Ajinomoto: Courageous reporting practice

I have always admired the Ajinomoto company of Japan, and back in 2010, I published a review of Ajinomoto's 2009 report. This time, five years later, I returned to Ajinomoto, at the company's request, to review the most recent 2014 Sustainability Report covering fiscal 2013 activities and prepare a commentary for publication. And it was a great pleasure to do so. (I have fond memories of visiting the Ajinomoto offices and factories in Tokyo back in the 1990s at a time when I had never even heard the terms Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability. The strong positive impressions of the way Ajinomoto works and warm hospitality of the totally wonderful people I met there remain with me today).  

Ajinomoto is no stranger to Sustainability Reporting. Ajinomoto started publishing an annual Environmental Report in 2001 and then in 2004, published a first CSR Report, demonstrating a commitment to a broader concept of CSR, beyond the scope of environmental stewardship alone. Through 2004 - 2011, Ajinomoto published two reports in tandem, until in 2012, the group made the transition to publishing one Sustainability Report encompassing the full spectrum of disclosures. The 2014 Sustainability Report is the third full Sustainability Report. 

This current report tells a strong story of Ajinomoto's contribution to healthy eating and healthy living. Ajinomoto has a well-defined approach to sustainability that has two broad elements: sustainable contribution and responsible behavior.

My commentary is on page 141:

Here it is in full:

"

In today’s world, it is not enough to simply be a food or food-ingredient producer. Leading companies view their contribution to society more holistically by identifying and managing the impacts they generate throughout their entire value chain. Such companies, for example, strive to educate consumers and help them adopt healthier and more sustainable lifestyles. In addition, leading companies aspire to conduct their business in an ethical and responsible way. Ajinomoto’s 2014 Sustainability Report addresses both of these aspects of sustainable business. The first part of the report represents Ajinomoto’s three broad areas of contribution: promoting healthy living, conserving food resources and advancing global sustainability. The second part of the report describes Ajinomoto’s responsible practices using the ISO26000 as a framework approach. 

Overall, this is a comprehensive report that covers all the issues we might expect a food company to address, including nutrition and lifestyle, the use of technology and science to improve resource efficiency, sustainable agriculture and land-use, governance, compliance, human rights and employee engagement, health and safety. In all areas, Ajinomoto demonstrates a strong understanding of what’s at stake and what, as a food company, it can and should contribute. Evidence of stakeholder dialogue adds credibility to Ajinomoto’s selection of areas where the company can add value. 

Some of Ajinomoto’s activities are particularly impressive. The company’s investment in externally assured lifecycle carbon footprinting across seven key seasoning ingredients demonstrates advanced commitment to understanding and improving resource efficiency throughout the value chain. Ajinomoto’s approach to circular resource use – using by-products of amino-acid production as fertilizer for crop sources for amino-acids - is an example of sustainable practice. Demonstrating the environmental benefits of amino-acids in feed for livestock supports sustainable agriculture. Innovations in sustainable packaging, including the use of biomass plastic, are leading edge. The extensive engagements in a range of countries to improve nutrition in the Ajinomoto International Cooperation Network for Nutrition and Health (AIN) program show a real commitment to adding value to society. 

One of the challenges of sustainable business is measuring the impacts of company activities and their effects on people, society and the environment. It is not enough to focus on, and report, what you are doing. The real measure of progress is what changes as a result of what you do. In this context, I believe Ajinomoto could go further in identifying and measuring the outcomes of its activities and reporting these outcomes to stakeholders. For example, Ajinomoto relates stories of how the company provides new food alternatives for consumers in Brazil and Pakistan and advances material and infant nutrition in Ghana. These initiatives are commendable but the real question is: how are they actually improving lives and to what extent? Reporting evidence of change as a result of these initiatives would help us appreciate Ajinomoto’s efforts and understand the true value of the company’s contribution to improving healthy lifestyles. 

Similarly, Ajinomoto’s work in sustainable sourcing of skipjack tuna, palm oil, paper and coffee beans is described in the report and Ajinomoto’s initiatives here are impressive. However, reporting actual consumption of these resources and the percentage of each that is sourced sustainably would help clarify the extent of Ajinomoto’s progress. 

