Know what CSV really means? Think again.

I had a quick phone call with Janet Voûte last week. I caught her just as she was going into the launch of the 2016 Access to Nutrition Index session at Davos. I guess that's the closest I'll probably get to a WEF session at Davos like ever.



OK, so I wasn't in Davos, I stayed warm.

I was super-grateful that Janet spared me some time as she is one of the most passionate and inspiring speakers around on the making-the-world-better circuit today. She is also really REALLY busy.  Janet shared some insights with me that truly helped me understand the essence of better-world-through-business. Janet Voûte is Nestlé's VP of Global Public Affairs. Want to know what that means? Read on....

But first, a quick reminder of Nestlé's claim to fame: Creating Shared Value (CSV). No, I'm not going to give you the lecture. You probably know what Shared Value is all about by now. But if you don't, stop, grab a cup of Nescafé (see that? PC), and read all about it in Nestlé's last report.

Oops, the full report is 284 pages short. You night need more than one cup. The Summary Report is only ONLY 53 pages and that works well too. The report is entitled "Nestlé in Society: Creating Shared Value and meeting our commitments". That bit about commitments is no less important than the CSV bit. Nestlé has 38 commitments to 2020 that support the CSV direction. Check them out here on Nestlé's CSV website. Against each commitment is a statement of progress and a link to dive deeper. The scale, scope and breadth of these commitments is formidable, especially as they are not only about reducing GHG emissions, water use and salt, fat and sugar in products  ... they are mainly about changing the way consumers consume or the way farmers farm or the way young people get a foot on the career ladder. What's striking about Nestlé's commitments is that most of them really go to the heart of the role of business in society. Which, in a nutshell, is what CSV is all about. It's better-world-through-business .. where business addresses specific societal / social needs in a way that creates value both for the business and for society. Darn. I wasn't going to lecture.

Nestlé's CSV focus is very well defined......
 

 .... and Nestlé has been very consistent over the years in driving its prime agendas forward. But I promised to tell you what VP Global Public Affairs means. Perhaps it's better to let Janet explain:

What does Global Public Affairs mean on a day-to-day basis?

Janet: What I spend my days on is our CSV agenda and all the many aspects of that. I have the privilege to sit on the Nestlé In Society board – that’s an internal management board of our entire societal agenda, chaired by our CEO, which meets three or four times a year. I also spend time as Chair of the Nestlé CSV Council which is an external advisory group made up of 12 thought-leaders from around the world in strategy and sustainability matters such as nutrition, water, agriculture and rural development. I also organize our CSV Forum and stakeholder convenings. Obviously, around this time of year, I am also involved in the development of our report suite and effective communications of CSV. I have a particular background in the health field so I also work on our Nutrition Health and Wellness strategy.

Yes, you did read that right. Stakeholder convenings. Somehow that sounds much more considered than stakeholder meetings or stakeholder dialogue, though I suppose it's pretty much that. However, Nestlé does this quite spectacularly. But before we convene about convenings, you first need to know about the CSV Global Forum. This is an annual public debate held in different places around the globe, bringing together around 200 experts for a full day to discuss the role of business in society and key topical themes. It's live-streamed and prolifically tweeted. You can read the summary of the 2014 event here.  (Don't worry, no more than one cup). The CSV Global Forum provides inspiration and direction for the stakeholder convenings.

Please tell me about stakeholder convenings.

Janet: Twice a year, in addition to our public engagement processes, we hold private stakeholder convenings covering the same topics that we discussed in our public stakeholder dialogue events under the CSV Forum. These private convening events for around 60 - 70 people including academics, NGO's and members of the investor community enable an open discussion about what we are doing and what they like and what they don't like. The convenings are held under Chatham House Rules (we just completed one in Washington D.C.) and the conversations are enriching for our business leaders. The last time, our CEO spent nine hours listening and responding. This platform provides authentic insight into what’s expected of us as a company. It also helps our stakeholders gain new insight so I hope it's mutually beneficial. The think-tank SustainAbility helps us structure the process. The output of these discussions feed our materiality assessment. We also publish the recommendations in our CSV report.

