Showing posts with label regulation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label regulation. Show all posts

Saturday, September 26, 2015

5 truths about Volkswagen and CSR

It's just incredible how everyone is jumping down the throat of sustainability and sustainability reporting as a result of the Volkswagen crimes against emissions. Is the sustainability movement so fragile that the deliberate fraudulent behavior of one corporation can disrupt the credibility of thousands of corporations that are making genuine efforts to act ethically, responsibly and ... wow, even legally? The first thing many people are saying now that Volkswagen is down the tubes is: "Aha, vindicated at last, that's the end of CSR. Just look at Volkswagen's last Sustainability Report. What a waste of paper. This just proves that CSR is all a big waste of time. It's about time we started refocusing on business and leaving out the sustainability PR stuff." 

A few examples from the flurry of writings over the past couple of days:

"Volkswagen takes down corporate social responsibility in its plunge to the bottom of the sea"
Linda Greer's blog on the NRDC likens Volkswagen's statements in its sustainability report to something out of a Hollywood script. She finds it incredible that environmental professionals actually believe anything that's written in self-reported glossy brochures and infographics. Now that Volkswagen is exposed, she says we have to reevaluate what other companies are up to.

"Volkswagen and the dark side of corporate sustainability"
Lauren Helper's post focuses on ratings and rankings, noting that the DJSI is now developing a new picture of public perception that will be factored in to DJSI rankings. The conclusion is foregone. DJSI will want to drop Volkswagen even faster than shareholders are dumping Volkswagen's stock. And then of course, the entire voluntary thing is now on the chopping table. If it's a voluntary disclosure, it must be rubbish. Henk Campher, a well-known PR player in sustainability circles actually says "I'm not surprised this happened!". Lack of regulation and paying too much attention to ratings and rankings are apparently among the root causes according to Henk.

"VW Scandal a Jolt to 'CSR' That Reaches Far Beyond the Auto Industry"
Leon Kaye's take on the Volkswagen impact, published on Sustainable Brands also makes the point that Volkswagen cheated = CSR is rubbish: "For too long now, CSR has focused far more on theatrics and less on tangible results.....CSR lens tends to focus on accolades and congratulate each other for stories well told ..Volkwagen’s struggles send a signal to the CSR and sustainability crowd that it must start changing its tone and set its sights on what it does best - helping organizations operate more sustainably.... " According to Leon, the sustainability movement risks "irrelevance" because one corporation has managed to get away with cheating the system for a few years.

"VW Scandal Exposes What Has Gone Awry with ‘CSR’"
Another article from Leon Kaye, this time on Triple Pundit, offers a similar take: "Unfortunately, while the ideals behind corporate social responsibility certainly have merit, the overall execution has been deeply flawed. The trend in CSR has been to focus more on goals and aspirations, and less on concrete and tangible results."

"The Volkswagen diesel deception - 5 key questions "
Rather than delivering their own diatribe denouncing CSR and Sustainability movement, Crane and Matten ask five questions about the "nature of corporate responsibility" that arise as a result of Volkswagengate. Top of the list - you guessed it. " How is it possible that a company committed to some of the core values of corporate responsibility could so blatantly cross the line into not only unethical but clearly illegal practice in a key area of its responsibilities? Is this just another greenwash case to fuel further cynicism about the CSR commitment of corporations?"

"Here's The Joke Of A Sustainability Report That VW Put Out Last Year"
Emily Peck at Huffington Post takes the well-traveled path, pulling holes Volkswagen's statements about values, commitment and ethics. She even counts the number of times the word "environment" appears in Volkswagen's last report. She calls it an absurd document.

Well, folks, let me set a few things straight. It's easy enough to get settled in on the CSR-bashing bandwagon. Instead, I offer five truths about the current discourse on Volkswagen and CSR.

ONE: The fact that a company is highly placed in rankings and ratings means not all that much.