While Ajinomoto provides a comprehensive report, it is long. This is partly due to the inclusion of extensive background narrative for the issues Ajinomoto addresses in the report. An understanding of relevant context is important, but it is performance and outcomes that stakeholders need to understand. In future reporting, I believe this narrative could be significantly reduced in a much shorter report that focuses on what matters. Similarly, the report describes policies and approaches in detail, sometimes excessively, without following through on performance. For example, Ajinomoto notes an intention to "promote more women to management positions". Women employees account for just 27% of Ajinomoto’s global workforce and 15% of managers. For a company whose products are largely targeted at women, there is an opportunity to reinforce Ajinomoto’s commitment to women (and therefore society as a whole) by outlining clear plans of action with goals and targets. Another example relates to employee safety. Ajinomoto’s safety data shows that safety of workers outside Japan is far less positive than in Japan. With 65% of Ajinomoto’s permanent workforce outside Japan, reporting a specific plan to address safety at a global level would seem imperative. I would recommend Ajinomoto to consider this in its next report. 

Alongside this, few truly long-term aspirations are presented. Sustainable business goes beyond a three year management plan, and sustainable change takes longer to achieve, especially in a company as dynamic and complex as Ajinomoto. I recommend Ajinomoto to develop a core set of targets to 2020 that can be used to drive, measure and report future progress. Ajinomoto has been around for 105 years. Ajinomoto’s commitment to sustainable business and transparency gives me confidence that the company will be around for at least another 105 years. Therefore, a longer planning and target-setting horizon would be welcome.

"

The practice of asking independent experts from around the world to review and comment on a Sustainability Report is quite widespread among Asian reporters. While an external commentary is not exactly "engagement" in the fullest sense of the word (and does not replace ongoing stakeholder engagement), there is something rather courageous about asking independent experts to review and comment on a Sustainability Report, and then publishing their independent commentaries in full. I can confirm that Ajinomoto published my comments with no editing, and did not try to influence me in any way about what to write or what to focus on. The only limitation I was given was a word-count. 

I was also happy to read three additional expert commentaries in the same 2014 Ajinomoto report.

• Deborah Leipziger, Professor at Hult International Business School and a Senior Fellow at the Lewis Institute at Babson College.
• Mark Feldman, Managing Director of Cause Consulting.
• Dr. Wong Lai Yong, Founder of First Penguin and social responsibility and human resources development consultant.

All three experts provided a truly interesting and diverse range of insights that are well worth reading. Ajinomoto's openness in requesting and publishing such commentaries is to be admired, though, one hopes, that these will not remain at the level of words on pages. Each expert articulated different pieces of very practical advice to assist Ajinomoto in its ongoing reporting journey. The hope is that this advice and guidance will be carefully analyzed within the Ajinomoto reporting team and company management, and that, where relevant, suggestions may be adopted to help make Ajinomoto's next report even more relevant and useful to stakeholders.

I look forward to seeing the next Ajinomoto Sustainability Report. In the meantime, Ajinomoto's current report provides, in the words of Dr Wong Lai Yong, "a strong example that Ajinomoto is willing to walk the talk." 

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of Understanding G4: the Concise Guide to Next Generation Sustainability Reporting  AND  Sustainability Reporting for SMEs: Competitive Advantage Through Transparency AND CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices . Contact me via Twitter (@elainecohen)  or via my business website www.b-yond.biz   (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm).  Need help writing YOUR Sustainability Report? Contact elaine: info@b-yond.biz   

Sustainability: What the Numbers Tell You

Sustainability is not only about numbers. When all is said and done, sustainability is about people, community, society, collective responsibility and action, stories and interventions. But, sometimes, the numbers form a picture, and pictures can help us develop new insights and change our paradigms. And this can lead to new action. So,  when the The Conference Board, a non-profit organization which creates and disseminates knowledge about management and the marketplace to help executives make the right strategic decisions,  published a deep-dive study - perhaps the most comprehensive study available - of Sustainability Practices of thousands of companies around the world, containing more numbers about Sustainability Practices than I suspect you have ever seen in one place, you have to sit up and take notice. Ready?