The investment in truly understanding what stakeholders are saying in so many different meetings, convenings, gatherings and panels (Nestlé also has a Nestlé Nutrition Council - an independent advisory panel made up of international nutrition scientists) is a far cry from the online questionnaires or consultant-led interviews with anonymous stakeholders which seems to satisfy many companies. This is real face-time. It's meaningful, impactful and robust as a source of guidance for Nestlé's evolving role in society. One of the tangible outcomes is Nestlé's materiality matrix.

Does all this chatter really have an impact on the way Nestlé does things?
Janet:  Oh yes! It really does. For example, our use of the term zero in our water program may well have come from our interaction with John Elkington on the Nestlé CSV Council who made that term synonymous with the sustainable development agenda in his book The Zeronauts. We have zero water dairy factories. While we might have gotten to this ourselves, it’s not a given that we would have developed our ambition to reach this far. Similarly, for example, Sasha Zehnder, the Scientific Director of the Alberta Water Research Institute in Edmonton, guides us in the fact that water is both an emotional and a rational discussion, and all of our nutrition experts on the CSV Council encourage us to engage more with stakeholders and review our commitments. Our CEO listens, we listen, and this changes how we evolve. We are now planning our seventh CSV Forum to take place in Abidjan in the Ivory Coast in June this year. This Forum will continue to look at the changing role of business in society especially in the light of the new Sustainable Development Goals.

Cero means Zero in Mexico. Just sayin'....

What’s hot on the CSV agenda today?

Janet: The CSV agenda is always dynamic. Nutrition is always on the agenda with both the overweight and underweight double burden of malnutrition. That will always be part of Nestlé corporate strategy. Also, clearly the water and environmental sustainability agendas will continue to be central. And all the work with farmers and rural development. Our Chairman is here at Davos with a new 2030 Water Resources Group which he helped establish. This area will require focus for years to come. What’s new is perhaps the increasing interest of investors beyond SRI and ESG investors. I am seeing new frontiers as the conversation starts to penetrate into the mainstream. Mainstream investors are starting to understand that it’s about why the business does well – CSV as essential to business success through improved access to capital, access to labor, license to operate and brand building. The other topic area that's hot right now is the consumer/millennial side of the equation.

Over and under nutrition is Nestlé’s top material issue. Where do you believe you have made the most significant progress in these areas in the past few years?

Janet: In terms of the double burden of malnutrition, we are all massively concerned with increasing rates of obesity, and recognize that national health systems cannot manage this. That’s a joint, mutual concern while at the same time you still have populations that are undernourished, malnourished and micro-nutrient deficient. Nestlé has done many things in this area. We have done some of the classic things like reducing salt, fat and sugar and added whole grains and vegetables, but we have also innovated in a series of areas like portion guidance. We are starting to tell consumers in simpler terms how much is the right amount to eat to help them make better decisions. For example, in the U.S., we have a frozen pizza business and we have portion guidance that shows that a big guy can have two pieces and a kid can have one and you should eat it with salad! 

Janet: We are also doing a great deal of research for the future of nutrition to make step changes such as addressing sodium levels to retain taste but dramatically lower sodium content. To further our research, we have two relatively new business areas in the past 5 years: Nestle Health Science and Nestle Skin Health. Going beyond the food and beverage business and investing in the future of nutrition and health is how we are evolving our corporate strategy while staying true to our CSV core. Science looks for nutritional solutions to specific conditions – targeted nutrition and personalized nutrition are the next level - food, health, skin care - it's all linked by the science of nutrition. It’s a big agenda and I am proud of the company for the progress we have made - it’s not over! I am  also happy we improved our score to become number 2 in the  2016 Access to Nutrition Index which is a very rigorous benchmark of food and nutrition companies. 

Nestle 2016 ATN rank

********

It will be a great honor for me personally to host Janet Voûte at our upcoming Sustainability Reporting Conference in February. Janet is a wealth of experience, knowledge and insight, and has a tangible passion that will energize our audience. Of course, if you haven't booked your place yet, better hurry! You wouldn't want us to run out of space, now, would you? Check with me for a discount (yay!).

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

Using sex to sell ice cream at Nestlé

By now, anyone that reads the CSR Reporting Blog knows how much I love ice cream. So perhaps it's not by chance that a Facebook post about ice cream caught my eye. Yesterday, I noticed a such a post by Eyal Carmi who criticized an advertisement for Joya ice cream in Israel by Osem, which is 63.7% owned by Nestlé. His Facebook comment drew attention to the soft-porno nature of the ad, apparently aired on prime time TV.

