What's reporting without culture?

Back in 2010, I published my first book, CSR for HR, a guide to the way Human Resources Managers can drive corporate responsibility, using their leverage at the center of organizations to encourage and empower an accountable culture. While the book was a great success ... by all accounts... and I continue to receive positive comments ... the HR profession has not really transformed itself into a champion of CSR... far from it. Of course, HR Managers may not see championing CSR as their remit. But that's only because they do not realize that CSR is actually a way to reinforce and strengthen the HR function in any organization. Since my book was published, the role of employees in driving CSR and the need to engage employees has moved higher up the agenda. In fact, almost every Sustainability Report you read today has some reference to employee engagement and many make the link between engagement and positive sustainability outcomes. 

That's as it should be. Sustainability reporting as a process should involve employees and inspire them. Rather than being the headache it often is, it can be a tool to create elevated levels of empowerment and engagement of employees. Some companies testify to this. Corus Entertainment in Canada regularly celebrates employees in annual sustainability reports and rewards them for their citizenship efforts. The Corus reports present a workplace where accountability is a value and employees are engaged and empowered to do their best for themselves and each other, the company, the community and the planet. 

A string of workplace awards tend to confirm this position.

3M's 2015 Sustainability Report covers how the company encourages and empowers employees to be creative  with sustainability in mind.

"During the 2014 Sustainability Week, we addressed global sustainability challenges we all face every day at home and at work. 3Mers were asked to think creatively, collaborate, and innovate with the shared goal of making life better... And we led a Shark Tank-inspired Power Pitch, which allowed teams of employees to suggest business ideas with a sustainability focus to compete for research and development funding with winners chosen through global text voting by their peers."

The culture of sustainability is reinforced in other ways, such as use of social media - an example below from Pinterest:

Anyway, also in 2010, I wrote on this blog about H&M and the crisis of the discarded garments in New York. The point was that, in an organization that had truly embedded CSR culture and practice, such an instance might not have happened. Employees would know how to connect their actions to potential issues on the CSR radar (more about the radar in an upcoming post. Hint: Datamaran). The BIC blip reminded me of that this week. How many marketeers just have no clue? How much insensitivity is an organization allowed to demonstrate at the same time as professing to support a CSR approach? At what point does an organization realize that CSR is a way of being, not just a project of doing?  And that even marketing folks need an invitation to the party.

Maybe you saw the BIC blip  example reported in the Guardian this past week ...

Who on earth in their right mind could think this would be encouraging or inspiring for women? You would have to be a total idiot to create something like this and an even greater idiot for authorizing it, and a double greater idiot for publishing it. Look like a girl? Think like a man? Come on....Even if the intention was positive, the gaping cavern between intent and result testifies to a lack of embedded culture of sensitivity to others. How can employees of a responsible business be so misguided? Does it really need an onslaught of criticism on social media to tell them they got it so wrong? 

BIC has a very clear Code of Ethics that employees are bound to uphold. It includes the company's approach to Human Rights and provides guidance for employees in the principles of communicating and engaging with each other.

The code does not specifically include reference to responsible marketing, though some indirect references can be found in  BIC's  2014 Sustainable Development Report. 

Generally BIC refers to the marketing teams's involvement in advancing the sustainable development program and marketing initiatives, such as:

"All of the professional functions involved (marketing, communication, sales) are equipped with the tools they need to explain BIC’s Sustainable Development Program."

Another reference to marketeers is an initiative to engage them through  a BIC recycling program in partnership with TerraCycle. This was the first initiative to collect and recycle writing instruments in France,  launched in 2011, and now expanded to several countries in Europe. BIC talks about this program as "inspiring marketeers to support the circular economy."

However, there's no reference to marketing communications and advertising as necessarily reflecting a respectful organization culture. BIC conducts a values survey among employees every 2 years to review "Values in Action" and also makes awards to employees who demonstrate core values of ethics and responsibility and more.  Results of the surveys are presented to employees. Therefore it seems that there are platforms to talk about culture, values, respectful communications and sustainable development. However, when it comes to the marketing department, there may be a need for some more work. 