The study is called Sustainability Practices 2012 Edition and is a 176 page epic, containing more data than anyone can absorb in one sitting and a wealth of relevant information for anyone interested in sustainability numbers, trends, areas of focus by sector and by subject, and opportunities to make a difference. The report was prepared in collaboration with Bloomberg, who runs one of the most extensive real-time financial and non-financial information networks to hundreds of thousands of subscribers, and with the GRI - no introduction necessary.

Sustainability Practices 2012 Edition is based on a global sample of 3000 business organizations tracked by Bloomberg's Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) database and covers 72 environmental and social practices including: atmospheric emissions, water consumption, biodiversity policies, labor standards, human rights practices, and charitable and political contributions. For benchmarking purposes, Bloomberg ESG data is compared with the S&P 500 (large capitalization U.S. companies) and the Russell 1000 (market cap-weighted index of U.S. companies), and further analyzed across 11 business sectors, using the CIGS code, and four revenue groups (under $1 billion, $10 billion, $100 billion and over $100 billion). The findings of the report are split into three broad areas: Disclosure Practices, Environment Practices and Social Practices.

Now for the numbers. Sitting up and taking notice?

19%

This is the overall social and environmental disclosure rate for companies in the global Bloomberg ESG 3000 Index, which is made up of largely non-U.S. companies. Does that surprise you? Only 574 companies out of a total 3,000 disclose on the full spectrum of 72 sustainability practices analyzed. This compares with 15% in the S&P 500 and 10% in the Russell 1000, showing that U.S. companies are lagging when it comes to overall sustainability disclosure. Match this with the next number:

25%

This is the number of companies in the Bloomberg ESG 3000 Index which released Sustainability Reports - 747 companies. More companies are reporting than disclosing. What does that tell us? That Sustainability Reporting is not delivering full transparency. In other words, just because it's called a Sustainability Report doesn't mean that it's transparent. By comparison, in the U.S., 45%  of the S&P 500 and 24% of the Russell 1000 publish reports. However, these indices are smaller and include large-cap, often global, companies, headquartered in the U.S., versus the Bloomberg Index which includes only 510 U.S. companies, 17% of the total 3000 sample. Overall the Bloomberg 3000 is weighted towards Japanese companies who have 27% of the sample, and with strong representation from India, China and the UK, and a host of other countries.  So Sustainability Reporting is more widespread globally than it is in the U.S. But that's not news. Match this with this next number:

80%

This is the rate of Sustainability Reporting for companies with more than $100 billion in annual revenues. Not surprising, perhaps, that this is a high figure. The larger the company, the greater its impacts, the more extensive its resources, the greater its risk exposure, the higher the expectations from stakeholders. However, 20% of these mega-corps are still resisting the reporting opportunity. The rate of Sustainability Reporting drops to 63% for companies over $10 billion, 25% for companies below $10 billion and only 4% for companies below $1 billion. $1 billion is still a heck of a company size and has potential for some serious impact. Who is chasing the other 96%? Match this with this next number:

46%

This is the rate of companies in the telecommunications services sector which publish Sustainability Reports. This is the highest reporting sector in the Bloomberg 3000. Contrary to the long-held view (and data) that financial services companies and energy companies have been leading the fray in sustainability reporting, only 20% and 25% respectively in these two sectors are publishing reports at a global level.

 Great work by telcos. What's driving this industry's reporting prowess? Match that with this number:

48%

This is the rate of telcos which use the GRI guidelines to report. Again, this is the highest rate of all sectors, with an overall average being 30%, generally lower than the hype would suggest. Consumer Discretionary and Information Technology companies have the lowest uptake rate of the GRI guidelines, at 27%.  Again, we find that the highest revenue companies are more likely to use GRI guidelines (66% - 23 companies) versus the lowest revenue companies (10% - 109 companies). The picture in the telecommunications sector is both of high disclosure and high use of the GRI guidelines. Telcos also have the highest rate of report verification and assurance at 26% (versus an overall average of 13%).  Match that with this number:

24%

telcos. No wonder it's so expensive to connect.  But take a look at these numbers:

54% - 43%

The numbers of women employed in the workforce and the numbers of women in management in the telco sector. Hah! One of my favorite indicators.  Not so rosy in the IT sector, where women make up 13% of the workforce and only 9% of management. Across all sectors, the lowest revenue group of companies has the highest proportion of women in management - 24%. Telcos stand out for positive diversity in other respects too - with 26% disabled employees, and 7% of minorities in management. Apparently, if you are a disabled woman from a minority group,  you stand the best chances of advancing your career in a telco. If you are a man, the materials sector is for you. A median 86% of managers are male, and 85% of the total workforce. Match that with this number:

7%

This is the proportion of companies reporting employee fatalities in the Bloomberg 3000. Only 197 companies out of 3000 disclose this figure (even less in the U.S. large company Russell 1000, where only 36 companies disclose). The average rate of fatalities across all those companies reporting is 2, but the Information Technology Sector inflates this average with a total of 6 fatalities. Conclusion: don't go into IT if you value your life. Match that with this number:

59%

This is the proportion of companies that disclose their Health and Safety Policy. This includes 58% of Information Technology companies where six people died. Just think how things might improve if 100% of companies had a Health and Safety Policy. Would things get worse, or better? Match that with this number:

1,367

This is the average number of workforce accidents reported by the 12% (364) companies who disclose this information. I calculate this to be a total of  almost half a million accidents in this small sample. Only 5% of companies report how many lost workhours result from these accidents, reporting an average 56,111 lost hours across only 137 companies, but this is much higher than the average in large U.S. companies, which report an average of 36,121 hours (13 companies) in the Russell 1000. This might indicate that it is safer to work in the U.S.  Or that you have your accident, and get back to work pronto. Even so, the Russell 1000 indicates the lost-time equivalent of 18 employees per year per company that do not come to work as a result of an accident. Rather shocking, don't you think? The impact on families and communities of such safety issues can be quite significant. Match that with this number:

36%

This is the proportion of companies which disclose their charitable giving. I would have expected this number to be higher. Companies like to tell their good news. Match that with this number:

$161,522,597

This is the average community spending reported in the energy sector in the Bloomberg 3000. This is by far the highest rate of charitable giving, comparing with an average across all companies which disclosed of almost $28 million. The healthcare sector is the second largest giver with an average of $98 million reported by 47 companies. Industrial sector companies have not been bitten by the bug to this extent, apparently, with the giving average at a mere $10 million reported by 232 companies. Match that with this number:

$66,800,000

This is the median total corporate giving reported for 21 companies with in the highest revenue group - over $100 billion. If ya got it, share it. Seems to work for them. Companies with under $1 billion revenues give a median of $88,552. Yes, that's thousands, not millions. Match that with this number:

$1,000,353

This is the average utilities sector spend on political lobbying, more than double that of any other sector in this study. Overall, in the Bloomberg 3000, the average amount spent on lobbying is $226,065 per company (though only 14% of companies disclose this information). Interestingly, in the U.S. alone, the amount spent is three times that much. The politicization of business in the U.S. is quite some investment, it seems, if you are a utilities company. Wonder if it's worth it?

I am going to stop here for now, while I continue to study this report. You can read a great review of key findings and  broader conclusions of this report  in the Conference Board's Press Release. Or you can wait for my next post, as I will definitely have more to say about this in the coming week, after getting to the rest of the numbers that I have not looked at yet in detail. 

In the meantime, you might now like a little light relief, by watching the Sustainability Practices 2012 Edition authors, Matteo Tonello, Director of Corporate Leadership at the Conference Board and  Thomas Singer, Conference Board Research Associate, talk about the importance and relevance of this study and what this means. It's short and to the point and contains no numbers.

Thomas Singer rounds off with this perspective: "To a large extent, sustainability is about long-term risk management. It's about making sure that, if you are a company that is dependent on finite resources, you make sure that those resources are available, that they are clean and that you have access to them in the long haul. However there is a very important second part to sustainability which is ensuring innovation and new products, new markets. It is those companies that actually go beyond seeing sustainability as a risk strategy and more of an innovation strategy, those are the companies that really become sustainability leaders in the long term"

Final Tip: ice cream is a great remedy, if your eyes are getting a little fatigued from figures and percentages. Any flavor will do.

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, winning (CRRA'12) Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices Contact me via www.twitter.com/elainecohen   on Twitter or via my business website www.b-yond.biz  (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm)

Dripping Sustainability

I was pleased to read a great article by the fabulous sustainability writer @LeonKaye on the Guardian Sustainable Business Water Hub about how water stewardship provides a return on investment and that The Campbell's Soup Company has gained competitive advantage from investing millions in water management projects. You can read the article here.