I don't wish to promote Nestlé ice cream or lend any sort of support to this marketing campaign, but, before I offer my thoughts, I have to let you judge for yourself. A screen shot and the ad itself on Youtube - proclaiming Joya ice cream the hottest ice cream around.

I have to wonder how this kind of marketing passes the ethics test at Nestlé.

Beyond the fact that I personally find this ad rather nauseating, serving only to make me resolved NOT to try Joya ice cream,  I wonder why it is even necessary to create such a campaign that borders on pornography. Why does Nestlé need sex to sell ice cream? Does fabricated sensuality really make people buy ice cream? What does this ad say about the way Osem-Nestlé thinks about women, when corporate marketeers are prepared to air a voluptuous woman lustfully sucking on a phallus-shaped ice cream bar, vigorously licking her fingers, in what appears to be the way advertisers think women scheme to attract a man's attention? Is this the kind of ad that should be seen by kids on prime time TV?  Or on YouTube alongside fun ads for kids' snacks on the company's YouTube channel?

I sought another opinion from a respected colleague who is an expert in corporate and business communications. This is what he said:

“I recall putting the issue of responsible marketing to the director of sustainability who was speaking at a conference one day while his company was running an ad featuring almost voyeuristic images of a woman’s body that bore no relation to the product being sold. His reply - the the effect of “it wouldn’t happen if I was in charge of marketing” - spoke volumes about the lack of integration of sustainability into day-to-day practices, which is so often claimed by corporations. How companies approach marketing is emblematic of the way they understand consumers but so often merely seeks to plug into stereotypical, out-dated attitudes in order to grab (men’s) attention for the brand name."
James Osborne, Senior Partner, Lundquist  

Nestlé's Consumer Communication Principles is a four page document that prescribes the way Nestlé companies should develop and air marketing content. It states: "The Nestlé Communication Principles have been defined as the highest standard on which all marketing and communication to consumers must be based." Here are some of the principles:

• The content of consumer communications must reflect good taste and social responsibility in accordance with each country’s laws and regulations and voluntary codes and standards. Although standards will vary from country to country, it must not display vulgarity, bad manners and offensive behavior and there must never be an intention to shock or offend. 
• Advertising content must not depict attitudes that are discriminatory or offensive to religious, ethnic, political, cultural or social groups. 
• Advertising should avoid exploiting media events that could be in bad taste.

Nestlé is no stranger to ethical problems. In fact, it's one of the corporations that exemplifies the most extreme levels of emotion, as, one the one hand, the most boycotted company in the UK, and on the other hand, the most admired for its' work in "creating shared value" and advancing global food science and technology for the benefit of everyone. A quick internet search brings up a host of ethical issues over the years related to different parts of the Nestlé business, including a recent $680,000 fine for anti-competitive marketing tactics in the coffee business. In fairness, Nestlé claims to be addressing many of the concerns of stakeholders around the world with several supply chain assessments, and a host of other initiatives under the CSV banner, as you can read in the 2013 Nestle Shared Value Report. The company even made a bold commitment to no deforestation traceable palm oil, after the Greenpeace campaign disaster that had everyone associating Kit-Kats with bloody orang-utan fingers.

It seems that as soon as one ethical problem dies down, another one crops up. This ice cream advertisement is, in my view, poor judgment and poor ethics. If the marketing is in bad taste, I wonder if the ice cream comes with a bad taste too.

Perhaps it's time to refresh that set of consumer communication principles and get the folks that market ice cream at Osem-Nestlé up to date with today's values.  

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

A very tasty CSR conference

This time last week I was engrossed in fascinating conversations at the Justmeans  Redefining Value: Integrated Reporting and Measuring Sustainability Conference in London on 25th March 2011. But before I talk about content, I can't help but mention that the conference was held at the best conference venue I can ever recall in having visited in London - the Brewery - complete with a sustainability policy and gourmet food worthy of so many sustainability people, hungry for change and hungry for the best conference lunch in London. (OK, no ice cream, but what the heck!). The conference itself was serious, thought-provoking, no ribbons and bells, just 5 intensive sessions with lots of talking, many insights and a few challenges to the status quo. Some sessions were more valuable than others, as inevitably happens, but all were interesting. Lunch provided a welcome break for ribbons and bells, with the announcement of the Social Innovation Awards winners in a tastefully done ceremony where every winner got to say a few words about their accomplishments.