In my view, rankings and ratings are designed in the best interests of the rankers and the raters. I believe they are rarely rigorous enough or balanced enough to be a reliable guide for investors or for any other stakeholder. Comparability among companies, even within sectors, remains nebulous. Ratings are designed to give the rankers and the raters a claim to fame and often, a revenue stream. Just look at how the same company can rank top in one system and bottom in another and pretty much everywhere on the spectrum in several others. Rankings and ratings are not necessarily a bad things (as long as we don't believe them). They play a role in framing a debate and generating some competitive interest. They can be a CEO hook. That can encourage companies to do better. On the other hand, rankings may encourage companies to appear to do better. Possibly the strive to be a supersector superpower partially fuelled the creative criminality at Volkswagen, who knows? The point is, just the fact that Volkswagen was a DJSI superstar is not directly connected to the set of actions that caused the current issue. And the fact that one company screwed up does not make the rankings and ratings any better or any worse than they already are.

I think my respected colleague Antonio Vives comes to the same conclusion. More or less. My Spanish is not that good. In his article about Volkswagengate, he concludes: "Esto también nos demuestra que las calificaciones, rankings y premiso de responsabilidad deben tomarse con mucha suspicacia." which Google translated for me as "This also shows that the ratings, rankings and permission of responsibility should be taken with great suspicion."


TWO: The fact that a company produces great sustainability reports does not mean it is perfect.

Oh dear!! Did I disappoint you? Did you think that Sustainability Reporting comes with a squeaky clean bill-of-health in the sustainable-company department? Well, it does come with a guarantee. But not the one you think. Sustainability Reporting comes with a guarantee that the information that is NOT reported is the information that is MOST relevant to stakeholders. Hah. Work that one out. The upside is that sustainability reporting adds value in so many ways and the information that IS reported often has value as well. But the fact that there was dirty dealing at Volkswagen does not means that every single word in its Sustainability Report was untrue, or that other sustainability reports of other companies are suddenly irrelevant. Sustainability reporting as a process adds value, it empowers people, it catalyzes performance and it enables dialogue. One dirty player doesn't change that. But it does remind us that, as stakeholders, we are the vigilantes. When was the last time you asked a company about something they published in their Sustainability Report? It's easy to sit on the sidelines and say the system doesn't work when you are doing nothing to make it work.

THREE: The fact that people break the law is a fact. It's not always preventable. That's not about sustainability. Sometimes it's just breaking the law. 

How many companies have Codes of Ethics these days? All of them? How many companies have people who work for them that break the law? All of them? How many companies say they value women in management? All of them? How many companies have less than 50% women in management? Nearly all of them? How many companies have teams of lawyers fighting legal breaches or misdemeanors? Most of them? The point is that there will always be differences between saying and doing and there will always be people who break the law. They may be your family, your friends, your neighbors, your colleagues, your employees or your bosses. If they want to break the law, there's probably nothing you can do to stop them. Unless you speak out. Why did no-one at Volkswagen speak out? That's the most interesting question of all. How many people were complicit in this crazy scheme and how many thought they were acting in their own best interests? I guess we will hear the sensational details sooner or later, but if I were in a CEO seat right now, I would start making whistle-blowing one of the top corporate values alongside reinforcing the values of trust, honesty, legal and ethical behavior. As we say in the Middle East, "Trust in Allah, but tie your camel."  But does the fact that people want to break the law and the corporate culture is not strong enough to prevent them doing so equate to CSR being an ineffective waste of time? Don't think so. That math doesn't add up. 

FOUR: More regulation will not prevent companies circumventing regulation. Voluntary does have value. 

Yeah, yeah, yeah, all this voluntary stuff is not what it's cracked up to be, the naysayers are naysaying. Time to change the laws, make more laws, don't let companies do just what they want. Well, truth be told, it's much of the voluntary work that is done by corporations in the field of CSR that has influenced and continues to influence greater lawmaking. Would Europe have passed a directive on mandatory sustainability reporting had not the largest companies in the world led the charge and undertaken to do so voluntarily? No way. And I could give a thousand more examples. Voluntary CSR has a way of raising the bar, paving the way for regulation to touch it up around the edges and level the playing field. What's the alternative? Sit around and wait for lawmakers to wake up? Look where that got us RIO+20. A corporate reality without voluntary CSR and sustainability strategies would be a far grimmer reality than the one we share today. And finally for the pro-regulators, this would not have prevented Volkswagengate. Regulation was in place. Volkswagen broke the law, systematically and deliberately. (See truth three above). Maybe we should pass a law saying that people in companies should not break the law. Now, there's a thought.

FIVE: The fact that Volkswagen is history does not mean that sustainability is too.