This is the sentence that caught my eye :

"The company urges the growers of its top five agricultural ingredients – tomatoes, carrots, celery, mushrooms, and jalapeno peppers – to adopt more efficient practices such as drip irrigation and the construction of retention basins to curtail rain runoff."

You may not realize it, but this sentence demonstrates an exemplary approach in supply chain management by a food manufacturer who is zooming in right to the basic building blocks of the company's value chain to encourage more sustainable practices at ground level. In this case, driving a change in agricultural practice to include drip irrigation represents a major shift in the way such crops are grown and yields major environmental benefits and productivity gains. This leads to greater and more efficient food supply, far beyond the direct benefits to Campbell's Soup. Drip irrigation is currently used only in about 4 - 5 per cent of world irrigated fields. Moving the agri-sector to drip is truly a step towards advancing sustainable food production for a 9 billion world.

Quick course in drip irrigation.

What is it: Drip irrigation is an irrigation method which saves water, fertilizer and nutrients by allowing water to drip slowly to the roots of plants, either above ground or sub-surface, through a network of valves, pipes, tubing (driplines), and drippers.

Why it saves water: Most agricultural irrigation is done using furrow or flood irrigation. Essentially this means that water is pumped or transported to the fields and is allowed to flow along the ground among the crops. Flood irrigation is inefficient as too much water gets to certain parts of the field and not enough to others. In fact, about half the water doesn’t actually reach the crops. The drip irrigation method channels water directly to the crop, and using specialist technology, ensures that the crops get exactly the right amount of water, no less, no more, and at the exact time they need it.

Amount of water saved:  Depending on the method, drip irrigation can be up to 100% more water efficient, though a general average would be 50 – 70% water saving versus traditional methods.

Why it saves fertilizers and chemicals: Chemigation and nutrigation work on the same principles. By drip-dosing fertilizers and nutrients to crops, none is wasted, doses are accurate and far smaller quantities are used. As much as 50% of chemicals can be saved using this method.

It is probably not necessary for me to explain why all this is so important, but I will.

Drip irrigation is a truly sustainable method for agriculture which minimizes water consumption, minimizes energy use through efficient operations, minimizes use of chemicals, delivers improves yield quality with low crop waste levels and in general offers many farmers a cost-effective solution to develop a viable agri-business, thereby enhancing local community development and quality of life. In developed markets, this can be of major assistance in reducing the burden of resources required by the demands of our consumer society. In emerging markets, it can mean the difference between poverty and a respectable livelihood for many local farming communities.

It probably is necessary for me to tell you why I am so interested in this, so I will.

Netafim Ltd. is a client of my company, Beyond Business Ltd. Netafim has been a world leader in drip irrigation technology and application since its founding in 1965 , delivering drip solutions to thousands of farmers in over 100 countries. The more I learn about drip irrigation and the different technologies involved, the more I find it fascinating. I won't go into too much detail here (you will have to wait for Netafim's first Sustainability Report to be published in 2012 :)), but a one example to give you the general idea:

Netafim has developed a Family Drip System, which is perfect for the small farmer for use in plots of up to 2000 sq. meters. It works on gravity with no pump or other energy requirements in open field or greenhouse crops. Being a relatively simple system, it is low cost making it accessible to most small farmers. This system is now used widely in Africa and other emerging markets.

Take a look at this short clip about how this system has transformed the lives of a settlement in Kamale, Kenya. The livelihood of everyone living in Kamale depends on farming. Prior to using an irrigation system, the women of the settlement would wake at 5 am to fetch water from far-away sources. One women tells how she was not able to breastfeed her child because she spent so many hours per day just fetching water. Incredible!.  

So the question remains, when the world is crying out for water efficiency and when the food security of future generations is already under threat, why is this seemingly perfect solution used only for 4-5 % of global irrigated fields? Why is this not an absolutely no-brainer? In Israel, Netafim's home base, over 75% of crops are grown using drip irrigation. In the past 30 years, agricultural output in Israel has increased fivefold without any increase in water consumption. "Greening the desert" has been both a necessity and a major achievement, as only 20% of Israel's land is arable. Today, more than 50% of Israel's crop exports come from semi-arid areas such as the Arava desert.

