23 FSRs (Fabulous Sustainabilty Resources)

As sustainability reporters, we are always in learning mode. The fast-paced evolution of the sustainability field and the dynamic changes that happen all around us make it a challenge just to keep up with the latest thinking, recent research, new findings, leading insights etc. Stuff spins on and off our computer screens before we have time to know it's there and then, whoops, it's gone, and despite a mental note to take a look at it later, we never do. Familiar? Sure. The only thing you really have time to read is, of course, the CSR Reporting Blog. And as a big thank you, here is our new offering. FREE summaries and commentaries on 10 recent fabulous publications (some more fabulous than others) which will make you even better sustainability professionals, and provide you with interesting facts to tell at dinner parties. This is a one-time thing, so don't get your expectations up that we will be doing this on a regular basis. We are too busy trying to keep up with what's really going on out there.

Value of Sustainability Reporting

A study by Ernst & Young LLP and the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship

 

This is the report of a survey of 579 respondents from U.S. based companies of which more than half also have operations outside the U.S. 391 of the respondents work for organizations which publish a Sustainability Report, the rest don't. It's not clear whether respondents were executive, management or non-management level. The report provides a rather glossy picture of the state of reporting, and all of its wonderful benefits. It's a little short on new insight, and a little OTT on the total wonderfulness of reporting, but it's an interesting and up-beat round-up of the reasons to report, just in case your Board or CEO is not yet convinced.  The emphasis on the value of assurance can't be missed - in several places - in my opinion. See this:

Mainstream analysts and investors are paying attention to sustainability reporting? Really? Perhaps I missed the few that do when I blinked.

An interesting table in this survey is what motivates organizations to report.

Ahead of any other reason, the noble objective of being transparent with stakeholders is cited as the key motivation to report in all the sectors represented in the survey. Brand reputation  is hardly cited as a motivator (but then, the sectors involved are largely not consumer-facing brand organizations) and even stakeholder pressure scores very low. I wonder what this means? Apparently, CEO's just want to be transparent. Tell that to yours. 

 

 

Measuring socio-economic impact – A WBCSD guide for business

This is a fabulous document from the World Business council for Sustainability Development (WBCSD) which explains the  ins and outs of measuring social impact. Know the difference between impacts, outcomes and outputs? This guide will see you straight. Know what the key tools that are available today to help you calculate socio-economic impact? This guide will both define them and tell you what they are good for. The details include ten key tools:

This guide is of specific importance, now that G4 is moving in the direction of value chain impacts. In assessing material impacts, G4 requires you to consider whether these happen internally or externally. In addition, G4 asks for performance measures relating to these impacts. In general, this is one of the hardest things to measure and most companies manage to measure inputs (infrastructure investments, cash donated, volunteer hours, pro-bono services etc.) but few manage to measure outputs, outcomes or impacts. Which is quite a paradox. Billions of $$$ and time (which is $$$) invested into communities without anyone ever asking whether they made a difference and what that difference was, or whether the funds have been used where they can do the most good. Everyone wants a big return on their $, even if this return is calculated in currencies other than monetary, such as in social benefit of different kinds. This guide may not make you an expert but it certainly gives you resources you need in order to work your way up the sustainability professionals capability chain.  (Did you notice how everything is a chain these days - value chain, supply chain, food chain, ball and chain....?)

 

2013 six growing trends in corporate sustainability

An Ernst & Young survey in cooperation with GreenBiz Group

The report analyzes the results from 282 respondents who represented 17 sectors and are employed by companies with annual revenue greater than US$1 billion. Approximately 85% of these respondents are based in the United States.

 

And the six trends are: 1: The “tone from the top” is key to heightened awareness and preparedness for sustainability risks. 2: Governments and multilateral institutions aren’t playing a key role in corporate sustainability agendas. 3: Sustainability concerns now include increased risk and proximity of natural resource shortages. 4: Corporate risk response is not well paired to the scale of sustainability challenges. 5: Integrated reporting is slow to take hold. 6: Inquiries from investors and shareholders are on the rise.

Any surprises? Nah.

The Future of Corporate Giving
The Charities Trust and Corporate Citizenship

This is the first in a series of publications based on ongoing research into the way corporate philanthropy is changing. Research, comprised of a literature search, interviews with opinion leaders and an online survey of professionals, indicates that four key trends are changing the face of corporate giving:

Commercialization:
"The relationship between a company’s community involvement and its commercial activities has been growing for a number of years. In the future, this trend will accelerate. The boundary will blur further as companies seek more measurable coherence and long-term profits from their corporate giving. Softer benefits such as staff loyalty and enhanced reputation will no longer be enough to ‘claim’ – community initiatives will need to measurably contribute to driving company profitability. Social value and commercial value cannot be neatly separated. But all the interviewees we spoke to and 85% of survey respondents felt that there would be a greater focus on delivery of the business strategy through corporate community involvement in the future. Of all the trends we tested, practitioners rated this as the most significant."

This is a very important insight. Does it signal the end of philanthropy and mark the beginning of community investment as a business driver and not a values-based activity? The report says that finding the synergy between company and community will be the key skills for corporate community managers and community players and not-for-profit partners. 56% of respondents in the survey conducted said that corporate giving would no longer exist as a separate activity, but would be "driven as part of core business strategy". Emerging innovations in this area cited by the report include: Vodafone's M-PESA, Nestlé's Creating Shared Value Model, Hindustan Lever's Shakti model of women's entrepreneurship - none of which are particularly new, but the fact that we always come back to these when talking about new corporate philanthropy may mean that other examples are few and far between, so far.

