Showing posts with label integrated reports. Show all posts
Showing posts with label integrated reports. Show all posts

Sunday, December 24, 2017

Santa Claus Inc. 2017 Harmonized Report

It's that warm fuzzy, jingle-belly, goodwilly time of the year again when we preview Santa's annual ESG disclosure. Santa has been reporting now for almost 2,000 years. It's amazing how Santa manages to keep reporting fresh, relevant, topical and most of all, impactful. Just like all those other companies that report year after year. Check out Santa's prior reports:

πŸŽ…Santa's 2016 Material Topics Report
πŸŽ…Santa’s 2015 SDG Report 
πŸŽ…Santa's 1750th Sustainability Report 2014
πŸŽ…Santa's First G4 Comprehensive Sustainability Report 2013 
πŸŽ…Santa's First Integrated Financial and CSR Report 2012
πŸŽ…Santa's 1,747th 2011 Annual CSR Report
πŸŽ…Santa's 1,746th 2010 Annual CSR Report
πŸŽ…Santa's 1,745th 2009 Annual CSR Report


Santa Claus Inc. 2017 Harmonized Report
πŸŽ… Leadership Message πŸŽ…


Dear Stakeholders,

I am delighted present you once again with Santa Claus Inc.'s annual disclosure of everything related to sustainability, making the world a better place, saving the planet, improving the quality of life, especially mine, and improving the impacts of business in society. In the true Christmas spirit of goodwill, sharing and joy to all women, men and children, I have decided that this should be a harmonized report, encompassing the best of all the sustainability frameworks that we know in one seamlessly blended, uniquely jargon-ridden, multi-platform report that will meet the demands of investors (YAY! Love investors) and all other stakeholders, unless they blink. I know this is venturing into ground hitherto uncharted by humankind and that, despite years of harmonization hype, aligning frameworks has never been anything more than a smokescreen for different organizations to pursue different dreams and funders. But Santa has always boldly aimed to go where all Santa lookalikes and CSR Managers have never trodden. I am therefore delighted to share our harmonized account of our value-creating, investor-ready, multi-stakeholder driven 2017 sustainability net positive impact report on all our capitals in all their resplendent transparency. 

2017 was not a particularly harmonious year for Santa. Troubled by fallout from Climate Change, Trumpification, Brexitisation, Falsefactsification, SDGification of every problem known to man (and woman), and the fact that Santa has STILL not been invited to appear on the Ellen DeGeneres show, for the first time in more than a century, we did not hit our quadruple net profit target. In 2017, we grew toy-distribution value only by 563% and profits increased only by 99.5%, making this a year in which Santa had to tighten his belt. In fact, Santa tightened his belt so much that he was rushed to Grey Sloane Memorial Hospital ER where Meredith Grey had to perform an emergency heart transplant. The problem was finding a heart big enough to hold all Santa's love for the children of the world, which simply wasn't possible. Therefore, as Meredith is so creative and resourceful, she transplanted Santa's heart with four new hearts, making Santa even more loving, generous and positive-spirited than before. As a result, Santa immediately ordered double toys for all the world's children, which caused a further drop in profits and heart failure in three of the four new hearts. To resolve this problem, Meredith fitted 3D printed hearts to replace the failed hearts and created a medical history phenomenon in the process. Santa is now charging a special Santa Heart-4-Heart Viewing fee payable to the "I Love Santa " Fund and has raised $4 billion to date.  In addition, Santa has created a "Perform Emergency Heart Surgery on Santa" Donation App, modeled on a similar educational app, and this has already been downloaded more than 2 million times. The moral of this story is: Watch Grey's Anatomy. You can never have too many hearts.

But 2017 did bring some nuggets of optimism. On Sept. 4, Kensington Palace announced that Prince William and Duchess Kate were expecting a sibling for Prince George and Princess Charlotte. That makes three toddlers who now require special Santa gifts. Santa loves the Royal Children, though finding toys for such privileged children is always a headache at Christmas. In 2017, Santa decided to be true to the Chopra Center's Law of Giving and Receiving where it says: Each time I meet someone, I will silently wish them happiness, joy, and laughter.  So, this is what Santa is getting for the Royal Children this year and for the Royal siblings en route. And let's not forget of course that Prince Harry has announced his entry into show business with his engagement to Meghan Markle, so no doubt the pitter-patter of tiny feet will be sounding through more corridors of the royal residences before long - so silently wishing them happiness, joy and laughter will be a smart strategy going forward. But in fact, the betrothal of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle is a tremendous commercial opportunity. Already you can buy incredible Harry and Meghan merchandise online and in all the best stores. This is brilliant. Santa, never one to miss a hint of profit potential, is now thinking of announcing his own marriage in order to be able to sell Santa Wedding Memorabilia. Santa doesn't want to get married, so this is a double opportunity. In a few months' time, we can announce Santa Wedding Cancellation Memorabilia. The Royal Family is always a good source of inspiration.

Also in 2017 we decided to renew our mission and values. Here are the old ones we developed in 2011.

Mission
To perpetuate the love of Santa

Values  
Faith in Santa
Disabled-Access Chimneys
Elf Emancipation
Reindeer Rights
Children's Universal Right to Gifts
Santa World Domination 

In the interests of brevity, we have decided to reduce our values to two.

Values  
Santa World Domination and Sustainability
Santa World Domination and Sustainability

In this way, we can use our new values to more effectively guide us in our mission and enjoy all the fuzzy feelings that are generated when people hear us talking about sustainability. From now on, focusing on Santa World Domination means that we will no longer be at the mercy of Reindeer Freedom Fighters, Elf Emancipation Activists or Teresa May's Brexit negotiation strategy. In fact, as a result of the UK Brexit vote, we have moved all our toy assembly centers out of the UK and transferred them to other parts of the Eurozone. If you are a kid in the UK, you will now receive toys saying "FabriquΓ© en France" or "Hergestellt in Deutschland" together with a language pack for reading the instructions in another language. But don't worry, all the carbon emissions generated by long-hauling toys across Europe will be offset by funds generously donated by Berlitz.

Santa's Materiality Matrix
In this 2017 harmonized report, we have recreated our new materiality matrix, recognizing that our GRI, SASB, IR, Future Fit and UNGC Reporting framework must now appeal to shareholders, stakeholders, landholders, smallholders, cardholders, freeholders, pen-holders, upholders and with-holders. As a result, we completed a deep-dive materiality process, starting with a thorough scan of the entire universe of sustainability topics using advanced data-mining algorithms powered by Datamaran, and this yielded a list of 3,564 relevant topics for consideration. After 23 elf and reindeer focus groups, and of course our assumptions about what's important to our stakeholders, we managed to whittle this down to just 4 topics that represent our most material impacts on the world and the most significant assumed concerns of stakeholders, and taking into account the SDGs as well. These are:
  • Santa's well-being
  • World happiness especially in Lapland
  • Elimination of everything bad in the world including hunger, poverty, sickness, lying, cheating and Santa counterfeits
  • Free distribution of money to everyone who needs it especially Santa
Based on this list of material topics, we have formulated a new Sustainability Strategy. It's quite a simple one. It's Santa-centric. If Santa is not at the center, it doesn't count. We will progress actions that advance Santa centricity and provide solutions to the material topics above. An initial step will be to build a wall around Lapland to restrict immigration of unwanted elves and then we will declare war on a few countries. In this way, we will make beneficial Santa Domination far more sustainable for current and future generations.


