Reporting in CoronaWorld

The question on everyone's (masked) lips.😷 Although we are currently publishing a 2019 Sustainability Report, should we include our response to COVID-19, even though it occurred in 2020? 

In my view, the answer is unequivocally yes. Reporting is never in a vacuum, and when reality has changed so starkly between the time of preparation and the date of publication of a sustainability report, I believe it's fairly obtuse not to include a reference or update. In fact, many are referring to a company's COVID-19 response as a sort of litmus test of its seriousness about sustainability. If core values of positive social impact and responsible employment are not demonstrated in times of crisis, when they are most needed, then they are apparently not truly embedded. Check out the COVID-19 Stress Test by Vigeo Eiris, which concludes with the words: "CSR presents a pathway to protect consumer trust, investor confidence and workforce loyalty. If there is a simple lesson that we can relearn, it is that CSR practices can act as powerful tools when responding to a crisis."

I reviewed 30 Sustainability Reports that were published in the last few weeks (those that have crossed my radar through announcements and alerts) and produced the following analysis:

• The majority of companies include references to COVID-19 in their 2019 Sustainability Reports, though a third of them are only doing so via a brief mention in the leadership (Chair, CEO or other senior leaders) letters. 
• The number of companies providing extensive updates about their actions to support their stakeholders during the COVID-19 challenges are few - just 8 companies out of 30 specifically reference more than a single stakeholder group (e.g. employees, customers, suppliers, communities or new business activities). 
• Most of the companies that have included COVID-19 references in their Sustainability Reports also have a COVID-19 update on their website homepage.
• Three companies that do not provide COVID-19 updates in the 2019 Sustainability Report include a reference on the company homepage. 
• Five companies - radio silence.

These results surprised me a little. There has been no greater global social or economic crisis in recent years than the coronavirus pandemic, affecting billions of lives, forcing businesses around the world to a standstill, a slowdown, or for many, bankruptcy. There has never been a period in our lifetime when the ability to work and deliver economic output has been so drastically affected. There have never been so many layoffs in such a short period, nor so many employees affected by the virus or by sickness or deaths of loved ones, neighbors or colleagues. Never has "materiality" been subordinated to a single overriding issue that affects everything corporations are doing.

In this unprecedented scale of crisis, all corporations face both risk and opportunity - the familiar duality of CSR or sustainability. The annual Sustainability Report is a core communication tool to disclose the impacts of companies on people and the environment, as well as the sustainability risks and opportunities companies face, and how they are dealing with them. By the time the next report is published, in 2021, although companies may still be navigating the "new normal", whatever that looks like, their actions now are what counts and what stakeholders seek to understand. A page on a website may get lost in time, a Sustainability Report is a permanent attestation to a company's commitment. Business is not currently "as usual". Sustainability Reports published in 2020 should also not be "as usual".

Yet, in more than a quarter of the recent reports I reviewed, companies say nothing at all - not even: "Hey folks, stay safe." For many others, the mention is cursory. On the positive side, there are examples of comprehensive disclosure such as Infosys, Samsung and Moody's (see below).

Here are a few examples from the 30 reports I reviewed (alpha order):

B2Gold: 2019 Sustainability Report - Raising the Bar

B2Gold's President and CEO references COVID-19 in his opening letter - not the first thing he addresses, but it is there on the first page of the letter and a commitment to work with governments, health authorities and other players to support navigating the pandemic. Separately, B2Gold includes a half page update of key COVID-19 initiatives and commitments addressing employees, health and safety and community - referencing more details on the company's website.

Notably, all forecasts and data shared for 2020 is footnoted in B2Gold's report with the words: "based on current assumptions, subject to variation due to impacts of COVID-19 pandemic."

GasLog Ltd: Sustainability Report 2019

This is a first report from this company, and nothing like a baptism of fire, facing both the challenges of first time reporting AND the COVID-19 pandemic all at the same time. GasLog's Chairman's first words in his opening letter addresses this. In fact, the first paragraph of the Chair's letter includes the word "challenges" three times - a symptom of today's market and reporting environment. In addition to this, GasLog briefly references the measures taken to protect employees and maintain operations.

Infosys: Sustainability Report 2019 - 2020

Infosys provides detailed coverage of its COVID-19 response, starting with a reference in the COO letter to the contribution made by the Infosys Foundation to support local communities. Later, a dedicated section in the report focuses on Infosys' risk management approach and support for the health and safety of employees and vendors, and business continuity plans for customers.