The other three trends identified, which are currently being researched and which will, presumably, result in further publications are : Innovation Unleashed, Collaborative Coalitions and Cause-related Movements. All sound familiar. The implications of these trends for business are discussed:

"One thing that all four trends have in common is a blurring of boundaries. Distinctions are dissolving between motivations (commercial or societal?), responsibilities (government, not-for-profit or business?), and drivers (companies, suppliers, corporate customers or consumers?). Managers of the future will need to navigate this uncertainty, build coalitions, manage multiple partners and articulate the change they have created convincingly."

Interestingly, this report does not highlight impact measurement as a trend, or as an important factor in advancing community investment. Perhaps when charity becomes business strategy, adapted business models of return on investment may start to apply.
 

And here are four new reports from the Global Reporting Initiative, timed to coincide with the May 2013 Amsterdam GRI Conference:

Carrots and Sticks 2013
Global Reporting Initiative
 

This is the third publication in the Carrots and Sticks series of the GRI, and three other partners, and was launched ceremoniously at the Amsterdam conference by dynamo Teresa Fogelberg and a group of others. Carrots and Sticks is a look at the public policies and regulatory frameworks that are rapidly changing around the world. It's a self-proclaimed "global inventory of sustainability reporting policies and guidance" and includes: 1. Governmental or market regulatory requirements and voluntary initiatives for the public disclosure of sustainability information. 2. CSR initiatives requiring or providing guidance for sustainability reporting or other forms of public disclosure. 3. Requirements or recommendations covering a single topic (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions) or sector (e.g., mining), provided the disclosure has to be public. 4. Standards on sustainability assurance.

You will probably not be surprised to know that the trend is growing. See the table below for the number of initiatives over the past 6 years. More initiatives are becoming embedded in the laws of national governments.

Green represents initiatives for voluntary reporting
Orange are initiatives for mandatory reporting

The report notes that mandatory and voluntary approaches create "mutual traction" - one tends to advance the other. Mandatory disclosure is also increasing affecting state-owned enterprises. Carrots and Sticks provides a detailed update of the status of public policy and regulation on reporting in several countries and regions: Australia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Denmark, EU, France, India, Norway, South Africa and the USA. Which probably means that there is not too much to say about all the rest. Yet. Watch out for Carrots and Sticks 2020. I am sure that will present an entirely different picture. In the meantime, if you want a detailed look at sustainability reporting's regulatory status around the world, this is the best review out there.

Sustainability Topics for Sectors
Global Reporting Initiative

This 156 page report is the outcome of research among sustainability reporters and stakeholders, who submitted suggestions for sustainability topics by sector that could serve as a useful reference for identifying and prioritizing material issues in the sustainability management and reporting processes.  "In total, 194 organizations related to the different stakeholder groups either contributed directly or were researched as part of this effort. This research generated 2,812 topics which were related to 52 business activity groups. Over 600 documents support the 1,612 unique topics that have been identified through this process." The 1,612 topics are described in some detail and offer contextual information, aligned with GRI Material Aspects, so that in preparing your spanking new G4 report, you won't have to start from a blank page. The topics presented by 52 industry sectors. The sectors with the highest number of topics are:

 

Oil and Gas - 96 topics

Mining - 91 topics

Food and Beverage Processing - 78 topics

Electric Utilities - 71 topics

Construction and Home Building - 68 topics

Textile and Apparel - 59 topics

 

 

The tobacco sector has only 7 topics (!) - none of which relates to the degree to which their products kill people.

 

Sustainability Topics for the Tobacco Sector, page 64

 

In each sector, the high-level topic list is supported by detailed supplements which can be downloaded separately from the GRI's resource library. This is the link to the tobacco sector document, for example. Some sectors are more extensively covered than others.

 

This report is a very interesting collection of issues and certainly helpful. It is not exhaustive and in some cases, the list of issues is rather random. However, as input to any process which thinks about material issues, it's worth using. It would be good to see GRI continue this work. In fact, it's somewhat of a shame that more has not been done already. As G4 kicks in, this kind of thinking become more critical.  

 

The Sustainability Content of Integrated Reports - a survey  of pioneers
Global Reporting Initiative

The GRI sure was busy in the run-up to the Amsterdam conference, and this was one of the May 2013 suite of publications. This one, as the title suggests, is all about integrated. It looks at the integrated reports in the GRI database, aiming "to review the different ways in which self-declared ‘integrated reports’ are taking shape around the world", based on the feedback of 18 companies and contributions from a range of experts in this area. An interesting and not surprising conclusion: "The majority of companies find GRI reporting processes useful to their development of an integrated report, either because GRI helps them defining content at the start of their process, or informs their review of the report at the end of its development." In other words, sustainability first, integrated second.

Having said that, the report frankly states the issues with the concept of integrated reporting, and the fact that "at the time of writing, no globally accepted standards or practices exist with regard to what an integrated report should cover and how it should be constructed to meet the needs of its users. Neither is there clarity on who exactly integrated reports’ users are, or how such reports should ultimately be appraised for quality and substance." Spot on. Integrated reporting, despite the recent IIRC Exposure Draft, remains an enigma to most. But it sounds sexy, so I guess we'll see more of it. The survey of pioneers report (what are they pioneering exactly?) covers research (from the GRI database) on integrated reports broken down by type of companies,  sectors, countries and what these reports are called (annual reports, integrated reports, annual and sustainability reports etc.). Also the length. The average length of an integrated report is ....well, that number isn't provided.. but they are getting longer.