The sustainability movement will be around long after Volkswagen has been buried under the 11 million vehicles it may need to recall or pay compensation for. Thousands of companies around the world have been saying that sustainability in one form or another is one of the most important aspects of the way they do business for many years now. Some of them are winging it, PR-blurbing and greenwashing ... but many are genuinely genuine. Look at the CEO surveys over the last couple of years. Sustainability is the talk and many are walking the talk. No company has reached perfection. Everyone is still walking. Might be good if we picked up the walking pace to a light jog sometime soon, but what's been achieved so far is not cancelled by Winterkorn and team. That would be far overstating the power that Volkswagen can leverage both in the motor vehicle sector and in general. Watch this space. Sustainability will outlive Volkswagen.


Anyway, at least I don't drive a Volkswagen. I just hope Hyundai doesn't screw up some time soon.


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  

Saturday, June 15, 2013

23 FSRs (Fabulous Sustainabilty Resources)

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

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

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

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

Ahead of any other reason, the noble objective of being transparent with stakeholders is cited as the key motivation to report in all the sectors represented in the survey. Brand reputation  is hardly cited as a motivator (but then, the sectors involved are largely not consumer-facing brand organizations) and even stakeholder pressure scores very low. I wonder what this means? Apparently, CEO's just want to be transparent. Tell that to yours. 
 
 
Measuring socio-economic impact – A WBCSD guide for business
This is a fabulous document from the World Business council for Sustainability Development (WBCSD) which explains the  ins and outs of measuring social impact. Know the difference between impacts, outcomes and outputs? This guide will see you straight. Know what the key tools that are available today to help you calculate socio-economic impact? This guide will both define them and tell you what they are good for. The details include ten key tools:


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

The report analyzes the results from 282 respondents who represented 17 sectors and are employed by companies with annual revenue greater than US$1 billion. Approximately 85% of these respondents are based in the United States.
 
And the six trends are: 1: The “tone from the top” is key to heightened awareness and preparedness for sustainability risks. 2: Governments and multilateral institutions aren’t playing a key role in corporate sustainability agendas. 3: Sustainability concerns now include increased risk and proximity of natural resource shortages. 4: Corporate risk response is not well paired to the scale of sustainability challenges. 5: Integrated reporting is slow to take hold. 6: Inquiries from investors and shareholders are on the rise.

Any surprises? Nah.

The Future of Corporate Giving
The Charities Trust and Corporate Citizenship

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

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

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

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

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

Interestingly, this report does not highlight impact measurement as a trend, or as an important factor in advancing community investment. Perhaps when charity becomes business strategy, adapted business models of return on investment may start to apply.
 
And here are four new reports from the Global Reporting Initiative, timed to coincide with the May 2013 Amsterdam GRI Conference:

Carrots and Sticks 2013
Global Reporting Initiative
 
This is the third publication in the Carrots and Sticks series of the GRI, and three other partners, and was launched ceremoniously at the Amsterdam conference by dynamo Teresa Fogelberg and a group of others. Carrots and Sticks is a look at the public policies and regulatory frameworks that are rapidly changing around the world. It's a self-proclaimed "global inventory of sustainability reporting policies and guidance" and includes: 1. Governmental or market regulatory requirements and voluntary initiatives for the public disclosure of sustainability information. 2. CSR initiatives requiring or providing guidance for sustainability reporting or other forms of public disclosure. 3. Requirements or recommendations covering a single topic (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions) or sector (e.g., mining), provided the disclosure has to be public. 4. Standards on sustainability assurance.

You will probably not be surprised to know that the trend is growing. See the table below for the number of initiatives over the past 6 years. More initiatives are becoming embedded in the laws of national governments.
Green represents initiatives for voluntary reporting
Orange are initiatives for mandatory reporting
The report notes that mandatory and voluntary approaches create "mutual traction" - one tends to advance the other. Mandatory disclosure is also increasing affecting state-owned enterprises. Carrots and Sticks provides a detailed update of the status of public policy and regulation on reporting in several countries and regions: Australia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Denmark, EU, France, India, Norway, South Africa and the USA. Which probably means that there is not too much to say about all the rest. Yet. Watch out for Carrots and Sticks 2020. I am sure that will present an entirely different picture. In the meantime, if you want a detailed look at sustainability reporting's regulatory status around the world, this is the best review out there.