New Year's Giving - the UNGC Way
From 2018, we have adopted a new approach to giving, modeled on the super creative UN Global Compact new plan for 2018. As you may know, the UNGC is now offering two new ways of confirming support for the largest global responsible business initiative. You can become a new-style first-class Participant and pay lots of money, or you can become a second-class Signatory and pay less lots of money. What you cannot do is stay as you are and pay no money. This is a wonderful approach to giving. All the 8,000 plus business signatories of the UNGC will now have to pass on a part of their bank balance to the UN account or be reduced to oblivion, wiped forever off the face of the UNGC website. Santa thinks this is a wonderful approach to giving for 2018. Therefore, effective next year, those who are eligible to receive a gift from Santa will first have to register as a Receiver or an Observer. As a Receiver, you get to pay lots of money and receive a toy that you can play with anywhere you like. As an Observer, you get to pay less lots of money, you get a toy but you are not actually allowed to play with it outside your own home. If you do not register, and/or do not pay money, all the gifts you have previously received will be removed and destroyed and you will never get them back. This is a modern way of spreading the Christmas spirit and enables everyone to enjoy the goodness in the world, for a fee. In this way, Santa will be able to continue to enjoy the lifestyle to which he is accustomed and the UNGC will continue to be able to hold conferences and meetings and have a blast on Black Friday.

New App for iPhone X: SantaPay
All of us here at Santa Claus Inc. have been impressed with the development of Apple Pay. Apple Pay transactions are becoming exceedingly common, and parting with your money has never been easier. Having discovered the benefits of Apple Pay, Santa saw a clear opportunity to develop a way for people around the globe to painlessly support world salvation, environmental sustainability and Santa Domination. With the new Santa Pay app specially designed for iPhone X, no matter what you buy or where you buy it or from whom, a portion of your payment goes directly to the Santa Retirement Fund. In an unprecedented mega-deal with Apple, all sales of the new iPhone X will contain a special spiritual Santa Pay message, advising the new iPhone X owner that all toys purchased this Christmas through Apple Pay will automatically create a double transaction, whereby the equivalent value of an additional toy will be debited in parallel to Santa Pay. Sums accruing to Santa Pay will be delivered to the tax-free Santa Retirement Fund, which, in 2017, reached a total of $932 billion, enough to fund the acquisition of a private island in the Caribbean so that Santa can live out the remainder of his days in peace and harmony. Unfortunately, due to climate change, the island Santa had in mind is now partly submerged in the Caribbean Sea. In addition, therefore, to stocking up on mince pies and Hallmark Christmas movie DVDs to enjoy during his retirement, Santa is investing in land reclamation technology, a desalination plant and several snorkels. 

A new Santa Blockchain Initiative
As the blockchain economy is starting to gain ground, Santa has been considering how best to leverage blockchain for the benefit of children everywhere. Unfortunately, blockchain is so complex that Santa hasn't quite got to grips with it yet. His first attempt to create a blockchain failed when the block fell off the sleigh and the reindeer ate the chain. The second attempt was equally unsuccessful. The block was chipped and the chain slipped off and got caught around Santa's ankle, causing him to fall and break three bones in his foot. As a result, the Santa Claus Inc. Lost-Time Injury rate tripled in 2017 (The incident in which fourteen elves were found dead following a fire in the toy factory was not recorded in 2017, as there was some doubt as to whether the cause of death was actually the fire, or a suicide pact among senior elves. Elves were protesting against distribution of bitcoins instead of real toys at Christmas, reducing the need for toy assembly, quality control and distribution and therefore reducing several elf jobs. Despite attempts to reassure the senior elves that job security would not be affected by the introduction of bitcoins, many elves suffered severe depression and set fire to both the factory and themselves. However, Santa was not overly worried, as the elf headcount has now reduced sufficiently to avoid significant layoffs in 2018.)

According to Santa, bitcoins are the new toys, and children of the world can collect bitcoins and trade them, thereby offering children great flexibility and choice for their personal entertainment and leisure time while having a positive impact on the environment. Unfortunately, the first 500,000 bitcoins distributed were triple-traded by cryptocurrency-savvy kids who circumvented the blockchain. This resulted in the market being flooded with invalid bitcoins and ultimately crashing - reducing the value of all bitcoins to little more than zero. Many bitcoin traders lost their jobs, their homes and their dignity. Several bitcoin trading houses closed down and the U.S. federal government intervened with a massive bailout. People were evicted from homes they bought with bitcoins. A senior commentator likened this to the economic crisis of 2008 and blamed greed, excess and selfishness.

Santa was initially devastated but eventually realized that bitcoin fraud is simply another capitalist scam that forces people to realize that family, friends, love, harmony and joy to the world are actually more important than amassing great virtual wealth. Therefore, Santa reverted to supplying real toys distributed by real elves and real reindeer to real kids in the real world. Of course, he kept a few bitcoins back for himself, just in case. Bitcoins and blockchains may be a little before their time, but Santa plans to be ahead of the game when they come back to dominate our economy.

Reporting on the capitals
As this is a harmonized report, we include a special feature for the very first time, covering our impact on the capitals. We are not entirely sure that this is a sensible way to report performance, nor does Santa think it represents a consistent way of presenting value creation. However, as modern, forward-thinking, good-life-appreciating stakeholders like to talk in capitals, we decided to fall in line. 