In 2010, 22% of reports were 200+ pages in length, while in 2012, 24% were that loooooooooooooooooooong. 40% of integrated reports in 2012 were more than 150 pages. Did anyone check the length of standalone sustainability reports? The report zooms in on South Africa and Australia in terms of integrated reporting practices, and most interesting is the perspectives of the practitioners themselves with interviews from people in reporting companies. This is an intriguing report and if integrated is on your radar, it's worth a look.
 

 

The External Assurance of Sustainability Reporting
Global Reporting Initiative

Another in the flurry of publications timed to coincide with the GRI Conference, this is a short look at the state of assurance from a GRI (and G4) perspective and based on a review of data in the GRI database. The report says: "In 2012, over 46% of reports listed on GRI’s Sustainability Disclosure Database indicated some form of external assurance. While notable differences exist between countries and sectors, the global trend is toward increased assurance of sustainability reports." Personally, I think this is misleading. Many of the assurance statements I read do far from assure sustainability reports, at best they sort-of assure some of the (typically carbon emission and energy consumption) data. At worst, they raise more questions than they resolve. I think assurance is a big mess (ooops, maybe that's not very PC) and needs hoisting out of the current paradigm. Yes, I have some ideas, and will post on this as soon as I can. In the meantime, this report summarizes current assurance frameworks and includes a checklist of what to look for when you are engaging an assurance provider. It's a good reference document, although, why the GRI should publish such a document when the GRI's approach to assurance has been lukewarm lip service at best is rather a puzzle.

Sustainia 100
Sustainia, Denmark

 

"Sustainia is an innovation platform where companies, NGOs, foundations and thought leaders come together to support and work with a tangible approach to sustainability. Sustainia100 is an annual guide to 100 innovative solutions from around the world that presents readily available projects, initiatives and technologies at the forefront of sustainable transformation." The Sustainia 100 guide is an interesting overview of different creative approaches to different issues, ranging from harnessing solar power in innovative ways connected to women's empowerment in Africa to community computing for the benefit of humanitarian research to smart irrigation and aerodynamic trucking. If you are lacking inspiration in your business, or simply want to see how the age of sustainabilitinnovation (there's a word that confounds blogger's spellcheck function) is still alive and kicking, take a look at this report. There are surely some ideas that are applicable to your business.

 

Growing into your Sustainability Commitments: A Roadmap for Impact and Value Creation

Accountability and United Nations Global Compact

(Thanks to CSRInternational's Research Digest for alerting me to this one)

The report presents the Sustainability Commitment Growth Curve (SCGC) which forms a roadmap for turning commitments into measurable value creation.

From adoption to implementation to advancement, this roadmap gives sound guidance on how to turn good intentions into good practice. Many of the concepts and approaches are familiar, but they are ordered here in a coherent and accessible way, with a host of interesting examples of practice from companies around the world. The roadmap is aligned with the UNGC principles, and shows how different companies have used the UNGC framework to align resources, structures and programs to deliver value-creating outcomes. This is a good source of inspiration and ideas for companies wanting do deepen their strategic approach to sustainable business.

But that's not all:

And as I was compiling this list above, I came across this other list:
 

13 HOT RESEARCH REPORTS by Sustainable Brands, compiled by Dimitar Vlahov.

 

This contains some more fabulous stuff, really interesting reports, and there is absolutely no overlap with my list, so, just by adding this link, the CSR Reporting Blog offers you a double-scoop of resources for absolutely no additional charge. Come on, admit it, how many other sustainability reporting blogs are this good to their readers?

Show your appreciation by tweeting, retweeting, mtweeting, facebooking, googleplussing and signing up for the CSR Reporting Blog directly to your email. Oh, and a scoop or two of Chunky Monkey next time we meet wouldn't go a miss either.




elaine cohen, CSR consultant, winning (CRRA'12) Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of 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)

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)

The Paradox of Sustainability Reporting

Followers of this blog and my sustainability report reviews will know that I often refer to direct impacts and indirect impacts. Maybe I should clarify what I mean.

Direct impacts

These are all the actions of a company which have an impact on stakeholders. This can be anything from reducing carbon footprint to creating a new environmentally friendly product to paying employees a living wage to volunteering in the community - anything that the company actually does and its direct effect on stakeholders.

Indirect impacts

These, in my CSR lexicon,  are really the effects, results or outcomes of  direct impacts. By developing a cause marketing campaign (action which creates a direct impact on those involved in the campaign or benefit directly from the cause), a company may be influencing awareness and consumer behaviour in an indirect way. By developing a new environmental technology, a company may be influencing consumer habits far beyond the specific action the company invested in order to develop a product. A bank may lend money in a responsible way (direct impact) but the whether the money is used in a responsible way is the indirect impact. An ingredients supplier such as Danisco has an indirect impact on  (1) the way  manufacturers make products with more sustainable characteristics and thereby change consumer habits and (2) the sustainability impacts of manufacturing  supply chain processes at customers who buy their ingredients.   

Indirect impacts, in many ways, are outcomes of direct actions. A company cannot control indirect impacts, only direct impacts. But if we think of the direct impact as the driver and the indirect impact as the outcome, then indirect impacts should be of vital relevance to any company's sustainability thinking.   