It seems to me that BIC might be well served by developing and publishing a formal policy of responsible marketing and marketing communications. At the same time, BIC should undertake an intensive training program on diversity and inclusion for everyone involved in corporate and marketing communications. 

In the meantime, I don't plan to follow BIC's advice ... I'd rather :

LOOK like me

ACT like me

THINK like me

WORK like me 

I may not be perfect but at least  - hey - it's me. 

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   

Beer is made of people

If you thought that beer was made of barley, yeast and hops, you would be only partially right. The real ingredient in beer production is people. At least, that's the story at MillerCoors, and with the recent release of the company's "Great Beer, Great Responsibility" 2014 Sustainability Report, you can understand why.

Opening up with the story of the Phoenix team that provided 37,000 safe rides to prevent drunk driving on New Year's Eve, the report follows with the story of Brooke from marketing and the campaign she created with Harley-Davidson to promote safe biking. Enter Steve, who created a community entrepreneurship campaign, and Jay, who drives talent development. Fernando Palacios, Executive Vice President and Chief Integrated Supply Chain Officer then takes the floor to explain supply chain efficiency and Tyler Shannon, environmental health and safety specialist displays pvc strips that are routed for recycling at MillerCoors' Golden brewery in Colorado. Kate goes on to deliver her philosophy on supplier diversity and Judy Jolly, an agronomist in the southern Colorado region, talks about best management practices around water conservation in agriculture and collaboration with MillerCoors. 

While all of this reads a bit like a series of inspirational press releases, rather than data-based case studies in a sustainability report, the intention is clear: get to know the people behind the beer, and reinforce the message that beer is made of people. 

This was my insight after I talked with Kim Marotta, Director of Sustainability at MillerCoors. Passionate about her role and the headway made so far, Kim was generous enough to spare me some time to tell me about how MillerCoors is doing in sustainability and what's been important to her in advancing the company's efforts and reporting on sustainability performance. Here are her insights:

Your record on sustainability strategy? 

We have two parent companies, SABMiller plc and Molson Coors Brewing Company, and they both have an influence on our sustainability programs. But, we are all operating off the same sheet, in line with the same broad strategy. When SABMiller or Molson Coors sets global targets, we play our part to contribute to those targets. We track our performance and report our progress to both our parent companies. However, as the U.S. joint venture, we are focused on the issues that are material to our stakeholders in the U.S. For example, for SAB-Miller, support relief for victims of HIV/Aids is a major part of their program. For the U.S., this is not as material to our stakeholders. We prefer to work on things that are more directly related to important issues in our own market and relevant to our local stakeholders. 

Your record on reporting? 

We are always considering ways to do things differently in order to get the message across more effectively. In this report, the main difference is that we have devoted much more attention to the people in our business and telling their stories. The reason we are successful is our people – they have a strong desire to make things happen, we wanted to tell their story. We wanted to help others learn about our people and get a glimpse of their world view and how that supports our organizational goals, understand the daily pressures and challenges. In this report, we have tried to bring this out much more than in the past. 

Also this time, we aligned our reporting with GRI G4 disclosures, though we did not specify core or comprehensive level. We had already done the work on materiality, so G4 did not pose a significant challenge. 

Your record on water conservation? 

The initiative that makes me the most proud is our water reduction achievement. We had set a goal in 2008 to reduce water consumption by 15 percent. After a couple of years, we weren't seeing as much progress we had planned. In 2008, we were using more than four barrels of water to make a barrel of beer, and in 2009 and 2010 it was roughly the same. A group of leaders within our integrated supply chain traveled to SABMiller’s plants in South America, which were doing well in this area. Their water consumption was much lower. After a week learning the processes employed there, they came back and immediately started to make changes. They set up war rooms and solicited ideas from everyone in the brewery on how best to capture water savings. This really helped change the culture. In total, we’ve saved 1.1 billion gallons of water since 2012. In 2013, we further reduced our water use by 9.1%. At the end of 2013, we were at 3.48 barrels of water to make one barrel of beer. After getting every single one of our breweries engaged, we hit our 2015 goal early at the end of 2013. This was an incredible process. 

Your record on waste diversion? 

