How will you simplify your supply chain this year?

Here's a little one-question one-answer quiz.

Question: 

What's the second best thing you can do to mitigate supply chain risk in 2016? 

Answer: (please select one)

a) Attend the Sedex 2016 conference

b) Attend the Sedex 2016 conference

c) Attend the Sedex 2016 conference

d) Attend the Sedex 2016 conference

Whether you selected answer a) b) c) or d), read on. Learn more about why the Sedex Conference in March in London in 2016 should be part of your schedule.  

I grew up in the supply chain. In my formative years as a young manager with Procter and Gamble, I was responsible for logistics in Scotland and Northern Ireland in my very first management role, and then, over eight years until I decided to move on to pastures new, I took on successively diverse and challenging roles across different aspects of the supply chain in Europe including purchasing, customer service, distribution center management and more. And today, working with clients on strategy and reporting, I always feel at home discussing the opportunities (and risks) relating to ethical and sustainable supply. In that context, Sedex often crops up as one of the most influential players in the field of sustainable sourcing and responsible supply chain practice. I am looking forward to attending the 2016 conference, not only because I'll have the chance to speak (you all know how I love to talk), but mainly because I have the feeling that I am going to learn 

a lot.

Sedex is a not for profit membership organisation dedicated to driving improvements in ethical and responsible business practices in global supply chains. As the largest collaborative platform for sharing ethical supply chain data, Sedex is an innovative and effective supply chain management solution, helping companies to reduce risk, protect their reputation and improve supply chain practices. 

I could write reams about the vital importance of ethical supply chain management and the increasing risk as businesses become more global in scope and more complex in scale. It's also a gobbler-upper of resources. Monitoring, audits, training, communications, evaluations, assessments in a context of increasingly strict regulatory requirements means that both customers and suppliers must invest significant resources to stay not only cost-effective but also low-risk. At the same time, the supply chain, if you treat it right, can be a fabulous source of innovation and creativity, enabling business expansion and growth. And of course, no Sustainability Report is complete without critical supply chain disclosures. It seems that Sedex is in the right place at the right time. And by attending the Sedex 2016 Conference (#Sedex16), you will be too! Check out the agenda here.  

I posed a few questions to the Sedex CEO, Jonathan Ivelaw-Chapman, about supply chain sustainability and the conference. Check out his insights: 

What's the most important aspect of your role at Sedex? What's most challenging and what's most satisfying? 

Jonathan: Since joining Sedex, what has struck me is our people and the passion they bring to the organisation. For me, it’s our values and our people that are the most important aspect at Sedex. The most satisfying part of what I am doing is seeing our employees engage in future-thinking in fresh and innovative ways. They are all here because they care and are passionate, and the talent and energy we have seems endless. This is wonderful to observe and participate in. 

Coming from the technology industry, where for nearly 30 years, hype, language and behaviors were all about self-justification and increased investment, I now sense an exit to the “hype” that we have all experienced. I want to help avoid any similarities to the IT industry, by bringing clarity and affordability into the sustainability industry. The challenge for Sedex is to help our industry and membership navigate in an increasingly complex sustainability world. We will do this by simplifying our language, facilitating opportunities to work collaboratively, and giving our members an industry roadmap, with a vision of the way responsible sourcing can work. 

The Sedex Conference 2016 theme runs under the banner of simplification. Everyone seems to talk about the sustainability landscape becoming increasingly complex! How realistic is simplification?

Jonathan: The business and sustainability landscape is rapidly changing. From natural resource scarcity to human rights, child labour to an evolving regulatory landscape, our industry is facing a range of challenges. With all these new topics coming up, sustainability is becoming a complicated space with new initiatives, frameworks, certifications, and schemes, creating silos in industries, countries, topic areas themselves.

Sedex is already looking at simplifying supply chains and recognising the interconnectivities between different issues such as bribery and health and safety and whether there could be more effective ways for companies and their suppliers to manage these issues as one as opposed to treating them in silos. 

There is no need to re-invent the wheel but rather try to scale up – pick what’s relevant to you and collaborate with other stakeholders. We might not have all the right answers just yet, but we are getting there. The conference will provide a great forum to discuss and address the challenges and hear from the industry leaders on how they are going about simplifying the challenging issues and approach to tackling them. 

What's going to be different about the SEDEX Conference 2016? What highlights should we look out for? 

Jonathan: This will be our largest conference so far, bringing together around 1,000 leaders in responsible sourcing for two days of discussions. The conference will be live-streamed and for the first time, we will also have live interviews with conference speakers straight from the conference hall. The conference agenda will cover the most relevant topics for supply chain sustainability – from modern slavery legislation, how organisations can quantify, value, and improve their impact on society, to best practice in agricultural sustainability measurement and reporting tools and resources and much more. 