The interesting thing about this is that in almost any business, industry or sector, the indirect impacts are always far, far greater than the direct impacts. This represents the real difference a company can make as it adopts a sustainability approach, impacting much more widely than its immediate actions. HP say this in their 2009 Global Citizenship Report: "The IT industry is responsible for about 2 percent of global GHG emissions. But our products and services offer great potential to help reduce energy use and emissions throughout the global economy—the other 98 percent."  In determining their sustainability strategy, HP is conscious not only of their activities for designing, manufacturing, marketing, selling and distributing products but also on the way they are used by consumers, in order to impact far beyond the scope of HP's actual operations. An HP printer may be manufactured in a sustainable way but the way it utilizes ink, enables dual-side printing, is recyclable etc determines the level of potential environmental impact through its lifecycle. By now, everyone knows that the carbon footprint of a T-shirt is mainly in the wear and laundry of the T-shirt thoughout its lifecycle which overtake the carbon emissions generated by its actual manufacture. 

Where am I going with this ? One more thing and we will get to the paradox. 

See, I read hundreds of Sustainability Reports. Most of these reports relate to what the Company is doing to behave as a responsible business and advance local or global sustainability. No matter what the report structure, they always come back to impacts in the marketplace, workplace, community and environment and the narrative is almost exclusively about what the Company has done, how much it has invested, how many people were involved and how good everybody felt. For companies that report metrics, these metrics measure all of this: how many volunteering hours, how many training hours, how many emissions, how many hybrid trucks are used in distribution, how many eco-products have been developed, how much money has been spent.  But frankly, what use is it to me to know that employees volunteered for 50,000 hours if I  don't  know what kind of a difference they made during those hours? I dont mean where they went and which project they advanced. I mean what DIFFERENCE did they make? Same with our HP printer example. Who cares if HP or any other company has developed a program to recycle printers? What we should care about is how many consumers actually recycle printers. The program is the input or the enabler, the actual level of recycling is the outcome. The outcomes are what we want.

All of these input -type metrics are important as management reports to guide decision making around resource allocation and get a sense of progress in working to plan. Usually, good basic sustainability practice should create strong indirect impacts. However, it takes time and energy to maintain adequate systems to manage sustainability practices and report on them. It's much easier to measure what you do than the result of what you do. So ...

and here is the paradox ....

companies spend their time and energy reporting on direct impacts when indirect impacts are much more crucial evidence of the way they are changing the world. What really matters most is the outcomes, but  very few companies report on these. Most indirect impacts can be measured to a lesser or greater degree with the right kind of analytical thinking, but very few companies go the extra mile to attempt this.

If one thing needs to change about sustainability reporting, it has to be the practice of publishing a shopping list of actions and instead reporting on the value a company adds to our collective sustainability. My strongest recommendation to all companies entering the reporting cycle for 2011 reports is just that:  Focus on where you are having an impact beyond your immediate actions. Let this be what drives your strategy, decisions, actions and reporting.  Think top-down, not bottom up. Make the effort to assess the difference you are making.

Get past the paradox.

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, CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm)

Learnings from six first-time CSR reports

I love first-time CSR reports. A first report is an opportunity to create a new slate, set up a foundation for future reporting, position the Company's sustainability message in the most appropriate way, and establish a presence amongst the leading companies in the world that value transparency. It is a blank page, which you can fill to describe your most important impacts. You can be creative, innovative and have a little fun at the same time.

Unfortunately, the production of a first report is usually fraught with so many first-time issues for a Company to address, that, wonderful as first reports are, they sometimes fall short of seizing the opportunity. Common issues with first reports are around the substance of data and information available to include, whether to disclose or not ever if the info is available, what sort of a report to write (GRI or not GRI and at what application level). Report format in print, PDF or online or a combination of all three. Reporting period. Structure. Scope.  Style. Concept. Length. Summary report or not. Who approves the final version. Design issues. Print run. Many things to decide and not always easy decisions to make. Every first-time report provides a massive amount of learning for the reporting organization.  

I have taken a look at 6 first time reports published in 2010, randomly selected. (Thanks to CorporateRegister.com , as usual, a wonderful research source for all reports). Whilst I can't be sure what each company learnt in the process, I have tried, as an outside observer, to extract what I think WE can learn from THEM in this first cycle. Here we go, in no particular order:

Maruti-Suzuki India 2008-2009 Report

94 pages, GRI A+ level

This leader in car production in India, the Indian subsidiary of Japanese Suzuki, has manufactured over 7 million cars since 1983 and in addition, has produced a very nice first Sustainability Report entitled "Give Get Grow", because, as they say, you have to GIVE in order to GET and to GROW. The report is nicely designed, clearly written, good on disclosure, includes a materiality matrix, a Japanese glossary of management terms and principles, GRI Index and verification statement. Despite quoting Mother Theresa for a little local flavor, this report reflects a decidedly Japanese culture. This is a male-dominated company with only 207 of the total 7,159 employees being women. It always makes me wonder when  a company claims they do not discriminate, how it is that there are so few women. However, this is one of the better first reports around, both in terms of transparency and content.

Key learning: A great concept always adds credibility and interest to a CSR report.