Financial Capital: This represents the financial value we create for our shareholders and communities. Of course, as you all know Santa Claus Inc. is a form of social enterprise because we perform our main function of disseminating joy in the world through the toys we provide for children free of charge. Therefore, we do not have revenues, we do not pay taxes and we do not manage working capital or cash flow. Indirectly, we contribute to improving financial capital by making people happy. Happy people are more motivated at work and therefore make more money for the world economy. 
Manufacturing capital: We do not have any manufacturing capital as all the toys we distribute are manufactured by someone else. Our elves do some toy assembly work, but this is mainly reserved for elf interns who we do not pay. In lieu of payment, all interns are treated to a personal meeting with Santa each year and can include working at Santa Claus Inc. on their resume, thereby significantly enhancing their future employability.
Human capital: We do not have any human capital as all our work is performed by elves and reindeer. We did once think of hiring humans but most did not want to relocate to Lapland, and several did not have chimney sweeping skills. The value we create in terms of human capital at a global level is indirect: through the educational toys we distribute to children, they become more intelligent, well-rounded individuals that have enhanced potential to make the world a better place. Of course, we do have a plan to stop distributing toy rifles, fidget spinners and waitress uniforms.
Social and relationship capital: Our social and relationship capital is expressed in the positive partnerships that Santa forges with toy suppliers everywhere in the world. Santa's ability to persuade toy-makers to contribute their goods for free every year represents an unprecedented level of social capital that results in happy kids everywhere. (Except for the ones that asked for iPhone X's in their Christmas stocking. Even Santa draws the line at toys that retail at more than $1000).
Intellectual capital: We don't have intellectual capital and frankly we don't need it. In any case, we aren't entirely sure how to measure it. We just continue to spread joy and goodwill - for that we need a big heart and not a very big brain. Santa did once consider joining MENSA but they refused to approve his application after he responded "ice cream" to the question: "What is the most important food on earth that no-one can live without?"
Natural capital: Our impact on natural capital is minimal. Over several years, we have reduced our carbon footprint through use of renewable reindeer power for our sleighs, low-methane diets for our reindeer and carpooling for our elves. We only use water from recycled melted local Lapland ice and we recycle all our packaging and other organic waste. Our bathrooms use dry-flush and our faucets are metered. Therefore, our natural capital is hardly noticeable and there is nothing terribly interesting to disclose.

Ah well, so much for reporting on all the capitals. I am sure you found that very enlightening. Not. However, at least we cannot be accused of not joining the integrated reporting revolution rumor.

Business development - Santa diversification
In 2017, Santa developed several new business lines designed to ensure the Santa brand continues to be top of mind and top of credit card. A few of our new sustainable business lines are just getting started:

Santa Eco Spa and Relaxation Resort: Relax in an authentic, elegant, secluded getaway on Santa's private eco-island in the Caribbean. Immerse yourself in nature in a fully carbon-offset environment where the locals pamper to your every need (unless you are sparing with the tips). Whether you are looking for a sumptuous spa experience, expansive green golf courses, exhilarating tennis, visits to a live volcano (don't forget to buy insurance) or spending a quiet evening watching Hallmark Christmas movies on DVD, Santa's Eco Resort has something for you. Santa personally greets each guest and models the latest Santa fashions for you to purchase for your next Christmas Party.  

Santa Cookies: Lose weight with a new line of delicious Santa Cookies that reverse the metabolic process of calorie burning in your body. Instead of gaining weight, Santa's cookies actually cause the reverse effect - the more cookies you eat, the more weight you lose. The cookie has been developed by an army of Santa elf scientists and nutritionists after years of dedicated research in an attempt to fulfill the most wished-for Christmas gift - getting slim. Now, with Santa's Cookies, available in a range of flavors (charcoal, sour milk, toad's finger, bat droppings), you can consume cookies till you burst and still be able to slip easily into last year's skinny jeans. With recipes under patent, Santa's Cookies will revolutionize weight loss and finally put an end to the growing obesity epidemic that has been plaguing the first world since McDonald's invented fries and food companies learned to drown food's natural flavor in sugar.

Santa in Shondaland: Santa has signed up to star in two new Shondaland series: How to Get Away with Murder while you are Delivering Toys and Santa's Anatomy. Both will air in 2018, and while we are not allowed to share any spoilers, suffice it to say that the first is a storyline about Santa delivering toys to the White House, and the second is X rated.


Sexual Harassment - Santa under fire
Like most of today's male celebrities and prominent political figures, Santa too has been under fire for alleged sexual misconduct. Following a complaint by a (now retired) female elf of inappropriate personal contact and sexist language by Santa, a further 4,534 female elves have now registered complaints with the Santa Ethical Conduct Authority for misconduct between the years 1843 and 2013. Santa maintains that he has the highest respect for all his elves, male and female, and has no recollection of any inappropriate behavior on his part. Santa apologizes if any of the elves got the wrong impression at any time as he would never wish to offend. Litigation is ongoing but in the meantime, Santa expects to continue delivering toys and making children happy. He is hoping that, if he continues with business as usual, it will all just go away. The fact that the new hashtag #MeToo:Elf is trending on Twitter might indicate that this strategy has some holes in it.

Safety first: toys we delisted this year
In an ongoing effort to ensure the toys Santa distributes are safe for all children, we have taken bold steps to delist the following toys from our distribution this year:

  • Motorized alligators with moving jaws and real teeth (423 toddlers now only have nine fingers)
  • Doctor sets with real opioids (the grown-ups kept playing with it)
  • High-flying drones with magnifying photo lenses (too many complaints from neighbors who left bedroom curtains open)
  • High-bouncing trampolines (85 toddlers reported sighted in outer space) 
  • Build the Eiffel Tower with matchsticks construction kit (Eiffel Tower kept burning down during construction)
Diversity in the Workplace
This year, Santa introduced a new approach to diversity in the workplace. Neurodiversity is a competitive advantage  says the Harvard Business Review. Neurodiverse people bring different considerations to the workplace and seriously boost innovation. When looking for neurodiverse elves, we found that we had to adapt our regular recruitment procedures. Now, instead of having elf candidates take a multiple-choice test, similar to the GRI Standards Exam, which is a pretty useless predictor of their ability to perform Santa's outstanding work, we actually get to know the neurodiverse elves and encourage them to feel welcomed and express themselves freely. So far, we have recruited 4 neurodiverse elves and they are already making a positive contribution and we were delighted to feature in Diversity Inc.'s list of top 500 neurodiverse workplaces for 2017. In fact, we are now considering expanding our neurodiverse recruiting practices to all potential elf employees. Perhaps there might be some advantage in seeing all potential employees as individuals rather than as numbers on a resume. You never know. We can only try. 
 
Recognition from our Stakeholders 
As usual, this year, we received far more awards than we are able to mention in this report. Suffice it to say that the most welcome ones included a cash payment to the Santa Retirement Fund.

Feedback on this Report 
We will be happy to receive your feedback on this report, as long as it's positive.




So, until we meet again.....

We Wish You and Everyone in the World a Happy Holiday Season and a Happy New Year 

πŸŽ„πŸŽ„πŸŽ„πŸŽ…πŸŽ…πŸŽ…πŸŽ…πŸŽ…πŸŽ…πŸŽ…πŸŽ…πŸŽ…πŸŽ…πŸŽ…πŸŽ„πŸŽ„πŸŽ„








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

Elaine will be chairing  the edie Conference on Smarter Sustainability Reporting  in London on 27th February 2018 






Monday, December 1, 2014

419,317 reasons to report on sustainability

At Sodexo, every employee counts, and the company aims to engage every employee in the organization's corporate responsibility efforts. Sodexo is a great example of where the reporting process has become an empowering element of corporate practice, rather than just a document to show to external stakeholders at the end of the annual cycle.