One of the things that distinguish us as beer producers is our record on zero waste to landfill. Six of our eight major breweries achieved zero waste to landfill. We expect that to be eight out of eight in the not too distant future. I don't think that too many companies can attest to zero waste to landfill. We are delighted with the progress our teams have made to deliver this result. 

Your record on drunk driving? 

The work that we do to promote responsible drinking and preventing drunk driving is a core part of our sustainability efforts. We have reached 12 million people in our safe ride program. We have partnered with several organizations around the country and created many opportunities for people to order safe rides or get a free safe ride home. For example, Miller Lite is the exclusive sponsor of 1-800-TAXICAB, a national dispatch service that connects passengers to locally owned cab companies. During 2013, more than 700,000 calls were placed to 1-800-TAXICAB. We have ramped up the amount of people taking a pledge to be a designated driver. We pay for public transportation in certain cities for major holidays and events. All in all, we are making a big difference in helping people stay safe and avoiding injury to others caused by driving drunk. Ultimately, it's about enabling people to have fun and keeping them safe. 

Your record on supplier diversity? 

Supplier diversity has been an important objective for MillerCoors. Supplier diversity helps us grow and be a better business. We have invested more than two billion in contracts with diverse suppliers, and this includes partnerships, mentoring relationships, funding educational opportunities and more. We have one person in a full-time role just looking after our supplier diversity program, identifying and advancing opportunities. We work together collaboratively with diverse suppliers, it's not just about compliance. For our purchasing people, this has become a regular way of doing business. Our CEO maintains a personal interest and commitment, personally reviewing the numbers and progress toward our goals.

The MillerCoors 2014 Sustainability Report is nicely laid out in a friendly-design hyperlinked PDF. The Materiality Map is prominently positioned and identifies 8 high priority issues for MillerCoors.

Following the introductory people story section, the report splits into five areas of progress in 2013, each starting with a 2015 goal and recording progress made in 2013. In each area, overall policy is described and examples of practice are provided. While this is a look-good-feel-good type of report, providing little context beyond the specific activities of MillerCoors, the company records progress across many fronts. Beyond water and waste management, as mentioned above, highlights include:

• GHG emission reduction 
• Strong employee safety performance 
• LGBT community support 
• Investment in education in the community 
• Watershed risk assessments 
• Packaging design environmental improvements 
• Sustainable agriculture and water conservation techniques 

Four external commentaries close out the report. They are also PR quotation material but also indicate that good relationships are in place. Overall, the generally positive nature of this report does not detract from the amount of progress in evidence. A little more balance and local context in future reports may add to credibility levels. 

The G4 content index is indicatively included for a selection of G4 disclosures – 21 general disclosures (about two-thirds of the 34 required for core level reporting) and 24 performance indicators, 14 of these in the environmental category. The actual disclosures in many cases do not meet the full requirements of the G4 Performance Indicators. A material case in point is G4-EN8 – water consumption. MillerCoors reports a water-to-beer ratio but no absolute data for water consumption or water withdrawal sources, as required by the indicator.

However, the GRI Content Index serves to help match disclosures with stated material issues – and this, after all, is one of the main purposes of the index and one of the main goals of G4: aligning disclosure with stated materiality. 

And if you were thinking of giving feedback – MillerCoors will make it worth your while. Unobtrusively positioned at the end of the report is an invitation to take part in a feedback survey. Here is the link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/MCGBGR2014. After taking a look, I realized that, in return for completing the survey and leaving my contact details, by, I could win a tablet! So, if you need a tablet, telling MillerCoors what you think of their report might just be the way to get one. I confess to being skeptical about these types of survey, and their true value in helping understand what stakeholders want. In the worst case, at least MillerCoors will know who wants a tablet. 

It's always good to read a report and talk to the folks responsible for developing it. Reporting is always an opportunity to engage and I was impressed with the way Kim at MillerCoors was happy to address my questions and provide a personal perspective. 

And this brings me back to a point I often make. Not only beer is made of people. So are sustainability reports.

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 via www.twitter.com/elainecohen   or via my business website www.b-yond.biz   (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm

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)

Bayer Diversity Not

I was just looking through Bayer's newly published CSR Report and couldn't resist mentioning this, which jumped right out of the page (well, screen) and hit me in the nose (I can think of worst places to get hit).