Office2Office plc CSR Review 2010
30 pages, not GRI

This is a business services supplier based in the UK, employing around 1,000 people. The report follows what I call the Quadrant Model - workplace, marketplace, community and environment -  and does a good job in covering core practices relating to corporate responsibility in each quadrant. It's layout is clear, language is readable and coverage comprehensive. However, it's a "good-corporate-citizen" report in the sense that it  reports (well) what the Company is doing (well), covering off all bases in the basic model of "we are ethical".  The Company explains its initiatives well, such as closed-loop paper recycliing - office paper supplied is returned and recycled, and re-supplied by the Company. Clearly the Company is earnest in its first base approach to Corporate Reponsibility.

Key learning: Method and system in reporting delivers good credibility.


Edcoms Ltd Corporate CSR Report 2009

15 pages, not GRI

Who is Edcoms? Not sure. The "report" says they are a "leading communications and research agency working for the private, public and third sectors". But don't expect to find any diclosures in this "report", which follows what I call the Marketing Brochure Model. It a nice round-up of what this company is doing in their education and leaning programmes. There appear to be two initiatives of value - a staff survey on what CSR means to them  and a project to implement ISO 14,000, which at the time of publication they had not completed. Aside from this, there is plenty of opportunity to produce fuller reports in the future.However, I do think that, if it's not a CSR report, it should not be called a CSR report.   

Key learning:  Something is better than nothing - and even the most basic of reports can be a foundation for more in the future.  

Biogen Idec Inc 2009 Corporate Citizenship Report

14 pages, GRI C level

This report is called "Driving towards a sustainable future", a title which immediately made me think of a transport company, but Biogen is actually a "leader in the development of innovative therapies" for multiple sclerosis, lymphoma and rheumatoid arthritis, employing 4,750 people. This first report follows what I call the 3P model - split into three main sections - business, environment and society. It's short, but demonstrates evidencce of strong progress on sustainability issues. The report includes a high-level materiality matrix, evidence of serious thinking about the company's impacts. Biogen has developed their own risk-weighted environmental index which shows improved performance since 2007, though the methodology in not transparent. Biogen also makes a Sustainability Award internally for the best efforts and positive impacts of employees - a nice program. Indeed, this short report contains much about employee workplace responsibilities and impacts which is quite impressive. The report was printed using certified wind power.Whoosh!

Key learning: If you have a strong CSR program in place, you can deliver a meaningful, short, report, covering key bases, without going the full stretch on transparency.

Tamro Corporation

Corporate Responsibility Report Feb 09 - Jan 10 

Web based report with a PDF download of 55 pages, GRI C level

Tamro employs around 6,000 people in the pursuit of their mission which is to be a vital link in the healthcare system, as a pharmaceutical wholesaler and pharmacy operator. This is a report designed for web, not particularly interactive but with a good web structure. The PDF download is simply a copy of the web-pages, which doesn't work  if you are just reading the PDF, but adequate if your first point of reference is the website.The hyperlinks also take you to the annual report for relevant sections. There is a glossary and a feedback section. The report follows what I call the 3P model - economic, environment and social responsibility sections. The report is excellent, including a materiality index, and a table showing prioritization of stakeholder interests based on structured feedback solicited from stakeholder groups. (Incidentally, compliance is the most important, and energy consumption the least important!) . The web site includes case studies in each of the resport sections, with a video from employees and also from the Managing Director of a customer company. I had to smile at one of the videos of a Tamro Customer Service Director who says : "When it comes to Tamro’s weaknesses, Kaselaan cannot think of anything major." (As a woman in a business with no women on the Executive Team or Board, I would be able to think of something major haha) However, all in all, a very impressive web-based first report.

Key learning : A web-based first report can provide great possibilities for showing the faces of the company.

Barilla Group 2008 Sustainability Report 

Web report with PDF download of 90 pages GRI C level

This is an Italian Food Group with 16,000 employees, bringing the Mediterranean diet to the world. This 2008 report, published in August 2010, follows a deep exercise in assessment of CSR strategy and core impacts, which took two years to complete and therefore delayed the timely publication of a first report. The report covers a systematic approach to stakeholder mapping, analysis, engagement in a transparent way and includes stakeholder recommendations and performance indicators adopted as a result. One of the most thorough treatments of stakeholder engagement you can find in a CSR report.  The report also includes targets in each section to the year 2014 - clearly a long term approach.  Actually, the PDF, not the web, works better for me in this report, which follows what I call a Materiality Model, structured around the prioritzation of material issues, taking in this case, nutrition as the first and supply chain as the second issue addressed in the report, followed by other topics such as environment, people, community etc. Each section is introduced with a philosophical and contextual commentary, which adds a personal touch to the report and also a certain charm.

Key learnings: Better late than never ! AND a great stakeholder mapping process.

So, to conclude, even the first- timers can teach us old-timers something. Considering the extra effort necessary to produce a first report, I say Bravo! to all these Companies. Support them by taking a look and giving them your feedback!

Actually, I planned this post to cover 20 first time reports but I found that doing justice to each is rather time-consuming and also, due to my August diet, I am suffering from a severe deficiency of Chunky Monkey.  Still, as we can learn from Edcoms,  30% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, Sustainabilty Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Contact me via www.twitter.com/elainecohen  on Twitter or via my business website www.b-yond.biz/en  (BeyondBusiness,  CSR Consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm). Elaine is the author of CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing reponsible business practices.  