Sodexo is one of the largest companies in the world by employee headcount (the 18th largest private employer), with 419,317 people on board at the end of fiscal 2014, working across more than 33,200 sites. More than 95% of Sodexo employees are in daily contact with clients and serve 75 million consumers each day in 80 countries.  Sodexo provides "Quality of Life services" which includes diversified outsourcing services, benefits and reward services, and personal and home services, adding value to the work and well-being of people in a wide variety of organizations from offices to hospitals to universities and more. In this size and scale of organization, implementing a global strategy is complex and not without a range of unique challenges, especially when most of the sites your employees operate from belong to clients.

Sodexo's reporting reflects this size and scale. Headquartered in France, Sodexo publishes an annual integrated report (Registration Document) that conforms to the French Grenelle II disclosure requirements, and also includes just about everything everyone might want to know, and yet, remains accessible and interesting to read (all 372 pages... well, almost all). Aside from financials and Grenelle II, the Registration Document references GRI G4 guidelines, ISO 26000 standard and the UN Global Compact principles, bringing everything together in a single content index.


What makes this report fascinating, however, is the way sustainability is embedded as part of the core approach as well as a business discipline that is managed and led right from the tone at the top. With a business mission that is a social mission as well - to improve the Quality of Life of our employees and all those we serve - applicable both internally and externally, Sodexo's sustainable development journey is aligned in all respects. The opening statement from the company's founder and chairman, Pierre Bellon, is well worth a read - describing a life-philosophy as well as an approach to sustainable business growth that many would do well to learn from. His personal and business insights are quite inspiring - including ten important trends that are shaping the way business develops, and five important priorities for Sodexo.

Within the report, there are many (many!) short case studies and insights about how Sodexo's work is making a difference ... from supporting the IBM LEED certified Technology Center in Chile, to winning a workplace foodservices award in Scotland to providing Quality of Life services including health and safety programs for offshore drilling fleets to foodservices for the mining industry in Mozambique to supporting prisoner rehabilitation in UK prisons to supporting environmentally childcare facilities in France. The diversity of clients and nature of services provided is quite incredible. And while these are all core business services for Sodexo, they all fall under the umbrella of improving Quality of Life. That also makes them sustainability services.

Sodexo's CSR approach is brought together under its corporate responsibility roadmap: the Better Tomorrow Plan, which has its own dedicated section in the Registration Document a robust section on Sodexo's website. With many stories of how the Better Tomorrow Plan is put into practice around the world, the Registration Document details Sodexo's actions within its priorities to employees, promote nutrition, health and wellness, support local communities and protect the environment. The company also maintains and hosts a separate, independent website that presents thought leadership relating to Quality of Life.

A chat with Sodexo
In the run-up to the fourth annual Smarter Sustainability Conference in London on 24th February 2015, which I chair, I took the opportunity to talk to Neil Barrett,  Sodexo's Group Vice President Sustainable Development. 

ME: How do you get such a massive, sprawling and complex organization like Sodexo aligned behind a cohesive sustainability approach?

NEIL: "One of the key developments of the group has been the greater alignment on sustainable development actions. Some years ago, we created the Better Tomorrow Plan. It was eighteen months in the making. We undertook a huge engagement and dialogue program with stakeholder groups to make sure we understood the issues that were important to them. When we launched this roadmap in 2009, one of the things we did right, in retrospect, was to devote the first year to getting our people on board. Because of scale of breadth of our organization, we took a solid twelve months to engage people internally on why this was important, what our priorities are and the commitments we undertook. That was time well invested. It also allowed us to establish a baseline on our various commitments across 33,000 different sites where our people work. Because we are represented on client sites, the reporting challenge for us is heightened versus organizations that have operations within facilities they directly control or operate. As we provide our services on client sites, it took some time to understand what we should report on, what we can control and influence and how we should measure our performance for our own benefit and for the benefit of our clients."

ME: How do you manage to maintain consistency and discipline around reporting and performance management?

NEIL: "We have two kinds of indicators: Progress indicators and impact indicators. In the area of progress indicators, we have created a level of awareness around expected behaviors - what actions our employees can take on site to help improve our clients' sustainability performance. We have equipped our site managers with all they need to support sustainability processes at clients' sites and manage how we engage with the client. On the impact indicators side, we look to see how we measure the impact of our actions for our clients or consumers. Additionally, we established an effective governance structure right from the beginning. It has stood us fairly well over the past five years and we are able to report our progress in a consistent way. Every year we survey all our sites for information about their sustainable development activities and this is then consolidated at a regional and group level. We get a range of information about the environmental aspects of our activities and impacts on our clients. We put this system in place back in 2009. Actually it has stood us in very good stead for the introduction of the French Commercial Code Grenelle II Act in France in 2012. We already had everything in place to be able to report."


ME: Is all the effort collecting data worth it?

NEIL: "Each year we review our progress and what we have achieved, but it is not just about reporting. It's about engagement. Our reporting processes help our people understand the reasons they are taking action, what areas they should be focusing on and where they need to go if they need guidance. The data we collect helps us create site-based reports. Each site manager gets a report that is designed for sharing with the client, showing comparative performance and benchmarks with other sites. It shows how the site is performing or even under-performing. The site managers are able to provide clients with details that help engage the client in discussion with our site teams. This becomes an ongoing dialogue which ensures we all focus on achieving the right outcomes for all parties. This goes right back to the launch of the Better Tomorrow Plan and its governance. We have more than 100 Better Tomorrow Champions in the business who help facilitate these processes. You can imagine that they are very active at reporting time! For us, this is all about engagement, reporting, serving our clients better, empowering our people and making a positive contribution. Ultimately it supports improving Quality of Life. So, yes, it's worth it."

ME: What else has worked well?

NEIL: "One of the very pleasing outcomes this year has been that Sodexo was awarded Sector Leadership in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index for the 10th consecutive year. As standards and expectations have evolved we have been able to maintain our industry leadership position. Such external recognition validates our approach and efforts and also reinforces the fact that we are moving in the right direction. We were also awarded this year the sector leader and most-improved company in the CDP Forests Report. And many other recognitions. I have to say that this is also increasingly being viewed by clients as important. It's a ticket to play. Clients want to deal with companies that can demonstrate a commitment to sustainability and corporate responsibility and can assist them in their sustainability journey."

ME: How do you manage to report everything in one integrated document? You have so much going on….

NEIL: "It's been a challenge to pull everything together in the one document, but we have invested the time to consolidate everything into one report. We used to produce a number of different annual reports. Consolidating everything is much clearer both for us and for our audiences. The drive for simplification has helped. With a myriad of metrics, it helps give us a better sense of what we are doing and achieving. We have also tried to make it accessible – communicating in a way that people can understand. We are now in the process of doing a materiality refresh… some themes have moved around but, by and large, the issues and priorities mainly are just as valid today as they were some years ago. Some of our targets will be completed by 2015, and we are now looking towards setting new ones for the coming years to continue our progress."