Sustainability Topics for Sectors
Global Reporting Initiative

This 156 page report is the outcome of research among sustainability reporters and stakeholders, who submitted suggestions for sustainability topics by sector that could serve as a useful reference for identifying and prioritizing material issues in the sustainability management and reporting processes.  "In total, 194 organizations related to the different stakeholder groups either contributed directly or were researched as part of this effort. This research generated 2,812 topics which were related to 52 business activity groups. Over 600 documents support the 1,612 unique topics that have been identified through this process." The 1,612 topics are described in some detail and offer contextual information, aligned with GRI Material Aspects, so that in preparing your spanking new G4 report, you won't have to start from a blank page. The topics presented by 52 industry sectors. The sectors with the highest number of topics are:
 
Oil and Gas - 96 topics
Mining - 91 topics
Food and Beverage Processing - 78 topics
Electric Utilities - 71 topics
Construction and Home Building - 68 topics
Textile and Apparel - 59 topics
 
 
The tobacco sector has only 7 topics (!) - none of which relates to the degree to which their products kill people.
 
Sustainability Topics for the Tobacco Sector, page 64
 
In each sector, the high-level topic list is supported by detailed supplements which can be downloaded separately from the GRI's resource library. This is the link to the tobacco sector document, for example. Some sectors are more extensively covered than others.
 
This report is a very interesting collection of issues and certainly helpful. It is not exhaustive and in some cases, the list of issues is rather random. However, as input to any process which thinks about material issues, it's worth using. It would be good to see GRI continue this work. In fact, it's somewhat of a shame that more has not been done already. As G4 kicks in, this kind of thinking become more critical.  
 

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

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

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

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

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

Sustainia 100
Sustainia, Denmark


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

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


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

But that's not all:

And as I was compiling this list above, I came across this other list:
 
13 HOT RESEARCH REPORTS by Sustainable Brands, compiled by Dimitar Vlahov.
 
This contains some more fabulous stuff, really interesting reports, and there is absolutely no overlap with my list, so, just by adding this link, the CSR Reporting Blog offers you a double-scoop of resources for absolutely no additional charge. Come on, admit it, how many other sustainability reporting blogs are this good to their readers?

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




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

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Is reporting bad news?

As mentioned in my previous post, the annual  CR Reporting Awards CRRA '13 Winners were announced during a special, one-day, by-invitation-only CR Perspectives conference hosted by CorporateRegister.com in late April. The conference shared the results of the CR Perspectives survey, which was completed by hundreds of people around the world and yielded some very interesting results. A full analysis of the results will be published and made freely available by the end of May on CorporateRegister.com.

I chaired the CR  Perspectives conference, which gave me the opportunity to hear and share CR Perspectives with a full-house of fascinating people from all over the world, including China. 

Paul Scott, MD of CorporateRegister.com, a fully-fledged Sustainability Reporting authority and celebrity, told me: “As CR reporting continues to evolve, CorporateRegister was very pleased to offer a forum where recent developments and the direction of reporting could be debated by an informed audience of practitioners. CR reporting developed organically, and as it matures we find various organisations attempting to steer it one way or the other. What our CR Perspectives survey has shown is that people involved in reporting make up their own minds, and we could be in for some surprises.”

CR Perspectives opened up with  Richard Howitt, MEP and European Parliament's spokesperson on Corporate Social Responsibility who spoke about the recent non-financial reporting directive which has been proposed by the European Commission, which, if adopted, will require companies of 500 employees and more to disclose information on "policies, risks and results as regards environmental matters, social and employee-related aspects, respect for human rights, anti-corruption and bribery issues, and diversity on the Boards of Directors." Richard is optimistic that this will go through all the necessary approvals to become law within the next six months or so - resulting in another 18,000 companies delivering sustainability reports - integrated or standalone- a big increase from the 2,500 that Richard says make some form of disclosure today. Richard talked about ethics and trust  in business as being part of the economic crisis we find ourselves in today, and that these are not only part of the crisis, but the route out of the crisis. He believes the European Directive will help Europe to catch up with progress made in other countries such as South Africa, Denmark, Brazil and more, where non-financial reporting has already been advanced in some form. Interestingly, Richard said that non-financial reporting should not be a big financial burden on companies. He quoted a figure of GBP 4,200 additional cost for each company to produce this information, less for smaller businesses. I am not quite sure how this was calculated but I wouldn't bet my last ice-cream on that one. However, Richard Howitt's perspectives were a great starter for what turned out to be a fascinating, packed day of discussion and ... well.. perspectives.
 