COVID-19 references also appear in different sections of the report, describing, for example, research initiatives on the effects of the pandemic, and a hackathon hosted with IBM to address issues such as crisis communications and remote working. Another example is converting the company's internship program to operate virtually so that interns can stay on course in their careers. There is also a specific case study on smart building automation as a key factor in managing uninterrupted operations in buildings, including critical infrastructure like data centers.

Further, Infosys reports pushing out its climate ambition from its commitment to achieve carbon neutrality in 2020 to 2021 due to COVID related uncertainties. Interesting. With all the travel restrictions, lockdown and virtual working, you might have thought that the carbon neutral commitment would be even easier to achieve in 2020. But apparently it take more than zoom meetings and cancelled flights to deliver a long-term step change in carbon performance. It's notable the the company is acting with a measure of caution and publishing an updated commitment to stakeholders. 

Mondelez International: Snacking Made Right 2019 Report

Several references are made in different sections of the report, covering employees, safety, communities in addition to a brief mention by the CEO in his opening letter.

And this is a final comment from the General Counsel:

So, not overly detailed, but clearly representing different dimensions of the Mondelez COVID-19 response. Mondelez also maintains a website page, accessible from the homepage, with a detailed list of actions currently being taken across different aspects of the business.

Moody's Investor Service: 2019 Corporate Responsibility Report

Moody's covers its response to COVID-19 through its CSR Report across different dimensions of its activities, with a focus on helping customers and markets navigate this pandemic and managing risk.

Interestingly, as an employer of 11,000 people worldwide, Moody's makes no reference to what it's doing to support its employees through the challenges of COVID-19, choosing to focus on market and customer-facing actions. Moody's coverage of its COVID-19 response is prominent on the company's homepage and covered in a coronavirus blog. You can also download a Moody's COVID-19 status report, an early example of what I suspect will be a flurry of standalone COVID-19 Response Reports that many companies will publish starting in late 2020 and through 2021, supplementing regular annual and sustainability reporting. Sooner or later, someone might even develop a standard for COVID-19 CSR Reports (GRI? Anyone? 😂)

Regency Centers:  2019 Corporate Responsibility Report

Recency Centers publishes a strong report that is GRI, SASB and TCFD compliant, well-structured and nicely laid out. This applies also to their COVID-19 response, grouped on one page, covering support for employees, communities and ethical conduct. There's something to be said about grouping COVID-19 updates on one page (or two) - providing a sense of scale and coverage to a company's response, This way, the reader can appreciate the company has a considered response, rather than a fragmented (uncoordinated) one. 

Samsung Electronics: 2020 Sustainability Report

Samsung Electronics has one of the most extensive (and impressive) examples of coverage on COVID-19, and, in this 13th Sustainability Report, introduces a dedicated chapter covering the COVID response and other mentions throughout the report. Specifically, the CEO opens up with understanding the challenges everyone faces and wishing everyone well. Nice. Then a dedicated chapter covering Samsung's COVID response for employees, suppliers, customers and some stories.

In particular, thanks to COVID, we meet Kim. Kim, I assume, is a fictitious employee and Samsung shares the changes to her day as a result of COVID-19 measures in the work environment. I note she didn't take time for ice-cream, but maybe this wasn't a typical day!

Beyond this, Samsung shares in the dedicated COVID-19 chapter,  (and in a case study later in the report) how the company helped boost mask production in Korea by 51% through deploying support personnel to optimize the production process for local mask-makers, and engaged more than 100,000 employees in brainstorming and debating ideas to address COVID-related challenges. Samsung also references COVID-19 in its risk management section and the establishment of a separate COVID-19 risk monitoring and response organization. All in all, a comprehensive and creative disclosure on COVID from Samsung, demonstrating a holistic approach to protecting different stakeholders.

STMicroelectronics: 2020 Sustainability Report  

Briefest of mentions in the report. Cursory mention by the CEO and a short reference to triggering risk management protocols to support employees and maintain supply chain continuity. One nice touch: Thank you to report contributors who worked to complete the report in lockdown.

There is no mention of COVID-19 on this company's website 😩.