**********

I am looking forward to meeting Neil at the 4th annual Smarter Sustainability Reporting Conference.



He'll be speaking on "Leading ways to measure corporate responsibility impacts". Judging by our conversation, he'll have a whole lot more to share. Don't miss it!

PS: I want to thank John Friedman, Sodexo's Corporate Responsibility Communications Director, who is also long-time social media buddy and prominent writer, blogger and commentator, for connecting me with Neil. Check out John's writings at the Huffington Post.



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).  Check out our G4 Report Expert Analysis Service - for published G4 reports or pre-publication - write to Elaine at info@b-yond.biz to help make your G4 reporting  even better. 

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

GRI vs IIRC vs SASB: Round Nine. All lose.

We are witnessing a leadership battle for ownership of sustainability transparency and it's not a good thing. Instead of playing to everyone's strengths, we are risking moving the needle back to only one strength. The state of everyone's bank account. The battle is being played out on the respective turfs of the IIRC, SASB and the GRI, where IIRC and SASB are focused on what investors want to know in order to make more money and GRI is focused on what companies are doing to the world that makes it more or less sustainable. If I were a publicly listed corporation, I would probably find myself rather confused, amused or bemused.

Creating a harmonized corporate transparency pathway which enables consistent and non-overlapping disclosure frameworks does not need to be a lost cause, although it looks that way at present. Even the definition of a core concept such as materiality is not consistent across these three leading organizations, as explained eloquently by Dunstan Alliston-Hope and Guy Morgan of BSR in a great article to which I have referred in the past.

As I was considering this fascinating state of affairs, I noticed that a few other accomplished experts have also discussed what Dwayne Baraka calls the disconnect in ESG reporting. In an article which outlines the strengths and weaknesses of the IIRC, SASB and GRI frameworks, Dwayne concludes that "each of the approaches will add something to various types of investors, and dialogue might increase, but companies and investors need to be involved if CEOs and responsible investors are to have a meeting of minds on the state of ESG reporting." Another article, by Cornis van der Lugt, an independent consultant and researcher with a sharp mind, was published back in May 2013, just after G4 was revealed, entitled "Time to align forces". This was his first message of caution: "Used in combination, IR1 [Integrated Reporting Framework version 1] and G4 can have significant impact on measurement and disclosure by companies world-wide. Yet used non-aligned, and perceived to be competing, years of work on non-financial reporting and corporate sustainability may be lost."  Cornis goes on to present a fabulous evaluation of the IIRC and G4 frameworks and even offers his updated comparative analysis of both freely to all those who are interested. 

However, even before the pronouncements on the state of affairs post-G4, the chronology of this leadership battle for corporate sustainability transparency was already apparent. These are my observations from afar and some, possibly irreverent and highly subjective assumptions about what's been going on. 

Integrated Reporting is in the air. The May 2010 GRI conference ended up with CEO Ernst Ligteringen making a bold if not rather surprising declaration to 1,200 participants from over 70 countries. Two goals for the GRI.

(1) By 2015, all large and medium-size companies in OECD countries and large emerging economies should be required to report on their Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) performance and, if they do not do so, to explain why.
(2) By 2020, there should be a generally accepted and applied international standard which will effectively integrate financial and ESG reporting by all organizations.

This second element, the surprising one, was clearly an expectation that GRI would become an integral part of the fabric of anything the IIRC would eventually come up with. It was also a clear expectation that it was going to take quite some time - ten years to develop an international standard for integrated reporting. 

This was the twilight period. Everyone was optimistic that we could have it all. Eventually.



There was a big buzz of excitement and anticipation when the IIRC was formed in 2010, called at the time the International Integrated Reporting Committee, with a lot of support from Prince Charles, who was moving full steam ahead with the Accounting for Sustainability Project at the time. IIRC (renamed in 2012 to Council rather than Committee) was chaired by Professor Mervyn E. King, the then Chair of GRI. Was this a conflict of interest? Apparently not at the time, when, to all onlookers, GRI and IIRC were completely full of themselves and of each other, and travelling along apparently parallel paths, euphorically optimistic that the solution to all the world's ills had been found in Integrated Reporting of the kind that would be jointly owned and nurtured by GRI with the IIRC filling in the gaps and making the connection to investors. 

Soon the landscape would look rather different. However, three GRI places were on the original steering committee and working group of IIRC, and the shared objective to create a globally accepted standard for accounting for sustainability was the glue that stuck everyone together. (Apart from money of course. Let's not forget that the original IIRC governance bodies were composed of 53 members of whom 31 (58%) represented financial services institutions or associations or the financial function of corporations in one way or another. Contrast this with the governance bodies of the Global Reporting Initiative which has always been a collection of elected representatives from corporations, NGOs, labor institutions, academic institutions, consulting firms and individual experts, representing all corners of the sustainability spectrum including human rights, environmental protection, labor standards, economic development and more. IIRC and SASB are squarely focusing on an investor audience and therefore target publicly traded companies, while GRI is focusing on any and all audiences, and therefore targets all organizations, including government agencies, SMEs, non-profits and trade associations who are not required to deliver Annual Reports, integrated or otherwise).  

The creation of IIRC was not entirely out of the blue. It followed the publication of the campaign book, One Report, by Eccles and Krusz, a heroic, if not a little rose-colored, effort to extol the benefits of integrated reporting, and the announcement of the South African Stock Exchange in June 2010, that listed companies would be required to deliver an integrated report if they wanted to stay listed, a coup-de-grace for non-reporting companies, masterminded by Mervyn King, the leading light in creating a pre-global South African Integrated Reporting Committee. The fact that King would ultimately find his home at the helm of the IIRC was probably not yet entirely predictable as, at this point, all seemed hunky-dory on the reporting horizon.  

In the GRI 2010-2011 Year in Review, the optimistic intertwining of IIRC and GRI is evident: "GRI’s Reporting Guidelines offer comprehensive and trusted guidance for sustainability reporting, and are an excellent tool for progressing towards integrated reports. GRI also aims for its Guidelines to be a provider of robust content for the forthcoming integrated reporting framework. GRI is present in the IIRC’s Secretariat and Committee, and in its content Working Groups and task forces."


Leaving the GRI to go dedicated at the IIRC, Mervyn King signals where he sees the future. Optimistic nevertheless that this is a shared future, GRI makes King an Honorary Chairman and says: "Professor Mervyn King has been an outstanding Chairman for the Global Reporting Initiative, pushing the sustainability reporting agenda forwards in pursuit of a sustainable global economy. GRI congratulates Professor King on his new appointment and as an active member of the International Integrated Reporting Committee the GRI is looking forward to continue to work closely with Professor King in the important endeavor of promoting the development of Integrated Reporting."  Nonetheless, this divorce, amicable though it may be, sends a message to the aspiring Integrated Reporters of the world: Investors are King. (No pun intended). The Chief Exec of GRI, Ernst Ligteringen, however, remains in the loop as a Board Member of IIRC with its reorganization in late 2011.