Despite major advances using drip irrigation in recent years, there seems to be two main reasons for the lack of uptake at mainstream level. First is that irrigations systems require an initial investment, which given the often small scale of farms, may be too hefty for family farmers to afford without government assistance or NGO support. Second, so I've heard, is that the farmers are by nature a conservative and tend to use methods which have been taught through generations and unwilling to risk a crop in the hand for two in the bush.

This is why the Campbell's initiative is so important. By making sustainable farming methods a condition of supply, and by partnering with farmers to help them adopt new technology, major sustainability changes can be achieved. This approach offers incentives right throughout the value chain: Campbell's get a more cost-enviro-efficient raw material, farmers get better yields and access to customers and markets, we all get higher-quality, less chemicalized food, and more if it, and Planet Earth lives on to support our descendants.

By the way, as an ice-cream addict, I am thinking of having Netafim make me a special drip-irrigation system to deliver ice cream to my spoon at a constant rate 24/7. Bet they didn’t think of that one! (ahem.. my patent, please).

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices  Contact me via www.twitter.com/elainecohen  on Twitter or via my business website www.b-yond.biz/en  (BeyondBusiness, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm)

Why don't Japanese reports win awards?

One of my favorite annual publications is the Global Winners and Reporting Trends published following the Corporate Register Reporting Awards (CRRA). This year's version, CRRA '11, as its predecessors, is choc-a-bloc with data and insights about reporting and reports and how the winners won. Produced as a PDF on a diskonkey and not as a printed brochure, it offers a great view on how reporting is progressing.

In Paul Scott's (CoprorateRegister.com CEO) introduction, he notes that there has been an increase in the quantity of reports, but that we should "await the increase in quality". Global reporting output reached almost 5,000 reports, but the true figure including reports published in different languages is closer to 6,000. This follows a very consistent year-on-year increase in reports published every year since 1992, and is a testimony to the appreciation of transparency as a key business practice. Even if the quality is not quite there, efforts to be more transparent are crucial.

Europe is way out in the lead on reporting, producing around half of all reports published globally. The top 3 all-time reporting countries are the UK, the USA, Japan, Germany and Australia, in that order. Japan is a prolific reporter and would actually be top of the list if all Japanese language reports not available in English were included. Let's see whether recent tragic natural-disaster-related events in Japan create a change in this picture for 2011.

First-time reports (my faves) continue to represent around 20% of all reports while integrated reporting remains at 5% of total global output, despite all the buzz and talking up of this approach. Brazil and South Africa are showing greater interest in integratedization, with 15% and 18% of all reports showing up in the one annual document. The Jo'burg Stock Exchange's requirement for integrated reporting should boost the number of South African integrated reports in coming years. Less than 25% of reports are assured each year.

CRRA '11 shows a continued uptake in GRI reports (those which contain a GRI content index) which reached 40% in 2010, with Spain, Portugal, South Africa and Brazil being out in the lead.

Whichever way you cut the data, reporting is very much in the frame, though, of course, there are far more companies that still do not report than do. Will the 2011 reporting year bring us any closer to mainstream?

Anyway, the CRRA awards are a great annual event. This time, there were nine winning reports from nine companies (in previous years, reports won in more than one category). In CRRA'11 you would have had to read 843 pages of sustainability reporting to read all the first place winning reports, but only 699 a year ago. And despite Japan being out there with the reporting leaders, not one Japanese report made it to the top ten in any category.  I wonder if that is because Japanese reports are always loaded with diagrams. Take a look at the Fujifilm Holdings Corporation Sustainability Report 2010 , one of the Best Report category entrants. This report, GRI undeclared (with a GRI online index), externally assured, the Company's fourth, is packed with diagrams. Here is one of my faves:

It takes a while to figure this out, but actually, it's very good and provides great detail of environmental impacts in the life cycle of Fujifilm products. This is one of thousands (ok, a slight exaggeration) of diagrams in this report.

Another very interesting thing in the Fujifilm report is their Environmental Cost Accounting Balance Sheet.