********************

Reporting is never easy and reporting in CoronaWorld is even less easy. Well done to all these companies and others who are maintaining reporting, with or without references to their COVID response in this period. I have no doubt that the pressures at this time on all businesses could easily turn into an excuse to delay/shelve disclosure. Having said that, the way companies are behaving through this pandemic is a direct reflection of their values. Does no COVID disclosure = no values? Well, that might be going a little far, but no disclosure certainly risks eroding stakeholder trust. 

What's the best way to disclose? Report? Web? Social media? Answer: All of the above. But failing to include any form of COVID response in sustainability reports publishing this year is a missed opportunity and one that stakeholders are not likely to forget. Even ice cream may not help.

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Owner/Manager of Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired Sustainability Strategy and Reporting firm having supported 107 client reports to date; author of three books and several chapters on Sustainability Reporting and the Human Resources connection to CSR; frequent chair and speaker at sustainability events and judge in several sustainability awards programs each year. Contact me via Twitter , LinkedIn or via Beyond Business   

GRI: Still in the lead?

GRI  remains the most widely used global standard for sustainability reporting - though I find myself wondering if that's something that still counts for something. Are GRI Standards still a worthy leader of sustainability reporting frameworks? Or is it time for a fundamental review of GRI as the baseline set of standards for sustainability reporting (on a timescale that assumes most of us will still be alive before it's complete)?

There are several things I would consider revisiting:   

The first is that GRI largely remains a standard for measuring direct accountability. The concept of material impacts which is so central to GRI standards is not borne out by the overriding focus on measures (topic-specific disclosures) that address mainly direct impacts. Almost all of the 200, 300 and 400 Standards measure direct operational performance and not impacts on stakeholders. Reporting on resource consumption, adherence to labor standards, anti-corruption etc. is all well and good, and necessary, but most of these are not the true currency of sustainable business today. Stating year after year in your sustainability report that you do not employ child or forced labor or that you paid no fines for non-compliance are no longer the key proof points of a sustainable business.

The indirect impacts of a business reach much further than their direct impacts. We all know that a pharmaceutical company has a far more meaningful impact on healthcare and access to medicines than the amount of carbon emissions the company saves in its operations. Internet providers have a far greater role to play in keeping children safe online than in managing resource consumption of optic fiber cables. We know that food producers affect how we lead healthy lifestyles in ways that are far more significant than the amount of fuel saved by increasing logistics efficiency. And we probably know that the public expects companies to take a stand on human rights, environmental health and social justice and have an impact on policy in areas where governments are not doing the job.

If we want standards that truly reflect how companies are affecting our lives, I think we need to think differently about what such standards ask companies to report. I am reminded of one of the transformational books I read many years ago and often reference: The High Purpose Company, by Christine Arena, one of the first sustainability experts, I believe, to highlight purpose as the core of sustainable business, purpose being the positive impact on society beyond making money. Sustainability then is about two things: driving positive impact (a purpose-driven business) and doing business ethically (an accountable business). GRI focuses on the latter. What about a Standard that focuses on the former? 

Some companies currently make their sustainability reporting about their core social purpose and the bulk of their disclosure is about how they make a difference through the business they do. The GRI Content Index then fills the transparency gap for how companies operate in a resource-efficient, socially responsible and ethically viable manner. Many companies haven't reached this realization yet: they use GRI as a rigid framework, selecting material topics from the limited number of GRI-prescribed options (the Standards), failing to link to their bigger picture. Currently, GRI Standards do not expressly encourage purpose-driven thinking.

The second review of GRI Standards that I would consider concerns the challenges of reporting on materiality.  GRI Standards offer a definition of a material topic as one that: reflects a reporting organization’s significant economic, environmental and social impacts; or that substantively influences the assessments and decisions of stakeholders. How long is a piece of string?

Material can mean anything from generic topics, such as climate change, to specific topics, such as increasing use of renewable energy - one being so much broader than the other. If materiality means "what matters most", listing a set of any-company-anywhere sustainability topics as material undermines the intent. With such generic lists, everything matters most. In the early days, it might have made sense for GRI to get materiality on the map with a light touch, by leaving the process for determining materiality wide open and the constituents of materiality somewhat vague. In today's world, where materiality seems to be anything you want it to be, more prescriptive guidance might be worth considering.