8 reasons non-profits should write sustainability reports

BSR – Business for Social Responsibility – a leading light in the field of professional non-profits (they might prefer to be called an NGO) produced their second public report earlier this year, which you can download here. I won't take up your valuable time by analyzing this report, excellent though it is. I will however express my respect for an NGO who adopts a policy of public disclosure and reporting.
Far too often in the non-profit world we see a reluctance to adopt professional practices of social and environmental responsibility and transparency. NGO's, who are often so critical of business, and who campaign businesses to improve their impacts, often feel that this doesn't apply to them. "We are promoting a social cause, why should we be transparent?" is the cry.""How better than this can you get? is the implication. I fail to see the logic here, of course. All organizations, for profit, not-for-profit, for a better world or for a better environment, for better or for worse (or for chunky monkey) should behave sustainably. One could argue that non-profits should be even greater models of transparency than we might expect of business. In the case of an organization whose mission is to promote sustainable business practices, such as BSR, this an absolute necessity. Similarly, one cannot fault the Global Reporting Initiative for not behaving with integrity. Their Sustainability Report for 2007/2008 is proudly presented and follows GRI methodology to the letter. The Global Compact produces an annual report which can be found here for 2008.
Why is it important for non-profits to report? Is this not a duty (and a privilege?) reserved for corporations? Corporations report because they have a responsibility to account for their impacts on stakeholders, and in doing so hope to enhance trust, relationships, engagement and improve business processes to yield greater overall sustainable impact. Are these objectives equally valid for non-profits ? Of course. So why is reporting branded corporations only?

I looked for non-profits who produce a sustainability report (i excluded academic institutions, professional assosiations and governmental bodies from this analysis in order to focus on social and environmental cause-based non-profits only).

The UK based World Wildlife Fund published its latest an Annual Review in 2008. This is a great overview of their emvironmental impacts covering issues such as Earth Hour, climate change, sustainable investment and the way we all live as earth people. But it says nothing about internal procedures such as governance, budget allocations, people management, people diversity, community involvement, purchasing policy. Governance is covered on the website, in headline terms, and their 2008 annual financial report covers management , strategy, performance against targets and financial statements. All in all, a pretty good disclosure. There are gaps, mainly relating to their internal policies and decision making processes, support for human rights, human resources management and policies etc, and the fact that you have to read two reports to understand the totality of the organization's non-financial impacts is a minor inconvenience.
Oxfam International , another UK based non-profit which brings together 13 country Oxfam organizations, has its 2007 Annual Report available on their website ,an accountability section with some further detail and a 125 page report assessing Oxfam's social impacts. But all this falls far short of a sustainability report. Very little on governance, ethics assimilation, the way they employ people or the way they impact on the environment. I couldnt find a number of how many people are employed by this organization. And what about their purchasing budget ? Any ethical purchasing? How do they manage suppliers ?
Thumbs up for Save the Children, also a UK registered charity, you can read their Annual Report for 2007/8 - this comes very close to sustainability reporting with a strong section relating to internal governance and processes, people management, equal opportunity employment, disclosures related to ethical investing, risk management and more. They also have a Global Children's Panel, a kind of stakeholder dialogue process made up of a panel of 14 young people between the ages of 12 and 17 from 9 countries. 46% of the leadership team are women (go girls!). A great report !!

Enough with the UK, I say to myself , let's look at the USA , I answer myself. Fast forward to Feeding America. Nothing more than financial statements on this website. Yet this is a massive organisation which oversees an enormous network of foodbanks, logistics, trucks, people and more. Environmental impacts here are significant. And also environmental benefits with the amounts of food waste they avoid or reclaim . Another neat non-profit came accoss my radar in the form of StrongWomen , Strong Girls. Surely a feminist organization would be more transparent, right ? Wrong. Nothing, not even financial reports.Come on, girls, lets show 'em how its done. Global Giving is a great organization improving our society. We are treated to detalied biographies of the 22-strong executive team, and an annual report for 2007, which covers the projects GlobalGIving supports, but no additional details. How many staff are employed at this non-profit? How do they manage their carbon footprint ? How do they select, hire and fire people ?

So far, i find my search for reporting non-profits to be rather disappointing. Then i had a brainwave. I waved back. I zoomed off to the GRI reporting website and downloaded their Reports List. Of the 454 GRI reports listed as published in 2009, 9 are non-profit (one of these is the GRI itself, mentioned above.). 2 % of the total . I had a look at one of them: The Ruah 2008 Community Services Accountability and Sustainability Report. , whose mission is to
"To redress disadvantage and enhance the human spirit. Based in Australia, Ruch provides community mental health services, housing and homelessness services, and works with issues of domestic violence, addiction, employment, and family support." What a delightful report!!! It is a self-declared C level report and meets the requirements for the UNGC Communication on Progress. They have 160 staff, use Bokashi bins for composting waste in their office locations, they have assessed their human rights compliance and developed an improvement plan, they spent 1.4% of salary budget on training, and employees receive annual performance reviews. This is an organization which is focused on their overall impact and not just the social mission which is their core "business".

The GRI has produced a NGO sector supplement, now in final draft form for public comment. The rational for NGO sustainability reports is stated as : " The public benefit nature of the NGO sector creates an additional responsibility to demonstrate that operations are consistent with the values represented." One additional indicator for NGO's for example is the issue of ethical fundraising policies and practice.