This shows the Fujifilm investments in environmental conservation in 2009  (Yen 49,460 million) and the environmental conservation benefits  inside the Group (Yen 21,811 million) due to energy savings and other elements, and energy conservation outside the Group (Yen 69,948 million) which is based on reduced emissions and environmental cost benefits realized by customers resulting from purchases of new products. This is a very interesting calculation which I have rarely, if ever, seen expressed so clearly.

Overall, this report from Fujifilm is meticulous and detailed in a way which reflects the reporting style of many Japanese reporters. While it's not an easy read, its a model of transparent reporting and shows consideration for the reader by introducing some Japanese art at the start of different sections to enable us to contemplate on the beauty of Japanese culture as we dive into the next diagram-laden section. Fujifilm deserves a thumbs up for being one of the more deserving reports entered in the CRRA Awards.

I will now sign off with a 16th century Japanese crane which introduces the report's "Enhancing the quality of life" section  ... enjoy :)

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)

Ajinomoto: The building blocks of CSR reporting

I recently reviewed the Ajinomoto 2010 CSR report on CorporateRegister.com. I chose to review this report due to my fond memories of being hosted by Ajinomoto in Tokyo, many years ago, for a week of training related to my work at that time. That was a period before I had even heard of CSR or sustainability. Then, you just went about your business, impacts or no impacts. My week at Ajinomoto, both at their head office and in their production plant on the outskirts of Tokyo was one of the most memorable of my business life. The people were delightful, and oh so hospitable, the food was wonderful, the level of professionalism was inspiring and their attention to detail incredible. I even developoed a taste for Japanese food, and a taste I long for to this day is Japanese Green Tea Ice Cream, which marginally beats Chunky Monkey in the ice cream flavour league.

Ajinomoto started in 1907 when the founder Mr Ikeda devised a way to make Umami seasoning, a natural flavour made from seaweed which caught on like hot cakes in Japan at the time, apparently, and still does pretty well. Anyway, I have not been back to Japan since then, and have no further contact with Ajinomoto, but reading their CSR Report brought back warm feelings of a great experience. However, as those of you who know me by now will understand, this did not cause me from being direct and to-the-point about their most recent report.

This is the first part of my review as it appears on CorporateRegister.com.

The Ajinomoto report for 2010 covering fiscal year 2009 seems to be quite true to the company core business – it is built in sections just like the amino acids (the building blocks of protein) that Ajinomoto produces. By this, I mean that there are many individually important core sections which are all valuable in their own unique way, but the report as a whole hangs together less well.

For those not familiar with this long standing and well respected Japanese company, which celebrated its 100th birthday in 2009, Ajinomoto has revenue of around $21Bn, 70% of which comes from Japan. The company employs over 27,000 people and manufactures seasonings, frozen foods, edible oils, coffee and a range of amino acids as food ingredients and other specialty chemicals. They operate from a total of 107 plants in 15 countries. Ajinomoto's global sustainability program focuses on three overarching issues: global sustainability, food resources and healthy living. In each of these areas, Ajinomoto sets directional objectives, but not specific targets, which is an omission. Each issue is addressed in a full page with some relevant context. Global sustainability refers to water and energy resources and Ajinomoto's core amino acid processes, which are now using more biomass-based carbon-neutral processes. Food resources is about improving the performance of food crops etc through increased performance of Ajinomoto nutrients. Healthy living is about combating malnutrition and providing tasty and healthy food care solutions. Whilst these issues are vital and Ajinomoto has a good basis to consider them material, the treatment of these issues in the report is rather superficial and glosses over the company's actual impacts in these areas. This is not true universally - space is devoted to advancing nutrition, with several pages on Ajinomoto's global nutrition project which started in 1999, including case studies from Malaysia and Ghana.

The rest of the review covers Ajinomoto's excellent stakeholder dialogue coverage as well as reference to their separate environmental report. The company produces both an annual CSR report as well as an annual environmental report. I wonder why ? Maybe this is another reflection of the amino acid - building block mentality. Would it not be easier to produce one Sustainability Report and back up specifics on their website ? In summary, the Ajinomoto CSR report seems to reflect a sincere approach to sustainability but the overall report is not as transparent or nearly as comprehensive as I would expect from a leading Company today.

By the way, in case you were wondering, Ajinomoto means "natural flavour" - which a nice little blog post explains. And now I want to fly to Japan and feast on some natural flavour Green Tea Ice Cream.

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)