How confident can we be of all those materiality matrices that are floating around out there? What tools do companies use to define materiality and what makes an internal and external stakeholder engagement process robust enough to deliver a materiality outcome that's meaningful, relevant and balanced? Some companies interview select stakeholders. Some conduct broad online surveys. Scoring and ranking mechanisms are a black hole. I think this is one of the big paradoxes of materiality. Despite materiality being the pivot of sustainability disclosure, it's still a black box of often rather arbitrary selections, delivered through an imperfect process, skewed by an often random collection of opinions. And even then, despite the selection of material topics, companies report on everything anyway, except those things that they prefer not to report, and conveniently call not material.

I think it's time for an overhaul that prescribes a certain number of data points for all companies to report as a baseline (what I call Operational Materiality)  The more meaningful indirect impacts, which are a more effective measure of most companies' impacts (what I call Precision Materiality or Differential Materiality) should be company specific - and companies need to get better at measuring these in some way. GRI calls this Mission Effectiveness, adapting its own guidance on materiality to create something GRI Standards do not reference anywhere. GRI's 2018 Material Topics use the term "other sustainability topics" for those indirect impacts, the most significant in terms of GRI activities,  that are not captured in the GRI Standard sets.

GRI's Disclosures on Management Approach (GRI 101-103) for these other topics are rather general without  precise ways of measuring performance in these areas. GRI's creativity in applying its own framework shows that the standards have not stood the test of time. In its 2015-2016 report, GRI's material topics were entirely direct (see matrix below), indicating that GRI's thinking has moved on (which is good) but the Standards have not.

Another aspect of GRI Standards that could do with a refresh is the way standards reflect the changing dynamics of business. In 2016, with the introduction of GRI Standards, we were promised an agile set of standards that could be quickly adapted to changing realities and new requirements. Since then, a new Water Standard and a new Standard on Occupational Health and Safety have been published. One new Standard on taxes is scheduled to be published in 2019, and some additional Standards revisions are scheduled for 2020. This may be progress, but it's slow progress. And in the meantime, realities are changing. For example, one of the issues I frequently encounter in reporting on employees is that gender can no longer be a simple reference to women or men. Today, gender identity includes, for example, transgender. All of GRI's employee demographics reporting requirements are based on a gender split, and in some cases, specifically women and men. 

In general, GRI's Diversity and Equal Opportunity (Standard 405) may not go far enough to reflect today's higher aspiration of equity rather than equal opportunity. Other aspects of doing business today come to mind, such as the circular economy, regenerative business, democratization of technology, data security and more, that are hardly addressed by GRI Standards. For GRI Standards to remain in the lead, the pace of change must accelerate to create standards that show how companies are responding to today's sustainability challenges, not only those that were identified 20 years ago.


I am an admirer of the work of  Dan Esty, Hillhouse Professor of Environmental Law & Policy at Yale, whose research has exposed shortcomings in corporate sustainability disclosure. Developed from a perspective on sustainable finance with a focus on investors (but don't let that put you off 😉), his paper on Corporate Sustainability Metrics: What Investors Need and Don’t Get   is a sensible approach to sustainability disclosure. While I may not agree with everything, the following summary of issues in current sustainability disclosure makes sense to me.

Dan Esty  writes:

"One of our core observations is that repurposing ESG metrics that worked for the “values”  investors of the past does not work for the sustainable investors of today. Mainstream investors now want a more comprehensive  and  carefully curated perspective on the companies in their portfolios – which existing ESG data sets so often cannot provide."

He also recommends a government-mandated framework of ESG methodologies to underpin disclosures that are common to all or most companies. It's not by chance that I am pondering this question at this time, because, next week, the third annual Asia Sustainability Reporting Summit (register here 😀 ) which I co-chair, will run under the theme of Is mandatory better? Among other things, I will facilitate two panel discussions with prominent and accomplished Chief Sustainability Officers, regulators, analysts and academics on this subject.

Another brilliant academic whose work I admire, Professor Guler Aras (Integrated Reporting Network Turkey Executive Chair and Yildiz Technical University Finance Governance and Sustainability Research Center Founding Director), will be an expert voice on a panel next week. She has proposed a multi dimensional sustainability model in her research article which was published in Journal of Cleaner Production. She says: "In addition to the traditional sustainability components, finance and governance components allow businesses to maintain healthy and continuous performance over a long period of time and provide benefits to all stakeholders. Hence, apart from the economic, environmental and social dimensions of corporate sustainability, a good governance structure and financial factors should be integrated to properly evaluate firms’ sustainability." Prof. Aras's diagram below illustrates a multidimensional comprehensive corporate sustainability disclosure model.