They say a picture is worth  ...well, you  know ... so here it is:

Yes folks, this is the Bayer Board for Sustainable Development. What do you notice ? Lipstick? Plucked eyebrows ? A little rouge around the cheekbones ? Not a chance. (Well, seems not). This entire 13-strong weak SUSTAINABLE NOT diversity-challenged team EXCLUDES women. Not even a little token woman to make the tea and serve the Chunky Monkey. Not even one of them that LOOKS LIKE a woman.  

Bayer report that "Fostering the employment of women is one of the central elements of our diversity strategy. At the end of 2009, the proportion of women in the workforce worldwide was around 35 percent. The percentage of female managers is rising steadily. In Germany, it is currently 24 percent across all managerial grades and nearly 30 percent at the junior management level, which is the entry level for future managers.Moreover, the proportion is rising. At the most senior management level, the Group Leadership Circle, the proportion of women Group-wide is 5.5 percent."

Some diversity strategy. It stops at the glass ceiling, apparently.  Bad, Bayer. Still, I suppose that's what you get when you ask for transparency. At least they didnt use Photoshop to make them all look female.

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

The Ghetto Fighters and CSR

What do the Ghetto Fighters  have to do with CSR? Stay tuned. I will explain.

Who were the Ghetto Fighters ?
These were the group of people who led the resistance to the final liquidation of the  Warsaw Ghetto which was established by the Governor of the Warsaw district in Poland in 1940. A fighting organization was declared in 1942, led by Jewish leadership in the Ghetto, to stage the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising , the "first urban uprising in German-occupied Europe", which succeeded in holding out for over a month until it was finally defeated in May 1943. All those who were left were deported to extermination camps, though a certain number survived. Of those who did, some made their way to Israel and founded Kibbutz Lohamei Ghetaot (Ghetto Fighters) Museum in 1949, on the sixth anniversary of the uprising. In addition to building a cowshed, a kindergarten and living quarters, one of the founders' very first acts was to lay the foundation for a memorial museum, which would be not only a way of remembering those who had lost their lives, but also serve as a tribute to the survivors' spirit and the renewal of life. Warsaw had been home to over 350,000 Jews before the occupation. By 1943, only 11,500 remained.

So, what has this to do with CSR?
The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was a triumph of vision and leadership under the most impossible circumstances one could ever imagine. Instead of waiting till the "storm had passed", or committing mass suicide (a very real option at the time cf: Massada), the choice was to use every possible option to survive and leave a legacy. Some incredible leaders emerged from within the Ghetto population to pioneer what would be a miraculous fight against inhumanity and abuse of everything we know about human rights,  respect for and acceptance of others,  equality and tolerance. The community drew  itself together, gathered its collective spirit and capabilities, developed a network based on trust and mutual support, to fight the good fight. But these were not the only people who made choices. There were many righteous people who assisted the oppressed Jews during the occupation and during the uprising. Those people had chosen not to be complicit in the evil of the Holocaust, but risked their lives to help where they could. The entire story of the Warsaw Ghetto and its Fighters is a tragic but wonderful manifestation of  values and how we adhere to values when under extreme stress.Ultimately, the Warsaw uprising is the optimistic a story of the spirit and victory of humanity. The survivors, few though they may have been, went on to recreate life, share and teach their experiences, and promote humanism and democratic values for generations to come.Ultimately, the Warsaw Ghetto is a lesson in sustainability.

So, you are STILL wondering what this has to do with CSR. Here is the final piece in the puzzle.
In my meetings with a long-standing friend and fellow professional in the field of advancing social justice, who is today the Marketing Manager of the Ghetto Fighters Museum, we discussed how this unique and inspiring place could serve as a platform to teach sustainability. The Warsaw Uprising may be over, but globalization of business has contributed to the continued oppression of many different  peoples in the world, there is discrimination in business organizations, abuse of human rights, complicity in supply chain irregularities, erosion of values, particularly in times of crisis,  a lack of collaborative spirit and a reluctance to combine and share resources to ensure the best collective chances of survival on our shared planet. Competitive forces work against the best outcome for all. These are issues of CSR and sustainability, which we can see in every aspect of the Warsaw history. By using this platform, we can create a learning experience which is powerful and associative in a way which no other learning framework I know can achieve.