Paul Scott shared the results of the CR Perspectives survey and I can't resist providing a glimpse of a few of the initial results, pending the full and final version later this month. For example:
  • Over 95% of respondents agreed that CR Reporting builds trust. Great news!
  • Mandatory reporting or disclosure was the thing that the highest number of people agreed would lead to better uptake of reporting (I proposed that reporters receive free ice-cream, but I don't think that gained too much ground). 
  • Over half of the survey respondents agreed that improved standardization would lead to better quality reporting.
  • 92% of respondents believe that an annual form of reporting is the way to go, with much less support for continuous updates throughout the year
  • A whopping 63% of reporters supported country-specific reporting, as opposed to regional or global. This is validation for multinationals who commendably invest so much effort in producing local reports.
  • Almost all respondents believe that all stakeholders are important audiences for CR reporting, which continues to make the reporting task a complex one, trying to meet the demands of multiple stakeholder groups.
  • When asked what would make reporting more credible, the highest number of respondents said: bad news! Quantified data, assurance and use of a known reporting standard also came in with quite some support.

During the day, we heard from a range of CR practitioners and experts, including Jo Franses of Coca Cola Enterprises, Rupert Thomas of Royal Dutch Shell, Verity Lawson of BAT, Shannon Shoul of Nike, Core Olsen from Novo Nordisk, Sophie Guillou of La Poste, Joss Tantram of Terrafiniti  and Lois Guthrie, of the Climate Standards Disclosure Board, who is always an interesting contributor.
 
We debated with passion some of the big issues of the day, from the level of understanding that companies have of the value of reporting in a "survival"" context, to the use of reporting to drive corporate value. Of course, the concept of box-ticking came up, as it always does when people talk about reporting, and while a certain amount of that is always required, especially if we move to more standardized formats, the focus on materiality may well drive companies to think more deeply about what really matters rather than what boxes are available to tick.  
 
On credibility, given that the most significant credibility builder is apparently bad news, the one thing that companies don't want to report, I asked the panel what bad news they include in their reports and what they consider bad news to actually mean. The consensus seemed to be that bad news includes: failure to meet targets, failure to address material issues due to significant challenges, and worsening of performance such as in the area of safety or GHG emissions. For bad news to be noticed, it also should not be hidden way and minimized to the point that it's unrecognizable as bad news. This also gave me the opportunity to tell the story of the work I did with GSK Romania in helping to prepare their first, local, CR Report, called Valuing your Trust. In my first meeting with the General Manager, Pascal Prigent, I asked: "What can we not report? What do you not want to include in this CR Report?" Pascal looked me, puzzled, as if this was a rather odd question. His response: "Nothing. You can include in the report anything that is relevant to telling our full, honest and authentic CR performance in all the necessary areas." I didn't actually find too much bad news to disclose at GSK Romania, after interviewing all the management team and tens of others, and reviewing mounds of data and information, but the open approach of leadership and willingness to be fully transparent in the interests of building trust and credibility is something that more reporters would do well to emulate.
 
Now that we have established that bad news works, perhaps we can expect to be reading lots more bad news in future reports. This may be totally depressing but at least we will trust everybody:).
 
Watch this space for more bad news!
 
 

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

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

CSR is personal at Intel

We often think about CSR as companies just doing their thing. What we sometimes fail to recognize is that the CSR of companies is the sum of the actions of individuals, all working to make a contribution in what is often a very complex web of corporate, global, local, internal, external, social, environmental, business and a million other considerations. The personal experiences of people working in CSR are always interesting. No matter how many times you read a company's CSR report, there's no comparison to getting the real story from the ones who make things happen. The background, challenges and perspectives of real people telling their real stories about CSR in their company is always enlightening, informative and usually inspiring. In this particular case, I am referring to real people from Intel at a meeting with them this week which was certainly enlightening, informative and inspiring. But as most of you didn't attend the meeting, you can find Intel's 2010 CSR report here :)

The occasion of the meeting was a Round Table event in Israel for local CSR practitioners with four Intel leaders, working in the CSR terrain:

Gary Niekerk, Director, Corporate Citizenship, Intel’s Corporate Affairs
Julian Lageard, Senior Manager, Global Public Policy, EU environmental laws
Dan Doron, Director, Construction, Intel Israel
Revital Bitan, CSR Manager, Intel Israel

RtoL: Dan Doron, Gary Niekerk, Revital Bitan, Julian Lageard
Over 20 representatives from local companies attended.