This is worth mentioning because, mostly, the link to overall business results is a missing element in sustainability reporting. While finance (Economic Performance GRI Standards 200), and governance (GRI General Disclosures 102-18 - 102-39) are part of GRI-based reporting, there is often a disconnect in reporting between economic and governance factors from a sustainability perspective and actual business results. More direction in sustainability reporting standards could be considered to help companies define how sustainable practice impacts their own business through risk mitigation, employee engagement, customer loyalty, cost benefit and new business opportunities, to name just a few. But that's probably a whole other discussion....

Voluntary or mandated, corporate sustainability disclosure needs to get with the times, deliver the need and be more useful to not only investors, but to all of us whose lives are affected by the actions of corporations, in positive and less positive ways. Whether the new declaration of the Business Roundtable on the Purpose of a Corporation, that commits to delivering value to ALL stakeholders inspires or depresses you, there seems to be a consensus that we need better frameworks for measuring and disclosing sustainability impacts. With leadership comes responsibility to stay in the lead. As an established leader in driving sustainability disclosure, GRI has the capability to help transform sustainability reporting standards into more meaningful, comparable and useful tools for sustainable development.



P.S.  I you got to this point, you deserve a double ice cream. 🍦🍦 

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Owner/Manager of Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired Sustainability Strategy and Reporting firm having supported 100 client reports to date; author of three books and several chapters on Sustainability Reporting and the Human Resources connection to CSR; frequent chair and speaker at sustainability events and judge in several sustainability awards programs each year. Contact me via Twitter , LinkedIn or via Beyond Business       

Target targets for 2019

Sustainability reporting used to be about activities and actions whereas today it is more about impacts and intentions. Substantiated intentions, that is, by which I mean T-A-R-G-E-T-S. Yes, that awful, threatening, potentially blood-pressure-raising concept of actually making a public commitment to making a difference. One of the things I find most frustrating about many sustainability reports is the extreme lengths companies go to in order to describe their mission, vision, what's important to them, what's important to stakeholders, what's important to the world and why it's ALL so important ("Sustainability is in our DNA" and "The world is about to end") .... but when it comes to saying what they plan to do about it: radio silence. Vague intentions, aspirations, declaratory blurb - it's all very nice but, well, no teeth. 

Andrew Wilson, expert advisor on sustainability, author of Green to Gold and The Big Pivot, has done leading-edge work in this area. He's even quite positive in his views of how targets have progressed and become embedded in the way most large companies report on sustainability. You can gain some comfort from his article from December 2017 here. He concludes that 94% of the largest 200 companies in the world include targets in their Sustainability Reports. 

You can check out Andrew's Pivot Goals database, containing 3,923 goals that have been publicly disclosed by (large) companies in their sustainability communications over the past few years (the database contains some duplication with both original goals and those that have been superseded or replaced). While this is apparent progress, it's by no means close to critical mass for all the thousands of companies that report on sustainability. Also, as you might expect, the distribution of targets is uneven - in the Pivot Goal database, for example, in the pharma sector, I counted 13 companies with targets, ranging from one company that has 62 targets and one that discloses just one target. 

Other aspects of target setting are coverage and quality. Coverage is the extent to which a company discloses targets for all material sustainability aspects versus targets that are limited to one area, say, environmental impacts which is the most popular. Quality is the extent to which targets are SMART. You know what SMART means. SMART is not: "Continue to improve our environmental impacts". Just sayin.  

Many of the reports I view and review are GRI-based and claim to be in accordance with GRI Standards at core or comprehensive level. Now, GRI has made reporting of goals and targets mandatory in the Management Approach Disclosures. Disclosure 103-2 requires (the organization SHALL report) disclosure of goals and targets. Well, sort of. The mandatory part is diluted by the addition of some small print: if the management approach includes that component.  

Additional guidance suggests including context, time-frame, reference to legislation if relevant and more. 