During the period up to the publication of the Integrated Reporting Framework in December 2013, IIRC is generating quick wins and momentum for integrated reporting. It gets the concept on the agenda at Rio, and a declaration (the famous Paragraph 47) which talks of "integrating" sustainability information in to the reporting cycle", publishes a draft integrated reporting framework for public comment and a consultation draft and establishes alliances and memorandums and a pilot program and more. Driving forward relentlessly, IIRC pretty well overlooks, it seems, a similar major reporting event which is taking place at the same time. The new-improved GRI Reporting Framework. 

Round Four:  Mid 2012 Enter SASB

In October 2012, the newly-formed full-of-promise Sustainability Accounting Standards Board put out a press release claiming that "SASB will be the U.S. voice for material non-financial issues and how to recognize and account for them as part of corporate reporting." With bold plans to create a Materiality Map and a series of sector-based standards that identify material non-financial issues that should be included in mandatory reporting by publicly traded companies, SASB starts to shake up the mix. Notably at this point, SASB maintains a distance both from GRI and from IIRC, carving a place for itself on the reporting landscape which will rather disturb the status quo and leave corporations even more challenged and possibly, amused, bemused or confused.

Round Five: February 2013 IIRC and GRI agree to agree

Just as both GRI and IIRC are developing their respective frameworks, an MOU is signed between the two organizations, declaring that both parties will proactively engage with each other by sharing information and striving for "complementarity" in their respective frameworks. Shame they didn't agree to agree on a definition of materiality. That would have been an MOU with teeth. Instead, GRI made some more tangible resource commitments to IIRC. IIRC made rather fewer to GRI.


Round Six : May 2013 GRI good news

May 2013 was alive with the sound of eager applause at the GRI conference in Amsterdam, hailing the new G4 as the superhero way forward for sustainability reporting, with a materiality focus, and a shorter, sharper, cleaner, quicker way to relevant corporate transparency. Although ditching comparability, the process-oriented G4 framework was seen by (almost) all as a massive improvement on previous GRI reporting framework iterations and would substantively change sustainability reporting for the better. Oops. Just one thing missing. Despite the stated objective of creating a sort of plug-and-play sustainability element which would fit snugly into integrated reports, by "offering guidance on how to link the sustainability reporting process to the preparation of an Integrated Report aligned with the guidance to be developed by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC)" the G4 framework excluded all serious mention and reference to integrated reporting and all guidance relating to the process linkage. Why? Well, the IIRC was powering up full steam ahead with its own framework, and apparently didn't have the time to stop to think about how G4 could work to its advantage. Or it thought that G4 wouldn't work to its advantage. The official line was that the timelines for these two developments were different.  


In 2013, GRI also demonstrated an interest in the progress of integrated reporting and led a piece of research which examined the sustainability perspectives of existing integrated reporters and other experts. One of the key conclusions placed G4 squarely into the round integrated reporting peg, describing GRI as "a compass of sustainability" saying that "Some of them [reporters] want to see GRI hone key performance indicators specifically from the perspective of integrated reporters. Others appreciate how GRI ‘opens their eyes’ to the breadth of potential sustainability concerns for their business, and find the GRI reporting process a good reference point as they construct an integrated report. As one pioneer put it: ‘GRI guidelines helped us right from the start to answer the question: what does it take to be a sustainable company?’"

Round Seven:  December 2013 IIRC Framework Publication

Hot on the heels of the publication of the G4 Framework came the IIRC Framework, in December 2013, announcing that the framework marks "an important milestone in the market-led evolution of corporate reporting." The definition of the Integrated Report, in the framework is: "a concise communication about how an organization’s strategy, governance, performance and prospects, in the context of its external environment, lead to the creation of value over the short, medium and long term." And we are left in no doubt about who the Integrated Report is designed to communicate this to: "The primary purpose of an integrated report is to explain to providers of financial capital how an organization creates value over time. It therefore contains relevant information, both financial and other."   Conspicuous by its omission in the < IR > Framework is any mention whatsoever of GRI. The word "sustainability" appears only twice. There can be no mistake that Integrated Reporting is not about sustainability impacts. It's about helping investors make financial decisions. If it happens that a sustainability impact is so unquestioningly obviously financially material, then it will merit inclusion in the integrated thinking and writing of the Integrated Report. Regrettably, or otherwise, that may exclude most of what is included in sustainability reporting. 

The < IR > framework ignores GRI, MOU or otherwise. GRI believes that sustainability reporting is a prerequisite for integrated reporting but in fact, it's not. Because nowhere in GRI - or in G4 - is the link explicitly made between sustainability issues and business profitability or shareholder return. And nowhere in < IR > is the link explicitly made between sustainability impacts and financial outcomes. Perhaps it's time we stopped thinking of Integrated Reporting as an evolution of both Annual and Sustainability Reporting and accept that reality is different. Integrated Reporting plays an important role in filling in the gap between top line and bottom line, and ensuring that the value-creation radar screen is not too narrow. Sustainability Reporting plays an important role in ensuring companies account for their impacts on all stakeholders. These are two purposes, two roles and despite the existence of a compelling connection between the two, no organization has successfully delivered a framework which encompasses both in a substantive way. 


And still, the MOU game continues. This month saw the signing of an MOU between the IIRC and SASB "to more closely collaborate to advance the evolution of corporate disclosure and communicate value to investors...... Among other measures, SASB and the IIRC agree to strive for complementarity and compatibility in the ongoing development of their respective frameworks, guidelines and standards, and take proactive measures to share the work of the other organization." There's that complementarity thing again. If only we could save the world by signing MOUs and preaching complementarity, we would all be able to sit back and take a long rest by now.

Round Nine: Here we are. All Lose

So far, in eight rounds, no single framework has emerged a clear winner. Sustainability Reporting is firmly entrenched and G4 is looking promising with uptake starting to emerge. The token number, growing though it may be, of integrated reports, some of which are evidence of integrated thinking and some of which are evidence of little thinking, is unlikely to increase substantially unless we see that investors are not only demanding, but using, these wonderful new documents. SASB is a great concept and has made fabulous progress in practice, but we have yet to see the detailed SASB standards being widely applied in any sector. In short, the fragmentation and apparently competitive battle for sustainability transparency leadership has not yet favored any of the protagonists in an outright way, which might suggest that time and energies might be more productively used in working together rather than working apart.