The conference started out with a powerful panel session moderated by Justmeans CEO, Martin Smith, intended to be a catch-up with what's happening in the world of non-financial reporting, with leading players in the form of the GRI (Nelmara Arbex), A4S project (Jessica Fries) and the CDP (Paul Dickinson) .There is a consensus that sustainability reporting is not mainstream, despite the daily Sustainability Report announcements that fill our RSS feeds. The GRI, as my regular readers will know, is moving towards G4 which should address some of the current shortfalls of the GRI framework while A4S is planning a pilot program to enhance non-financial reporting without increasing complexity and length, among other things. The CDP has now completed 9 reporting cycles, demonstrating that "repetitious normalization" is gaining the attention of 551 investor groups who represent $71 trillion in funds, more than the GDP of the world. 3,000 companies reported to the CDP, rather less than the number who issued sustainability reports, last year. The single biggest challenge for reporting is mainstreaming sustainability reporting in a harmonized way (GRI), providing data to shareholders (CDP) and getting the right systems in place (A4S). The point was made that reporting should not only be about the past but how a company intends to create its sustainable future. It is true that this often gets lost in backward looking reports and even companies who express targets do not often explain how they expect to achieve the targets in their reporting .

"What is driving the growth of international standards?"  was the question that led the next panel session , led by Judy Kuszewski whom it was nice to meet in person after our twitterous acquaintance to date. The fascinating takeout of this panel was the collection of perspectives from Carsten Ingerslev, the Director of the Danish Government Center for CSR, who said that "if we leave things up to the market, they won't happen quickly enough". It is certainly a good thing to see a government body taking initiative to drive CSR, and of the 91% (I think) of the top 1,100 companies in Denmark who chose to report following the law which came into effect in FY2009, 43% were reporting for the first time. (The Danish law, which was an amendment to the Financial Statements Act, requires companies to report on non-financial matters or give a reason why not. Of course, not too many companies are happy to say they don't give a hoot about sustainability, even if they are not sharing sustainability prime-time, so reporting becomes the only viable alternative.). Carsten said that the companies who did report confirmed that they gained benefit and were able to understand risks and opportunities for their businesses in a way they had not before. The Danish motto: you can't fly below the radar. Sustainability reporting is the radar. The "comply or explain" model is surely one which will be emulated, I suspect. Wim Bartels made the point that building the systems required for good non-financial reporting needs accountants. But who would have expected less from a partner in sustainability services at KPMG. He has a point, but some pushback was felt from the audience who suggested that sustainability reporting needs anything BUT accountants. This, when you consider that the IIRC is comprised of almost exclusively accountants and financial specialists, may already be a lost cause.

The next session showcased reporting leaders from Novo Nordisk, Novozymes and the data collection systems company Enablon. The best quote from this session was "you can't internally manage unless you externally report" (Dan Vogel of Enablon) . The question of how far you can monetize sustainability in integrated reporting was one of the interesting aspects raised, as the drive to fit sustainability into financial reporting frameworks may just create pressure in this direction. All agreed that better models to measure impact and the cost-benefits of sustainability impacts are required.

Toby Heaps of Corporate Knights and the 100 Best Corporate Citizens posed the question: Will social change happen through capital markets? and then proceeded to answer it by explaining that radical transparency is the key. Wow. Sounds so easy. The 100 Best Corporate Citizens has honed in on 10 core indicators which are the clue to radical transparency. Caution. This is a buzzword. Use it sparingly. Considering that only 2% of UNPRI signatories, according to Toby, disclose non-financial information, transparency has apparently not reached radical levels quite just yet. Bloomberg, in the form of Curtis Ravenel, align with Denmark in the belief that regulation is the only way forward.