So, according to GRI, for GRI compliance, reporting of targets is mandatory if you have them. If you don't, no problem. Well, no problem is exactly how most reporters approach the Approach. It's so easy to say "we are committed to", "we place great importance upon", "we are passionate about" and all those other gloriously positive affirmations, but when it comes to the crunch, it's apparently more convenient to ignore the bits that bolt those commitments down in the organization and give stakeholders something to believe in. I believe disclosing targets should be a mandatory element of material topic reporting. Every single GRI Topic-specific Standard should include a requirement to disclose SMART targets - not IF they exist, but BECAUSE they should exist. And if they do not exist, conformance to GRI Standards should not either.

Some (random) examples of how companies commit in sustainability reports:

Arguably the best-of-the-best expression of public commitments and consistent reporting of progress is Marks and Spencer, whose Plan A, when it was created in 2007, immediately set M&S apart from the crowd with a bag of 100 commitments representing the most far-reaching and comprehensive set of targets by any company at that time (as far as I know).  Although Plan A's tagline was "Because there is no Plan B", Plan A has continued to reinvent itself and currently goes under the name of Plan A 2025. Behind the scenes of Plan A is a strong commitment to sustainable business, and business that positively impacts people and planet, and the pace has been maintained even at times when the company's financial results have been a bit wobbly. Marks  and Spencer's 2018 Plan A Report includes a detailed account of progress against all targets across the four Plan A pillars in a way reflects the M&S brand: quality, detail and tailored to meet a range of needs. 

Walmart's 2018 Sustainability Report includes a range of specific commitments at the start of its 230-page report. The targets are SMART enough and cover all areas of sustainability priorities - a comprehensive approach.

At the end of the report, Walmart discloses how it is doing against these commitments:

While it's possible to correlate progress reported to the commitments made upfront, it takes a little detective work to sort it all out as the language used is different in both cases. However, Walmart's (mostly) specific time-bound targets and progress statements are enough to quench my thirst for target-juice in this report. 

CVS Health also does a great job in its 2017 Corporate Social Responsibility Report with multi-year targets and reporting of progress in the reporting year. Across four pages, CVS demonstrates a mature view of its role in society with targets that reflect its impacts on society (help create a tobacco-free generation by acting to reduce youth smoking) as well as targeting improvements it its own operations. The targets are also in line with the material impacts CVS Health defines in its report. 

A super presentation of targets is from Sinyi Realty Group, one of Taiwan's leading real estate agencies in its 2017 Corporate Sustainability Report. For key strategic areas, the company sets long-range goals, medium term targets to 2025 and short-term targets for the coming year. Sinyi transparently reflects performance against the short-term targets set in the reporting year. No room for misinterpretation or detective work required here: it all hangs together very credibly.

Google's 2018 Environment Report includes a set of targets and progress made against these. It's a clear enough presentation and scoreboard markers give you a quick overview of progress. However, while this is totally fantastic, the targets are a mixed bag, for example, two of the targets are: set targets and others are either not time-bound or relevant for the single reported year - which in sustainability terms is no time at all. All targets relate to the direct environmental impacts of Google's own operations, for example, achieving zero net operational carbon emissions, which Google has impressively done for at least the past five years.

Of course, I couldn't write a post about targets without looking at Target Corporation. I mean, if your name is Target, you have to have targets, right? Well, Target doesn't disappoint, though, oddly enough, Target's targets are called goals 😂😂😂 But, whatever they are called, they are extensive and are presented across 7 pages in Target's 2018 Corporate Responsibility Report, followed by a couple of pages of upcoming goals (or targets) in areas not measured to date or not the subject of goals so far.  

There is no doubt in my mind that the inclusion of public commitments is both a way to reinforce trust with stakeholders and a tool to catalyze performance improvements. Several leading companies are doing this really well, and I tend to agree with the analysis above that more are doing so these days than in the past. However, the leading companies across the world represent only a small fraction of the entire population of reporting companies, and many (I might even say, most) of them do not even hint at targets or commitments.

So, let's be clear: If you want stakeholders to believe you are serious about sustainability, or whatever you call it in your organization, make SMART public commitments in key areas of impact and report your progress against these year on year. 

Of course, a great addition to any Sustainability Report would be the inclusion of a target to provide a lifetime supply of free ice cream to anyone who blogs about your targets on the CSR Reporting Blog. 

Happy Holiday Season and Happy 2019 to all CSR Reporting Blog readers!