My take-outs from the personal contribution of these Intel leaders discussed in this meeting are:

Plan local employee engagement with CSR issues

Dan Doron made a presentation about how Intel Israel has led an internal campaign to engage and enthuse local employees on ESG matters. This has included developing a cross-company platform ESG Forum and integrating all individual initiatives into one umbrella program, identifying section leaders and establishing a platform for planning, learning, sharing and action internally and externally, to leverage Intel's efforts with local government, non-profits and community stakeholders. A new ESG strategy has been developed and this year, Intel Israel has published a focused Environmental Report covering all environmental impacts. This has been underpinned by a branded internal communication campaign to support the ESG Forum activity and grow employee awareness for Intel Israel’s green activities.

Green never happens unless you make it happen. Employees are the lynchpin for green activity. By making ESG local, personal, planned, measured and transparent, Israel is setting itself up for success.

The CSR voice represents the external stakeholder perspective

Not everyone can be an expert in sustainability issues and not every business decision will be considered with sustainability issues in mind. Decision-makers have different experience and understanding of CSR issues, which is why the CSR voice is so important at early stages of all business decision-making. Gary Niekerk sees his part of his personal role as bringing the external reality and perspectives of stakeholders to the table at the time decisions are being made. An example is a local Intel subsidiary whose pollution control permit had lapsed and savings were to be gained by delaying the renewal, while continuing to operate entirely legally and in line with all regulations. By tabling the stakeholder perspective and the potential erosion of local stakeholder confidence should they hear that such a permit was not up to date, the CSR voice was able to ensure the decision went in favor of immediate renewal, thereby maintaining respect for stakeholder interests and heading off a potential reputation risk.

Take proactive action to clean up the supply chain

Long gone are the days when most ITC companies were vertically integrated. The development of complex supply chains with high outsourced requirements means that companies must broaden the scope of accountability and ensure they understand impacts of the supply chain on their business. One outstanding example of Intel leadership is around the issue of conflict metals. Intel purchase components which contain a range of metals which, once smelted, are not traceable back to their mined source. As Gary said, "Everyone says it comes from Rwanda! Rwanda would have to quadruple in size in order to supply all these metals attributed to it!" Intel thus embarked on a pioneering journey to a metals certification system. After visiting 25 metal smelters around the world, Intel initiated a dialogue with other players in the electronics industry to establish a standard for smelters by which the source of metals such as tantalum, tin, tungsten and even gold can be guaranteed as sourced from non-conflict countries. Intel plans to publish names of certified smelters and purchase only components made with metals from these approved sources.

Regulators need educating

Julian Lageard gave an enlightening talk about his role as a public policy specialist. He is based in Brussels and has a voice in pre-decision processes relating to the formulation of new environmental regulation. Technology is changing fast and regulators are not experts. In order to develop fair, balanced but progressive and demanding legislation, European regulators need to know the issues. Regulations such as RoHS and REACH and substance restrictions in electronics such as lead and more are likely to increase in scope and intensity. We are facing a "tsunami of regulation on nano materials" for example, says Julian, as well as other themes regulating water consumption, power saving technology, fluorinated gases, emissions trading, packaging and more. Much regulation which is passed in Brussels for Europe, which now has 27 member states, may also end up becoming global legislation. It is important for a company such as Intel to ensure the legislation is developed in full knowledge of the issues. Julian's personal role is to ensure that Intel is part of sector associations which contribute knowledge of facts, issues and implications on the environment to help regulators understand CSR and sustainability concepts in order to develop the most appropriate legislation. This is a form of stakeholder engagement activity, as well as risk management, which is based on Intel being a trusted voice in the industry. And CSR is all about trust.

There were many other great insights coming out of this meeting, which local Israeli companies would do well to heed and emulate. Intel in Israel is a big player, employing over 7,000 people in 5 sites (manufacturing and development centers). Israel can definitely be described as "Intel Inside" and hopefully, Intel's CSR Leadership, engagement and transparency will catalyze a ripple effect in Israel, leading CSR strategy development by local companies.