Finally, a large lunch, a few exquisite muffins and some delightful pastries later, (N.B. Don't diet at Justmeans conferences), BP (Nicholas Robinson) took center stage and explained what it's like not to sleep at night when you need to produce a sustainability report when everyone is accusing you of being about as sustainable as a rabbi at the Vatican. After being slapped with the largest class action law suit in history, trying to produce sustainability report sounds like something only Merlin the wizard might attempt. However, without Merlin's assistance, apparently, but with a strong dose of Triazolam, BP has done it (see here - more on that in a later post). The complexities of reporting for companies who are dual listed (US and UK) were interesting to hear about from BP, who took four years to combine their different submissions into one report that meets both requirements. Hmmm. And that's only financial reporting. At that rate, integrated reporting should be with us by the time my great-great-grandchildren will wonder whether separate reporting was ever an option. Another interesting discussion in this panel was about what happens when Greenpeace decide you are the bad guys and viralize a gory video about endangered orang-utans, attacking one of your iconic brands. Invite them to the table, was the answer from Niels Cristiansen, the Public Affairs guy at Nestle. I just hope the conference room refreshments did not include Kit Kat. Greenpeace asked Nestle to develop an auditing plan for their rainforest impacts and Nestle agreed. Not only this, but the Head of Operations at Nestle is reported to have said "I am glad they did because it made us a better company." Who needs McKinsey when Greenpeace can help you improve your bottom line?

By this time, my head was reeling with  many old and new concepts, and my waistline was begging for relief, so it was probably a good thing that Justmeans didn't cram any more into this day. I will certainly be happy to attend another Justmeans conference, but only if they hold it at the Brewery.

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)

11 top food companies fail at sustainability

A very interesting report was published recently by Bank Sarasin and Co Ltd,  called: " Food and Sustainability: Will the seed bear fruit? " . It discusses the sustainability ratings of the top 15 listed food and beverage manufacturers worldwide including Heinz, Danone, Unilever, Nestle and others. The report highlights three central sustainability themes that affect food producers: (1) health and nutrition, (2) sourcing more raw materials from sustainable agriculture and (3) committing to fair working conditions.  How the sector approaches these core sustainability material issues is the basis for the Bank's rating.

Health and Nutrition - some of the issues

Obesity: We all know about the problems of obesity, exacerbated through manufactured, processed, ready-cooked, fast, faster, junk, junkier and junkiest food. There is also a suggestion that the drop in levels of breast-feeding in favour of infant formula may contribute to fatter kids. In fact, obesity levels have been steadily rising for the past 20 years and are predicted to continue to do so. This report quotes that the cost of healthcare could increase by 240% by 2040 due to upward-trending obesity levels, checked only by the fact that life expectancy of the expensively obese is shorter than that of the thinnies. Not that it's ok to enjoy your food and die early, because in the meantime, equitable access to nutritious food is still a problem.

Problem food content: Salt, sugars, fats, What role does and should government play in ensuring healthy food availability and non-availability of healthy food, for example, banning high-cal snacks in schools. More legislation can be expected as governments and consumers increase awareness.

Enjoyment food: I wonder if this concept existed in the days of Fred Flintstone? The entire food industry has created a special place for enjoyment, indulgent, pleasure foods, all of which are really superfluous to a healthy diet and a sustainable planet. The trade-offs between health and enjoyment are a phenomenon of our advanced commercialized world and food industry. Would banning chocolate make us all more sustainable? Oy! and what about Chunkey Monkey ..... err...... help....

Raw materials and sustainable farming - some of the issues 

Problem agriculture: The report quotes that agriculture, once "an emblem of prudent management of natural resources" now accounts for 90% of global deforestation, is the biggest consumer of chemicals, generates the highest volume of GHG's and consumes about 70% of the planet's freshwater resources. Not a pretty picture, huh ? We are simply eating the planet for lunch, bite by bite. Food manufacturers are key protagonists in these global dining habits.

Organics: Even with the continuing buzz around organic food, organics is still a niche market and will account for less than 1% of farmland worldwide during the next 50 years, according to the report by Bank Sarasin. Important crops such as sugarcane, palm oil and soya are still not moving up the organic ladder. How manufacturers are revising their strategies to ensure long-term sourcing security is critical for sustainable food supply. 

Green genetic engineering: For or against? Modifying seeds to make them more resistant to pests and therefore reduce use of pesticides may well sound like an ideal solution but the technology is controversial and not readily digestable by all (haha, what a pun!). Bank Sarasin thinks the risks of GMO's outweigh the opportunities and discount seed producers from their investment recommendations. 

Sustainable farming methods:  The approach of manufacturers to ensure sustainable farming methods are a part of their overall supply chain strategy is critical. Heinz, for example, is the world's biggest producer of processed tomatoes and has pioneered the cultivation of tomatoes requiring fewer pesticides. The report mentions that some major food producers have entered into agreements with leading environmental organisations to advance sustainable farming.