Story of a Sustainability Superwoman

There are plenty of excellent reasons to attend the Asia Sustainability Reporting Summit on 2nd and 3rd October 2018. I won't list them all here.

Just take a look at the website and you'll be convinced. Instead, I'll tell you a story. 

Once upon a time, there was a little girl called Suyin. Suyin lived with her mother and father and seven younger siblings in a remote part of Asia, in a wooden hut, far from the hustle and bustle of the big cities and the stresses of daily living in modern times. Suyin and her family were a close-knit group, relying on each other for love, support and inspiration. They lived on the resources of the earth, fishing, hunting and farming, taking from the land only what they needed to survive without wasting any precious resources. It was a simple existence, but it was a good one. 

As Suyin advanced in age, she noticed with each passing year that life in their region was becoming tougher. Rainfall patterns were changing, water levels were dropping in nearby streams, the soil was not as fertile as it once was, local wildlife had ceased to thrive. Slowly, Suyin was perceiving that her land was refusing to provide for them. And when she was just 19, there was a major typhoon that shook their wooden hut to its foundations, barely leaving it standing.

Suyin was worried about the long-term survival of her family. She knew she had to do something. Amid tears of farewell, she left her family, promising to return. She travelled by foot without a cent to her name until she reached a major city and there, she begged for food and money. What she was given, she saved. And when she had saved enough money, she rented a small room, and took a job in a small store. She did well. She was intelligent, capable and thoughtful and soon enough, she had enough money to fund a place at university, as she knew that without education, she would not advance and be able to help her beloved family. 

After studying, she was fortunate to be offered a job in a large corporation, in the Sustainability Department. In that role, she campaigned to mitigate climate change and advance social programs that would help families living in remote areas. She became a true sustainability leader, speaking all around Asia on the need to save the land and prevent environmental degradation, as well as taking care of communities and their ability to survive and thrive. Many companies followed her lead and joined the sustainability movement to drive positive change for prosperity. During this time, Suyin returned frequently to visit her family, provide them with resources and help them overcome their challenges. For example, she purchased a small farmer irrigation kit from Netafim so that they could irrigate the couple of acres they farmed and gain greater yields of fruit and vegetables with less water. 

In 2018, a colleague nominated Suyin in the annual listing of exceptional female sustainability leaders in the region, Asia's Top Sustainability Superwomen, an initiative of CSR Works International. Suyin was overwhelmed. She had never received such recognition for doing only what she thought was right. But will Suyin's nomination be accepted? Will Suyin shine through? How many more Sustainability Superwomen have been nominated and who will gain recognition at the Asia Sustainability Reporting Summit?

You can discover if Suyin is included in this prestigious list of Sustainability Superwomen in October in Singapore, at the Asia Sustainability Reporting Summit. Even if you don't get to meet Suyin, you will be able to engage with a host of inspiring women sustainability leaders and experts who have driven the sustainability agenda in Asia with passion and overcome challenges to ensure their voice is heard and improve life for all of us.

Come to the summit and celebrate Sustainability Superwomen with all of us. Overall, there'll be more than 60 international speakers (not ALL of them are women, however!) who will cover every important aspect of sustainability reporting in depth. You will hear directly from top leaders from

• Agility
• AIG
• Bangchak Corporation
• Baoviet Holdings
• Bombay Stock Exchange
• CapitaLand
• CDP
• City Developments Limited (CDL)
• CLP Power
• CP Group
• DBS Bank
• EcoVadis
• Golden Agri-Resources
• GRI
• Hang Lung Properties
• Intel
• International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC)
• John Swire & Sons
• JSW Group
• Kalbe Farma
• Maritime Ports Authority Singapore
• Microsoft
• MSCI
• RobecoSAM (DJSI)
• Schneider Electric
• Sime Darby
• Singtel
• SM Investments
• Suntory Food & Beverage
• Sustainability Accountability Standards Board (SASB)
• Tata Consultancy Services
• Union Bank of the Philippines
• Viego Eiris
• WWF
and the list goes on

And of course, I will be there, co-chairing the summit with the man behind it all, Rajesh Chhabara.

Exciting debates and insights that will help you move the needle include:

Looking forward to a fun couple of days of learning, sharing, challenging and celebrating. Hope to see you there!




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

Elaine will be co-chairing  the  second annual Asia Sustainability Reporting Summit 2018 in Singapore on 2/3 OCtober. Join me there!