And we have a little time for Q&As:

Q: Wouldn't it be totally depressing to attend a workshop surrounded by a memorial to the tragedy of the Holocaust?
A: No. The Museum celebrates the survival, the bravery, the risk-taking, the astounding capabilities of those driven by values, humanism and a better future life. The Museum celebrates the human spirit and what it can achieve. It's an optimistic message.  
Q: But did those people really have a choice? They were attacked, they defended themselves. What choice is that ?
A: Of course they had a choice. Anyone who has read Viktor Frankl's book, Man's Search for Meaning, will know that life is a conscious choice, survival is a choice, sustainability is a choice. They could have chosen to do nothing. The righteous ones amongst the Polish people could have chosen to be complicit, like so many others. This is the parallel with business today. Business, or the people who run businesses, have choices. Choices which are not so easy to make. But they are choices. The Warsaw Ghetto may seem like an irregular backdrop, but those who have attended workshops there to date have proven  that this format can be a catalyst for deep paradigm change.

Back to CSR
We are now developing a series of workshops in partnership with the Ghetto Fighters Museum  team (the Museum has been running workshops, courses and learning programs, including management training, for a long while)  The CSR workshops will cover: sustainability principles, ethics and assimilation of ethical values in business (especially in times of extreme pressure) , diversity and inclusion, collective and personal accountability and more. These workshops will blend with existing CSR processes in businesses to support new generations of CSR leadership at all levels. 

Oh, and we might even serve Chunky Monkey in the afternoon break.

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

The Lóreal paradox..for better and for worse....

The paradox of corporate responsibility is that there are companies that can be both soooo positive and soooo negative at the same time. What does it take to say a company is corporately responsible ? That the critical mass of good things outweights the bad things ? Or that there are only good things ? Or that there is just an absence of bad things ? Should we accept that all corporations are basically irresponsible and not accountable for all their impacts. But that some have embarked on a route to address and account for some of them. The case in point featured in this post is the cosmetics giant L'Óreal. You've heard of L'Óreal, right ? Two news items about L'óreal. First. the good news:

L'Oréal Sets Green Goals and Promotes an Eco-Responsible Business Model

L’Oréal has renewed three long-term environmental targets for the period 2005-2015, applicable to its factories and warehouses:

• Halve its greenhouse gas emissions: In 2005, the total CO2 emissions were 230.3 thousands of tonnes.
• Halve its water use per unit of finished product: In 2005, the water consumption was of 0.72-litre per finished product.
• Halve its waste generated per unit of finished product. In 2005, the waste generated per unit of finished product was of 32.2 grams.

What i like about the GHG target is that it is a firm commitment measured in absolute terms against the Company's own performance. Not per employee, not per site, not per unit. The total GHG's unrelated to business growth. Water and waste targets are per unit... which i find frustrating as L'oreal produces so many units of so many product types and sizes that this target doesnt say much about the Company's total impact. I looked at L'óreals 2008 CR report to see where they were 2 years after the original targets - 20% of time gone (2 years out of 10):

• GHG emissions : 2005 - 229.7 ktons, 2007 - 218.2 ktons - 5% reduction
• Water consumption per finsihed product: 2005 - 0.72 litre, 2007 - 0.65 litre - 10% reduction
• Waste per finished product: 2005 - 32.1 gram , 2007- 29.9 gram - 7% reduction

Seems that there is still some way to go. Total GHG and water reduced over this period, total waste remained static. Interesting thing is that nearly 30 grams of waste is generated for each finished product. I wonder if that includes the packaging. Probably not. But in any event, for a cosmetics company whose products are mainly low weight, 50, 100, 500 grams .... this seems like a helluvalotta waste, no ? but good consistency in reporting regularly against these good aspirational targets. So good news for L'óreal.

