSR and your company's reputation

"Your reputation is created at and affected by every touch point of the organization. Reputation management means addressing your organizational reputation as a strategic issue. It requires a whole-of-business approach to genuine corporate social responsibility and sustainability, and a culture of thinking beyond quarterly financial reports."


One of the most amazing things about the blogosphere and the twitterverse is that you meet the most inspiring people. I have been fortunate to meet the author of the above words. She is Alex Harris (#ff), a reputation management professional with more than 20 years experience in the media industry. Alex authored the book Reputation at Risk, published by Masterstroke Group in June 2009. Alex is the author of the widely acclaimed blog, Reputation Report. The quote above is the start of the epilogue to 140 pages of rivetting perspectives about and examples of the way organizations mis-manage reputation, the risks and consequences of such actions, and insights into best practice. Reading Reputation at Risk will leave you in no doubt about the clear link between business success and effective reputation management, and the umbellical cord that connects reputation and csr practices and reporting.  Alex was born in Papua New Guinea and now lives in Australia, so this book has a healthy helping of Australian stories, and a style which brings the Alex's passionate temperament to life for the reader.  


Reputation at Risk provides a view of corporate governance and the lack thereof that caused the GFC (Global Financial Crisis), the role of  business schools , the risks to reputation from CGM (consumer generated media (no, i didn't know what that meant either), crisis management and more. There is a checklist of positive corporate responses to a crisis or a serious issue and some good advice: "Too often, companies assume the crises will occur in normal working hours when all the key executives and trained operatives will be available. They rarely do". Alex promotes CSR as a key element of business, contributing to public image and reputation. She advocates that CSR should be part of the DNA of the business as csr influences a business's abilty to attract and retain skilled staff, maintain effective customer relationships and shareholder satisfaction and more. What's more, Reputation at Risk speaks in favour of reporting - "The way companies communicate their CSR activities is just as important as the CSR itself".


I tend to think that Alex Harris's voice over the past 20 years has carried some weight, because in a previous analysis i conducted, Australia is the number five top country in the world for producing CSR and sustainability reports. So, Alex, keep telling it as you see it. My only negative about this book is that it doesn't come with a free tub of Chunky Monkey.

elaine cohen is the joint CEO of BeyondBusiness, a leading reporting and social-environmental consulting firm . Visit our website at: www.b-yond.biz/en