Factory and field - fair working conditions - some of the issues

Global rights and global labour:  As more production is outsourced, so fewer employees are protected by international labour conventions and enjoy freedom of association, the report advises. The implementation of globally applicable employment standards is problematic leaving many workers with no protection of their rights. An indicator of this is whether a company discloses how many employees in their supply chain have a fixed employment contract. Apparently, not many disclose this detail.

Poor working conditions: Issues abound in farming and food production - seasonality, "subsistence risks through crop failure and price collapse", accidents and illness caused through agrochemicals etc. It is quoted that 60% of child labour is concentrated in agriculture.

Market power of big companies: In what Bank Sarasin called a bottleneck market structure, prices and conditions are dictated by a very small number of retailers, despite sourcing from many small-scale farmers. This gives rise to an inequitable distribution of wealth and inevitably, the small guy whose quality of life depends on the price he gets for his banana takes the hit. Fairtrade, development of relationships with farming cooperatives and other approaches are available to address these issues, in part. The take-up of these options by food manufacturers is a key element in creating a responsible and sustainable supply chain.   

Overall, this report of Bank Sarasin, authored by Dr. Gabriella Ries Hafner,  offers some fascinating insights about the sustainability impacts of the big food manufacturers. It is clear that the issues are still far from resolved and that overall, food manufacture has light-years to travel before it has a net positive sustainable impact. Rethinking the entire food value chain management in a systemic way is the task ahead. In Bank Sarasin's analysis, only four of the top 15 global food and beverage manufacturers (Danone, Heinz, Unilever and Nestle)  fall into the "social investment universe"  because they appear to be addressing these issues effectively. (See the matrix in the Bank's repease about the report)

We all have a role to play in making food supply more sustainable. The issues highlighted by the report published by the Bank are just some of the things we should be watching for as we read the Sustainability Reports of these corporations (and we should be reading them).  If they are not addressing these issues, amongst others, they are not serious about sustainability and we should be letting them know that we know.

And as for Chunky Monkey... well, every rule has its exception, no ?  

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

the world is in trouble - i need to go on a diet

I cam across this headline from the Sun, Fatties cause global warming whilst browsing Martin Smiths updates on JustMeans.com. Overweight people cause over a BILLION tons of Co2, the article says. And then there is a picture of a polar bear looking all forlorn on a melting block of ice. Talk about emotional blackmail.

So I guess i am in serious trouble. Another reason to start that long overdue diet again. The tomorrow diet. Not only am i overweight, i am the cause of global warming. Will my kids ever forgive me ? Will polar bears become extinct because of me ? Will the world ever survive my ice-cream binges and my chocolate cravings ? I take comfort in the fact that the sum of our individual actions can never be enough to resolve our climate issues -it's a SYSTEMIC problem which has to be fixed by all of us acting together.

So i took a stroll to the Weightwatchers International dot com website, the specialists in weight loss in groups. "Each week, approximately 1.5 million people attend approximately 50,000 Weight Watchers meetings " Now, if each of these people lose 2lbs a month, thats 36 million lbs in weight loss and i bet that would offset my few extra layers of puppy fat.(Yes, it's still puppy fat ). Perhaps Weightwatchers could offer a carbon trading program, so that i dont need to actually diet, i can just buy back some weightwatchers carbon credits. How cool. Of course, the problem with weight loss is that it tends to creep back again - but let's not go THERE. Not a thing about Corporate Social Responsibility on the WW website. They obviously havent picked up on the PR value of marketing WW as a climate change program and not just a weight and health thing. Phew.

A Company who does address obesity as part of its sustainability program is Unilever. You can download a report on the 10 major food companies and their approach to obesity from the Unilever website here. This is a very interesting report on all the facets of tacking obesity from the way product R&D is driven , marketing, especially to children, and transparency and disclosure. Danone, Unilever, Nestle and Kellogg score well on addressing and reporting on obesity as part of their sustainability strategy.

Ok, so now i have confessed my personal embarrassment at being the cause of global warming, i think i deserve a little low-calorie snack. Where did i put that chunk of triple-layer smooth-fudge whipped-cream-topped high-density chocolate cake ? hmmm ?

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