Disclosure: Intel Israel is a client of my company, Beyond Business.


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)

Saturday, May 16, 2009

What's in a note ? Note this with aviva plc

I was just getting settled into a fascinating read of the Aviva plc 2009 CR report (yes, i always start out thinking reports are going to facinate me) and preparation for a review to be published on CorporateRegister.com. Aviva plc is , they claim, the first insurance company to be carbon neutral across their worldwide operations. But i just couldn't resist pausing to note an innovative feature of their on-line report which i have never seen ever ever ever before. Sorry if i get a little overenthusiastic, but you know, this is my thing. Anyway, take a look at this . Yes, it's a notes page. It enables you to make a note on any section of the report you have viewed , and the note is retained for the next time you go to the site and wonder what notes you made. Now, this is a very useful thing for people like me who review reports, for analysts who want to retain info pertinent to performance and growth drivers, and for anyone who just wants to remember anything without having to rely on the hard disk. This is a very innovative approach to on-line reporting.
I think i will start a campaign with world-wide regulators for mandatory inclusion of this feature in every web-based CR report.

OK, off to make lots of notes ......

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

Friday, May 8, 2009

BIG HIT for 3rd Israel Reporting conference

Technorati Profile

The Third Israeli Social and Environmental Reporting Conference was a resounding success!!


Held in the historic city of Caesarea on 4th May, this was the third annual reporting conference hosted by BeyondBusiness Ltd and drew close to 200 participants. This is the only professional conference in Israel on CSR reporting and has enjoyed the support of the Global Reporting Initiative each year. This year, it was the turn of Leena Wokeck, the GRI Network Relations Coordinator to come and address the conference – her presentation on a common language for sustainability can be found here. More papers and presentations here: And here are some other highlights.


A range of accomplished speakers presented at the conference. First and foremost, Mr Herman Mulder, former Director-General of Risk Management at ABN AMRO and the initiator of the Equator Principles. Mr Mulder provided insights about the current financial crisis and the changes required of businesses, which includes mandatory self-regulation, which means a requirement to report and be transparent but not highly constricting regulation such as the Sarbanex Oxley framework which became a bureaucratic box ticking exercise rather than a cultural transformation.

Other speakers included Professor Yedidia Stern. His fascinating lecture on the purpose of corporations propounded that "management of today's corporate capitalism, which encourages excessively risky economic policy" and that shareholders are the ones who demand excessive risk-taking as they have nothing to lose.

Dr Ehud Kookia, CEO of Maccabi Health Services, described the way he is driving csr in his 10,000 people organization and creating public awareness with a expired-drug-return program to avoid unwanted drugs getting into our waste systems and causing environmental damage.

Ahuva Yanai, the CEO of Matan- your way to give, the leading non-profit supporting business and community involvement programs talked about the value of such programs to corporations.
Dr Oren Peretz and Adv Ayalet BarAm presented a proposal developed in parternship with BeyondBusiness for a new law to mandate csr reporting for all government-owned companies.
The Reporters Report panel included representatives from Intel Israel, Bromine Compunds, Bank Leumi and comme il faut who described the way reporting has contributed to their overall business success.

Finally, Elaine Cohen, joint CEO of BeyondBusiness presented the first ever Transparency Index of Israeli companies. BeyondBusiness researched the internet transparency of the 100 top Companies traded on the Tel Aviv stock exchange, and, using a proprietary methodology developed around GRI principles, published the transparency levels of each company. Beyond Business presented certficates to the top 5 companies – Bank Hapoalim, Strauss, Bank Leumi, Partner Communications and the Oil Refineries, all of whom achieved high relative levels of transparency – more about this in a future post.

You can view pictures from the conference here


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

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

irregulate and unintegrate - i think i am a minority

I came across this article in Ethical Corporation which is a commentary on the recent Danish law to require reporting of non-financials by 1,000 Danish Companies. There are two interesting points discussed in the article:
  • Integrated reporting or separate reporting
  • Regulated reporting or voluntary reporting

One by one. OK?

Integrate or separate ?