Anyway, to sum up what has become a rather long post (NB: Now is the time for ChunkyMonkey, helps keep you focused) the 8 reasons for non-profits to engage in sustainability reporting are similar to for-profit organizations:

1. build trust with stakeholders and manage reputation proactively
2. create a tool for structuring the process of stakeholder dialogue and engagement, and defining materiality
3. understand, manage and improve their economic, social and environmental impacts as an organization (in addition to the effectiveness of their social/environmental programs which is their "core" mission and which they currently addressss to some degree)
4. drive internal employee engagement
5. support recruitment of employees and volunteers
6. operate transparently - they have a responsibility to do so
7. gain competitive advantage in the fundraising war
8. ensure their own sustainability through robust internal governance, ethics and risk management practices

All these are relevant whether the operational profits are directed to the pockets of investors, or back into the community for the benefit of all. But this sector is largely unaware and unengaged in the true meaning of sustainability and the need for transparency beyond compliance and marketing.
This is why we decided, as CSR consultants with a mission to drive awareness and transparency, to offer one non-profit in Israel a FREEBIE sustainability report which we hope will start a REVOLUTION in this sector. (you can't fault us on optimism!).

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

Bank secrets... not any more

An interesting thing popped into my email box from Banktrack newsservice - Banktrack is the site that tracks banks (funny, eh?) .. which means that it scrutinizes the activities of banks and their effects on people and planet, something us cr reporters would call.. indirect impacts. See, the true impact of the banking sector is not the checking accounts or the home loans or even the savings accounts that make up their current business, but the large, significant chunks of money they use to finance major energy or infrastructure projects, the arms industry, the nuclear sector and a whole host of things that negatively (or positively) impact us, the planet and future generations. The owners of these initiatives rely on banks to finance them. The banks that do so should be held accountable for these indirect impacts of their financing policies. And this is where Banktrack comes in. Anyway, back to my inbox (ugh!), a press release is what popped into it.

It goes something like this, well, exactly like this:

"Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mundiale (Italy), Friends of the Earth (France), Netwerk Vlaanderen (Belgium), Platform (UK), SETEM (Spain) and Urgewald (Germany) expose investments in harmful practices and companies of thirteen large European banks in this new website. Despite of the banking crisis, financial institutions continue to do harmful investments in a sphere of secrecy. .......The thirteen banks have financed 11,4 billion euros in loans to the14 blacklisted companies as well as arranged and underwritten bond and share issues for a total value of 10,5 billion euros. In addition, the thirteen banks own or manage 17,7 billion euros of shares in the researched companies. "

The new website refferred to is BANK SECRETS. it's an amazing site. Amazing design. And the content is pretty impressive too . There are profiles of these 13 banks and the dubious investments they have made ...a click on Barclays shows 11 locations of negative financing, Deutsche Bank also 11, RBS 9, and BNP Paribas tops the chart with 12 locations. Another page focuses on controversial investments by sector such as coal or oils and gas, and another page invites you to send an ecard to your bank proposing that they adopt ethical financing principles, and offers you a checklist of points to help you verify just what your bank is doing with your money. Finally, the site offers a selection of ethical banks in 7 European countries which you could choose to bank with if you want your money to be used for good and not the opposite.

The Equator Principles were designed to provide voluntary regulation in this area. Over 60 major banks worldwide have joined this intiative, which was launched in 2003.The principles were revised in 2006, making them more stringent, and apply to project financing with capital costs above USD 10 million . Whilst the principles have made a major impact on project financing, there are still many inadequate applications , even amongst the signatories.

I decided to take a quick look at Citibank's CSR report for 2008. I was hoping that it would reveal some secrets. Such as the ones revealed by BankSecrets, for example, financing of EADS, the second largest european arms producer, involved in nuclear weapons production, or financing Dongfeng which supplies military equipment to Burma, strengthening the repressive Burmese junta. One of Citibank's citizenship goals is to continue to provide Equator principles leadership . I looked for a mention of Burma, Dongfeng, EADS or nuclear weapons but .. alas.... zilch. Of course, they would not tarnish their positive cr report with vivid description of the indirect impact of financing nucler weapons or supporting repressive regimes. And they didnt. to be fair, Citi does boast a good record of reponsible home-loaning and community involvement, but nothing about the hotspots of their financial lending activities. In 2008, Citi funded 10 transactions worth over 183 billion $, out of a possible 39 requested, after environmental and social risk management review. However, it is not clear whether financing was rejected due to ESR issues, or due to the fact that Citi judged they would not make enough money on the the projects. There is definitely room for more transparency in reporting by the financial sector.

To round off my foray into (un)ethical banking, i took a quick look at one of the recommended banks - GLS Bank. This bank describes itself as: "the first social and ecological bank in Germany. GLS stands for "Gemeinschaftsbank für Leihen und Schenken", which translates as "community bank for loans and gifts". The bank was founded in 1974 and it currently finances around 6.500 projects and businesses. The Bank focuses on cultural, social and ecological projects which try to tackle challenges in our society by developing creative solutions". Not only are your savings invested ethically, you can also choose which positive causes to route your money to support. Sounds neat, right ?

Now, as the threshold for project financing is $10 million, i figure that this could fund around 1.7 million Chunky Monkeys. A further calculation is that this supply, if financing is secured, could last me around 3.17 weeks.

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

What's your ripple ? Intel can help ...

Intel, the silicon giant in every pc, has just published their 2008 CR report. 108 pages of completely hyperlinked and totally-a-pleasure- to-navigate PDF. Haven't read it yet. AHA! so what are you doing blogging about it ? i hear you ask. Well, i have quite a backlog of reports to review (see corporateregister.com/reviews for this year's reviews) (plug!), so i thought i would share one teeny weeny insight from the briefest of peeps into Intel's world of CR. Impacts. That's what CR is all about. Understanding impacts and taking responsibility for them.