And now for the BAD news:

French cosmetics giant L’Oréal guilty of racial discrimination

L’Oréal was " found guilty of racial discrimination for considering black, Arab and Asian women unworthy of selling its shampoo" brand named Garnier .The court ruled that Adecco, the temporary recruitment agency who hired the hostesses, was also guilty of racial discrimination. The Paris Appeal Court fined both L’Oréal and Adecco €30,000 (£25,500) and ordered them to pay a further €30,000 each in damages to SOS Racisme, the anti-racist campaign group, which brought the case. The court was told that Garnier’s hostesses were ordered from the recruiting agency and told be aged 18 to 22, wear size 38 to 42 clothes (British sizes 8 to 12) and be “BBR”. BBR, for the uninitiated is "bleu, blanc, rouge" or the colors of the French flag.

Now, L'Oreal declare that diversity is a basic value and their commitment is "To promote the self-fulfilment of its employees within a multicultural, stimulating community, rich in diversity and talent, to which all individuals contribute their creativity and enthusiasm." Heart-warming, right ? L'Óreals 63,500 staff is made up of 62% women of and 56% managers are women. 35% of mamagement committee members are women, quite a high level amongst reporting companies. Additional data on diversity from the CR report for 2008 is :

• 21% of managers are from minorities
• 34% of the total workforce are from minorities
• 32% of new managers recruited in 2007 were from minorities
• Increased spend with women and minority owned firms.
• Over 3,000 employees have completed diversity training.

So what went wrong ? The whim of the Garnier brand manager? The lack of judgement of the Adecco manager ( a woman!) who determined the specification for the models? Profit before values ? Hard to say... L'oreals CR report, and its credibility, does provide some balance for this pretty damning incident, which is reflective of the draconic practices in the beauty industry with the creation of supermodels and idealization of women, causing great negative impacts on the position of women in our society.

So L'oreal, pay up and shape up. Not the BBR way, the ECITR way. Which for the unititiated means :every color in the rainbow.....

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

Report or be reported.

Ok, so i promised a post on self-declaring. Rain check till next post. Please.

Because i had this thought: report or be reported.

It is possible to consider sustainability reporting as a from of pre-empt. Because what a corporation doesn't report, someone else apparently will. This thought came as my inbox was bombarded with details of new reports, surveys and studies about the corporate responsibilty of businesses.

For example:

Interbrands 2008 Value of Brands report - a great read - with an interesting view of brand value link to sustainability.

The 2009 corporate equality index - about the way businesses address Human Rights.
Wal-mart scored a whopping 40%, losing out mainly on gender discrimination practices.
Nokia scored 50% - losing out on diversity training, LGBT equality and support and other benefits for same and opposite sex partenrs.

Nokia's 2007 CR report says " In 2007, 71% of employees participating in our annual employee survey felt that all employees of Nokia are treated as individuals regardless of age, race, gender or physical capabilities - an increase of 2% from 2006. We also conducted a survey in 2007 to find out how our policies on inclusion affect our employees' work lives. We are implementing an action plan on diversity across all business units. " If i were Mrs Nokia, I would challenge the 2009 euality index score.

So many aspects of corporations and their non-financials are under scruting today, so many surveys, so many comparisons and benchmarks, so many corporate-watch type websites, so many brand and reputation indices ... that the only way a Corporation can tell the comprehensive story about its performance and balance the spectrum of data is through the CSR report. Typically, surveys and benchmarks are focussed on specific aspects of a corporation's activity. Often, these are taken out of context and stacked up against a set of external parameters.

The CSR report is an opportunity to establish context, balance and perspective in reporting data. Clearly, the report should be authentic and tell the truth. It should include the good news and the not-so- good news . (Ok, bad news). But the ability to present all this data in CONTEXT and with PERSEPCTIVE and in line with the Corporations objectives is valuable.

Take the Nokia example above. With so many Companies achieving 100% in the equality index, many of whom i do not associate with a good human rights record, Nokia's 50% was a shocker. Wal-mart didnt surprise me all that much, but Nokia did. And as i read Nokia's CR report, I see that they are undertaking substantial work on Human Rights, Diversity and Gender. Whichever source I choose to believe, the fact is that Nokia has pre-empted a position in context on this issue which balances external reports about their conduct.

So, report or be reported. Pre-empt or be pre-empted. Proact or be proacted. (Hmm, does that work ?). This post is a pre-empt for all those who maintain that CSR reporting is just about PR.