Perhaps it is time that the leadership of the IIRC, GRI, SASB and even the UNGC - there's room in the corner - meet together at a Complementarity Retreat (no MOU necessary) and emerge with a set of agreed action items:

(1) Recognize that G4, < IR > Framework and SASB Standards CAN each deliver unique and equally valuable elements of corporate transparency and accountability.
(2) Harmonize the definition of sustainable business materiality and other key definitions across all frameworks.
(3) Agree that < IR > is the standard for Integrated Reporting and that, as such, it must include a reporting against a set of common core sustainability material issues relevant to all businesses with linkage to business outcomes and financials, with harmonized performance indicators and methodologies to measure these.
(4) Agree that G4 is the standard for sustainability reporting and that the material issues identified through the sustainability process must reference business outcomes, irrespective of where they occur in the value chain. Companies producing only one (integrated) report would be advised to include core material issues as identified in (3) above, and a set of sustainability material issues as required by G4.
(5) Agree that SASB have got the sector materiality process nailed, and encourage the adoption, with perhaps some adaptation for non-U.S. non-publicly traded entities, of SASB standards in integrated and sustainability reporting without duplicating all that's being done in separate processes.
(7) Agree to do things once and not three times, where reasonably possible.
(8) Agree to be inclusive and not competitive, while retaining focus, where reasonably possible. 
(6) Have a celebratory ice cream, and get to work. 






elaine cohen, CSR consultant, winning (CRRA'12) Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of Understanding G4: the Concise guide to Next Generation Sustainability Reporting  AND  Sustainability Reporting for SMEs: Competitive Advantage Through Transparency AND CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices . Contact me at www.twitter.com/elainecohen   or via my business website www.b-yond.biz   (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm)

Sunday, December 29, 2013

The Top Ten CSR Reports of 2013


It wouldn't be year-end without a flurry of year-end posts, among them my pick for the Top Ten Reports. For previous selections, see posts covering the Top Tens in 2010, 2011 and 2012. My selection is always based on reports that cross my radar throughout the year, not a scientific or strict methodical evaluation of the report quality. However, as I have done for the past couple of years, I use the AIM MODEL to consider the reports that I found worthy of mention. It's always tough to restrict myself to ten reports. I browse, review, read and use hundreds of reports each year, and there is always something positive that can be said about every single report. Each report adds value in its own way, and each report is evidence of progress. Therefore, in mentioning a mere ten reports of the thousands that were published in 2013, I do reporting somewhat of an injustice. On the other hand, highlighting these ten reports and their unique elements may provide insights and inspiration for new reporters, or potentially better reporters. In any event, this is always a post I find both challenging and fun all at the same time. 

Here is a quick reminder of my AIM MODEL: 

Authenticity: I look for whether the company has reported in an honest way, using stakeholder voices to supplement performance data. Authenticity for me includes balance, accuracy and completeness. I look for targets and progress against stated targets. 
Materiality: I look for whether the company has clearly defined the most important issues for the company and its stakeholders and described the way in which those issues have been identified and prioritized. Reporting materiality should also include a certain amount of contextual information which can assist us in understanding the issues and why they are material. 
Impacts: I look for whether the company identified impacts rather than just presenting a shopping list of activities. This means discussing the outcomes of what was achieved. The outcomes are the achievement, not the activities. This is by far the most difficult thing for companies to address and very few, if any, do it well.

And, in alpha order by company name, my top-ten-pick:

GRI B, 43 pages


This is a well-written and nicely laid out second report from this agricultural equipment company, and it contains all the elements of an AIM Model report. There is a description of the company's value chain, and a nice materiality matrix, which shows not only the different issues but also the level of control that AGCO has in managing these impacts.


The report opens up with a Q&A in which the CEO gives a solid round-up of the issues that the company faces as a business, interlinked with the sustainability issues that are part of the company's approach. A clear set of multi-year sustainability goals and performance against these goals in the reporting year shows you that you are reading a report from a company that is serious about sustainability. The section on Food for Thought provides some context for the issues that are material for AGCO, and serves as a platform for the remaining elements of the report, which is structured around six core issues (food security, climate and energy, values and workplace, resource management, supply chain, community relations). Despite covering a lot of ground, this report is succinct and makes for both an informative and interesting read. 

GRI Undeclared, 66 pages, first time report


A report which boldly aspires to help create a "happy, empowered and sustainable life for everyone" in big red letters on the cover page cannot fail to catch my attention. The colorful, playful design of this report  reinforces the message and draws attention to the narrative.





It's a first report, so usually we cut a little slack as first reports are always backbreaking. However, Bharti Airtel doesn't need a lot of slack as it has done a great job. The Chairman and CEO each make a good case for sustainability in the mobile communications sector in India, and the company's materiality matrix focuses the issues the company must address in its sustainability program. Airtel presents its "Blueprint for Social Inclusion" in this report, which was developed after an investment of several "happy and energetic man-hours". The blueprint includes three pillars, each of which has both a vision and an action approach. A supplier eco-system chart helps understanding of the complex interfaces and partnerships needs to maintain sustainable operations, and the employee engagement section is a refreshing look at how this company supports and empowers employees. This is a well-constructed, well-written and well-designed delight of a report. Take a look. 


G4, 13 pages


Although not a corporate report, and not even the best example of a G4 report, the City of Warsaw managed to deliver the first G4 report in the world, and that's an achievement. Despite a little clumsiness and short-changing of some of the more complex disclosures, it's a breakthrough report. Municipalities have great power in the example they can set for sustainable business, and the policy frameworks they can promote. This report delivered an earnest attempt to describe the city's journey to a more sustainable level of impact, and hopefully, is an encouragement to more cities and governments around the world to adopt both sustainability AND transparency. 

GRI A+, 70 pages, second integrated report



Impahla has been in two of my last three Top Ten picks, and I never fail to be amazed and inspired by the quality of reporting consistently delivered by this small, privately-owned, forward-thinking award-winning sports apparel SME company, led by William Hughes, a modest Kenyan-born businessman profiled by Marc Gunther in 2010.  In this 2013 report, Impahla demonstrates business expansion, improved results at all levels, and, a feature of Impahla's reporting through the years, great respect for the Impahla workforce. Directors of Impahla are hands-on shareowners, and this is one of the factors attributed to driving the company's success. Total transparency of the company's balance sheet and customer relationships shows a maturity that is rare in privately owned companies. Material issues are clearly stated and discussed in plain language, and the report is an enlightening, informative and interesting read. The play between high-level disclosures and details of operational activities, for example, incentivizing employees to turn up on time, is well done in this report, helping you understand the broad picture while remembering that the magic is in the detail. If Impahla ever chooses to add another business line, Sustainability Report creation just may be it. Read this report and be inspired. 

GRI B, 109 pages


You don't expect banks to be particularly creative or appealing in their sustainability reporting, so this report from ING in Poland stands out as an especially attractive. The artwork in this report is spectacular. See the stakeholder map below:


There are also some fabulous works of modern polish art that illustrate the report.