There are many reasons for integrated reporting:

  • all stakeholders see the whole picture
  • demonstrates total strategic adoption of CSR practices
  • elevates CSR practices to lhighly developed level of financial practices
  • all reporting processes are aligned and more efficient
  • create greater reporting discipline
  • results in a more compact and coordinated report (1+1 = <2)(thats>

There are many reasons against integrated reporting

  • the opposite of all the above (that was easy enough)
  • the audiences are different
  • CSR gets overshadowed by the financials
  • the nature of CSR reporting doesnt fit well with financial reporting - they are fundamentally different
  • the financial reporting cycle is highly sensitive and subject to many different regulatory pressures - aligning CSR with these reduces flexibility for CSR reporting

And the winner is :...................

Well, there is no winner, There are just thoughts and preferences. After reviewing the Novo Nordisk integrated report for 2008, i was left with the feeling that integration is a tough task, adn that non-financials certainly lose out. NN have been doing the integration thing for quite some time and are ackowledged at the leaders in this approach. I am not interested in the detailed financial data, top and bottom line is enough for me. With a little in between. But i am highly interested in everything that relates to the way they get to the top and bottom line. I wonder how many non-financial-geeks really take interest in the streams of numbers and tables. Bores me silly. Maybe that's why am not a millionaire :((. My conclusion: Integrated reporting may have relevance for investors and analysists. I suspect all other stakeholders would regard 90% of the financials as about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.

Regulate or irregulate

This is more interesting. The article mentioned above shows the levels of regulation in all of 9 countries - flimsy to say the least.

Reasons to regulate:

  • make it happen - still many companies voluntarily do not report
  • ensure controls in place
  • reporting is a catalyst for action - if you have to report, you have to do something first (in theory)
  • level the playing field for the "license to operate"- raise the bar

Reasons not to regulate:

  • regulation may create the lowest common demoninator of reporting - meet the requirement but no more - kinda remove the competitive punch in today's voluntary reporting
  • regulation will require enforcement - could lead to an army of administrators checking for CSR content at best, or at worst, non enforcement
  • CSR is so broad that regulation has to be either very detailed or absolutely minimal - so whats the point ?
  • forcing CSR into too prescriptive a regulatory mold could dampen the amazing creativity we see in the ways Company's express their CSR approach

And the winner is ..............................

Well, there is no winner. Haha. you guessed that, right ? Here, my view is somewhere in the middle. Sort of upper middle. High upper middle. CSR reporting should be supported by incentives, which are a part of regulation. Some metrics should absolutely be regulated. Businesses showing transparency should get encouragement . I am in favor of a level of regulation, but not to such an extent that the soul of CSR is destroyed.

So, a reasonably irregulated unintegrated approach appears to have a mild advantage over other options. Or am i just being negative? I can live with regulation and integration. As long as we remember that before we can produce regulated, non-regulated, integrated, unintegrated, any-ated type of report, we must see csr progress being made in the business. Maybe we ought to regulate for DOING as well as REPORTING ? Oops, now that's a tall order ....

elaine

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 !

Friday, January 9, 2009

Denmark does it ... Apple doesn't

There's always good news and bad news.... that's what happens when TWO headlines come up on your radar.

First .. the good news headline:
"European neighbours and multinationals will be watching closely as Danish government passes legislation requiring firms to produce CSR reports " The law doesn't require the 1,000 largest firms to actually DO anything to advance their CSR practices, but it does require them to report. Isn't that interesting ? It means that all those that have nothing to say, but have to report, will show up as less attractive. Which perhaps will prove the point that reporting is a catalyst for action. If you have to report, you first have to do something to report about. The Danish government says that this is likely to enhance Danist business as an an attractive investment proposition. This is based on the assumption that Danish businesses are very csr-worthy, but they just dont tell people about it. Which is absolutely a key part of social reponsibility - accountability is responsibility plus transparency. Well done Danes.

I took a quick trip to corporate register (
CorporateRegister.com) and found that there is quite a good level of reporting in that country. Denmark is ranked 17th with around 500 reports issued since 1992, after US, UK, Japan, Germany, Australia, Italy and others. Some of reports to come out of Denmark include the best integrated reporters Novo Nordisk , Lego and others, unpronouncable for non-Danes.

Now for the BAD news:
Apple's launch of new green products at this week's Macworld show has been overshadowed by the company's attempts to quash shareholder requests for more corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting. The Apple company says that producing another report would produce little added value and require time and expense.

It's a good thing they are not based in Denmark, right ?
Related Posts with Thumbnails