Now, my world is simple. I divide impacts into two types: direct impacts and indirect impacts. Most reporting Companies report on direct impacts, a few on indirect impacts. But lo-and-behold, Intel reports on FOUR impacts.

• Direct impacts -defined as : Intel sells products, provides above-average wages to employees, and pays taxes.
• Indirect impacts - defined as: Intel pays suppliers and creates business for resellers, who in turn generate employment.
• Induced impacts - defined as : Consumer spending by Intel employees and supplier and partner employees stimulates additional economic activity.
• Productivity Impacts - defined as : The use of Intel products and our technology leadership result in productivity gains in the economy.

This is the model Intel uses to calculate the economic ripple effect of the producion of a product or service. A study commissioned by Intel to review their ripple showed as follows:

"...... between 2001 and 2007, Intel contributed $758 billion to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Of this total, $458 billion was stimulated by Intel’s operations and $300 billion was attributable to our productivity-based impact. Intel’s presence resulted in more than 823,000 U.S. jobs in 2007, including 45,600 direct jobs, 151,000 workers employed by Intel business partners, and 627,000 indirect jobs resulting from consumer spending by Intel employees and Intel’s business partners." Pretty big numbers, eh ? And great reporting. Thumbs up to Intel.

I would recommend you to take a little ripple-review of the Intel report, it's out there in a league all of its own, i think. Though i still haven't read the rest of it yet, i did just ripple over to the community section to see if there is a social ripple calculation, but not yet, apparently. Despite some quite advanced SROI (social return on investment) calculation methodologies available, Intel's community reporting is not quite rippling, it's about inputs not outputs and doesn't got for gold with an attempt at reporting outcomes. Still ... there is room for optimism, right ? I am sure Intel will keep on rippling.

Anyway, those of you who follow my blog know that i am very fond of ripples - usually they come in the form of a chocolate flavor swirl in the midst of a big blob of ice cream. However, in this case, I will defer to the real ripple of the day and congratulate Intel on their new report. OK. Let's do both. Bring on the Chunky Monkey.

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

I have now joined the future

Guess what ! I have now officially become a member of the future.
I participated yesterday in what was for me a very futuristic experience - yes - you guessed .. a WEBINAR!! I like to think i am a computer-literate techie sort of person, but to date, I have resisted all these millions of webinars and things, mainly because of the hassle factor (getting hooked up), the earphones factor (flat ears) , the poor connection factor (crackles, buzzes and beeps) and the half-sentence factor ( hello, welcome to.................. today............will discuss .................important to note that ....................very significant as you can see on slide 3 that....................) . But the temptation of hearing code-guru Deborah Leipziger was too great to resist. So, albeit a little late (10 yr old daughter needed mom to buy her hundreds of $$$$$ of clothes for her birthday party at the weekend), I accepted the CSR International invitation to join the first in the impressive line-up of webinar events scheduled until the end of 2009 (this is great forward planning - unlike my local culture where planning more than 3 hours ahead causes chronic migraine)

Deborah Leipziger is the first lady of corporate, industry and cause-related codes of conduct and ethical standards. Her Code Book created order and understanding of the relevance and importance of framing conduct expectations and existing best practices. A sort of Code Bible. Amen.

How is this connected to Reporting ?
No CSR report today is complete without reference to a Code of Conduct and in many cases, declaration of a string of external codes that the corporation adopts. My guess is that on average, companies have about 5 or more different codes they try to observe in their businesses.
A quick look at some CSR reports proves me mainly right:

• ExxonMobil 2007: corporate code(s) of conduct , global responsible care charter, global compact, voluntary Principles on Security and human Rights, millenium development goals, ILO convention on Indigenous peoples
• Westpac Banking Corp 2008 : UNPRI, principles for doing business, Equator Principles, ASX principles on Good Corporate Governance, sustainable supply chain managment code of conduct, GRI, UNEP Finance Initiative, CEO Water Mandate
• Sony 2008: Sony Group code of conduct, EICC code of conduct (only 2 ? did i miss a few?)
• Diageo 2008: Global compact, Dublin Principles, Business charter for sustainable development, CEO Water Mandate, internal codes of ethics, GRI

The harmonization of codes was one point raised in the discussion - though a key part of the value of the Code is the process by which it was created. So maybe we need lots of processes but less codes ?

Anyway, back to the view from the top - few insights from the guru:

• ISO 26000 is not cutting-edge but it is broad and covers most of the range of CSR issues . It is right to go the guideline route and not the certification route, though certification at a national level in local language could be an opportunity. Some national certification bodies are already starting to consider its use - Portugal and Denmark for instance.
• Sectorialization is becoming more popular and useful as a tool for different industries such as the electronics industry, automotives, forestry, financial sector tools such as the Equator Principles.
• Training is essential to ensure application and assimilation of codes - this is often underestimated
• Impact analysis including gathering of base line data is often overlooked but is an important tool in understanding both the effectiveness of the code and the unintended consequences of implementation.

In response to my question, What about a code of conduct for CSR professionals or are we exempt? there was a knowing smile and an admission that the cobbler forgot to make himself a pair of shoes, or whatever the saying is. There was the question of how do you define a CSR professional . Right now, as long as its polite, I dont mind. :-)

Anyway, i have to end this blog post now as i have to go off and write another code....

Thanks to Deborah and to Wayne Wisser, CSRI founder and webinar maestro

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 !