This is the first standalone sustainability report produced by ING bank, and it's a thorough presentation of sustainability issues and performance. The report content is  structured in four main sections: clients, employees, community and environment, and while there is no specific materiality matrix, strategic priorities with goals to 2015 are presented, together with progress made in 2012 in all four areas. The nicely gender-balanced management board each presents a perspective:



Data is creatively presented, in a way which makes you want to take an interest.




Not GRI, 56 pages



Kingfisher's Net Positive approach has been widely publicized this past year and has gained quite a lot of attention in sustainability circles. It is indeed an impressive approach, branded and presented impressively. The Net Positive plan has four pillars and the report discusses these in detail, providing contextual background, actions, goals and targets through to, in most cases, 2020.
  



Use of infographics to describe the issue, what Kingfisher has done so far, and how the company will reach each goal is attractive, and shows a well thought-through strategy. 



In addition to the four Net Positive pillars, Kingfisher has set targets in three additional areas: employees, suppliers and partners and environment. Quantitative multi-year targets are established in all three areas and 2012 progress is recorded. 

The report is also a celebration of employees and employee contribution to sustainable goals.




With monthly Net Positive progress reports being submitted to the Group Board, according to the report, the chances of making significant headway appear to be high. Kingfisher's approach is described by CEO Ian Cheshire: "We don’t have all the answers for how we’ll reach our goals. We need to find different approaches and business models, and to collaborate both internally and externally. By asking ourselves ‘How can we have a Net Positive impact?’ we will find new answers and ideas that will change our business for the better." That's one of the interesting things about sustainability. Just asking the question makes room for a different type of answer. The Net Positive approach of Kingfisher has all the ingredients of a smart way forward: clarity, focus, branded promise, action-orientation and consistency of communication. This builds trust in the Kingfisher program and in its report. It's a great example of good strategy, well articulated.



GRI B, 56 pages 
  

A regular award winner and focused reporter, the M&S Plan A Report does not mince words. It cuts straight to the chase of its multi-year, multi-action, seven pillar progress report, delivering results and outcomes, with just enough supporting narrative to allow you to understand the numbers. The PDF is fairly stuffed with data, while the online report offers a wealth of additional information in areas you may with to know more about. For example, if you want to meet the farmers who grow the asparagus that you buy in M&S foodhalls, click here. The massive impact M&S has throughout its value chain - including recreating a part of the English language with shwopping (described here on Greenbiz.com) and engaging millions of Brits who shwopped 3.8 million garments - is indisputable. From sustainable food supply, to sustainable retail outlets, traceability, store refrigeration, business travel, waste management, the M&S report is an example of what a determined retailer can do to advance sustainable business on many fronts. The consistency of reporting against Plan A over the years builds credibility and leadership in sustainability reporting. In 2013, M&S reports that Plan A generated its "biggest net benefit" to date, £135 million. If anyone thinks that being a responsible business is not worth the effort, then this is 135 million reasons to think again.

Not GRI, 70 pages

  
I couldn't not include this report this year, as an example of a great report from a company that produces a product that most of us wouldn't really associate with improving the quality of life and saving our planet. The spark plug. We all know what spark plugs do, sort of, and we have all probably been without the right one at the right time as some stage in our lives. However, I am not sure how many people realize just what a significant role they play! Spark plugs apparently have a right to their own Sustainability Report as do many other essential items of modern day life. The NGK Spark Plug company celebrates this modest little electronic component in a respectful and comprehensive way, presenting its 10 year plan to become a distinguished manufacturing company, highly profitable, progressive and emphasizing "personal assets". This demonstrates that CSR is relevant to any company and any product, even the ones we tend to take for granted. Any company who thinks the fact that their product is not Coca Cola, Vodafone, General Electric or any other Big Brand means that sustainability doesn't apply to them should read the NGK Spark Plug report. 

The PDF includes little yellow sticky note explanations of key terms - an afterthought maybe - but at least we know what they mean. There is also a glossary at the back of the report. 

An interesting feature of the report is the description of the portfolio and the relevance of spark plugs and other products in people's lives. You'd be surprised what this little things get into, as well as making car engines more efficient.



The report is dotted with "voices" - insights and perspectives from employees of the NGK Spark Plug company. It is always more credible to hear directly from company employees, rather than read long chunks of narrative. This gives spark plugs a face as well as a voice.

As is often the case in Asian reports, NGK includes a "Message from a Stakeholder". This is usually a positive commentary, and this is true of NGK's stakeholder commentary too. Even so, inclusion of external stakeholder comments is always a positive element in any report. NGK also includes responses to a feedback questionnaire from internal and external stakeholders about the prior report and the way the company has responded. A nice additional touch would be the number of responses received.  


GRI A+, 223 pages


PUMA had a tough year in 2012 with profit decline culminating in the departure of the CEO, Franz Koch. However, the pioneer of the Environmental Profit and Loss Account managed to deliver an upbeat report with great transparency in many areas. The absence of a statement about materiality in this report, despite the fact that the report assurance statement explicitly states that adherence to the materiality principle was assured, is rather irksome, but nonetheless, I feel that the work PUMA is doing and the clarity of its reporting is worth a Top Ten listing this year. The report is an integrated report, written for shareholders "and friends", covering the spectrum of sustainability-related themes and all financials, which is why, at 223 pages, it's still a manageable read if you do so selectively. For example, the People@Puma Section is a good discussion or organizational development and people empowerment, and the PUMA.Safe Humanity Section covering the outsourced supply chain operations is a strong review of related issues. The PUMA.Peace section is an inspiring look at the way PUMA uses its business strengths to promote a more peaceful world.  


Not GRI, Integrated Report, 122 pages


I blogged about this report recently, and it continues to stick in my mind as a report which delivers clarity, authenticity, material focus and reporting of outcomes. In fact, it's an excellent example of the AIM Model.  The graphics are well delivered, supporting the narrative, and the theme of the report, "Imagine", is rather uplifting. The materiality disclosures are well described, including explanations of why the issues are important, what the Crown Estate is doing about them, and where performance metrics and additional narrative can be found in the report. 


NB As usual, to be fair, I did not include reports that I have worked on or from other clients or affiliate or parent companies. If I were to do that, I wouldn't have room for any other reports ha-ha. But it also shows you how magnanimous we are on the CSR Reporting Blog :)) Gotta give 'n take a little in life, right?  

Happy Reporting in 2014, everyone! Here's to the next Top Ten.






elaine cohen, CSR consultant, winning (CRRA'12) Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of Understanding G4: the Concise guide to Next Generation Sustainability Reporting  AND  Sustainability Reporting for SMEs: Competitive Advantage Through Transparency AND CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices . Contact me at www.twitter.com/elainecohen   or via my business website www.b-yond.biz   (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm)

Related Posts with Thumbnails