We have an exciting line up of speakers – from multinational companies such as Kellogg and Mars, to organisations such as International Trade Centre and Thomson Reuters across plenary sessions, master-classes, workshops and spotlight talks. 

For the first time ever we will also host the VIP Networking Dinner event at the Barbican’s tropical plant conservatory in the heart of the City of London. Our conference delegates often ask for more opportunities to network and this dinner, designed for just 150 guests, will provide an exclusive opportunity to connect with industry experts and discuss hot sustainability topics. We are delighted to have John Morrison, Executive Director of the Institute for Human Rights and Business, speaking during the dinner. As a well-known and influential voice on business and human rights, and a highly engaging and knowledgeable speaker, John's speech will be a real highlight of the evening.

***********

And now another little one-question one-answer quiz:

Question: 

What's the first best thing you can do to mitigate supply chain risk in 2016? 

Answer: (please select one)

a) Attend the Sedex 2016 conference

b) Attend the Sedex 2016 conference

c) Attend the Sedex 2016 conference

d) Attend the Sedex 2016 conference 

Look forward to seeing you there!
Drop me a note if you'd like a 50% discount on the standard ticket price on registration. Who wouldn't?



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  

5 ways to make sustainability reporting more sustainable

Is sustainability reporting sustainable? There are some that think it is. The practice is now more widespread than ever before and and legislation in different parts of the world is supporting increased non-financial disclosure. This would indicate that reporting is here to stay. On the other hand, there are some that think it isn't. There are those who subordinate sustainability reporting to the new financial reporting trend called Integrated Reporting, while others advocate online interactive disclosures instead of reports. As we move into 2015 and face another year of corporate efforts to improve impacts, manage risk and engage with the new opportunities that sustainability brings, amid a flurry of surveys and reports that support the case for or against sustainability reporting, what can companies do to embed reporting practice in a sustainable manner? In addition to the predictable list of things we already know - focus, clarity, materiality, relevance, balance, frameworks etc - here are some more creative approaches that companies might like to consider. 

Excite your Board of Directors about reporting 

Reporting has often been considered an add-on, a project for the CSR Manager, something that exists alongside the "real" reporting processes. Sustainability reporting has not really hooked the attention of the highest level of leadership and in most cases, does not find its way onto the Board agenda. In order to make reporting more sustainable, Directors must be excited about sustainability reporting. They must see it as an advantage, a benefit, a value-adding activity, and not something they tolerate. Let's be honest, how many company Directors actually read the sustainability reports of the companies they are engaged to be accountable for?  How many Directors are actually consulted in the process of preparing the report? As key stakeholders, company Directors surely deserve some acknowledgement, recognition and even voice in the annual Sustainability Report. In order to excite your Board of Directors, engage them in the reporting process and have them approve the output, here are some things you can do: 

• Empower your board members. This can be done, for example, through Board workshops to build awareness, knowledge and engagement around relevant issues for each company. In 2014, the UN Global Compact launched an interesting Board Program to help align the Board on sustainability matters and help Directors demonstrate leadership on Board adoption of sustainability principles. As Board members engage in deep consideration of sustainability issues, they become empowered to embrace leadership and guide the company along the sustainability journey. This program looks like a good start but it must result in something more than discussion in order to truly deliver change. Therefore, after education, comes action. 
• Engage company Directors in the reporting process. Help your Board of Directors own your Sustainability Report by asking them to contribute. Interview them individually or as a group and include their pictures and their commentaries in the Sustainability Report. Stakeholders will be gratified by evidence of greater Board commitment, and Board members will be energized by their own involvement and declaration of what is important to them. Involving them may also help reinforce their accountability for the Sustainability Report and its contents. This kind of involvement is positive but it is not enough. Involvement must be formalized.
• Establish and publish a formal Board policy for sustainability reporting. This should describe Board accountability for sustainability reporting. The policy should define Board actions prior to report publication including a Board discussion and concurrence of the report content and agreement to publish. Following the report publication, the policy could require the Board to conduct a review of whether the report has met its objectives and agree new objectives for the next reporting cycle.   

Make your reporting process cool
I maintain that sustainability reporting as a process is incredibly cool. The right process empowers people, challenges people, gets people listening to one another, sometimes even talking to one another, occasionally even agreeing with one another. This applies to both employees as well as external partners, organizations, suppliers, local authorities and consumers. Rather than inviting people to a meeting about the Sustainability Report (yaaaaaaawn!), there are many ways you can involve people in activities that both interest and engage them, while at the same time, getting the information you need for your report. This includes competitions (send-us-a-video-of-how-your-job-contributes-to-improving-the-environment) or prizes (weekend for two for the first complete set of sustainability reporting information sent back to corporate) or Ice Cream Meetings (round table discussions with internal and/or external stakeholders on sustainability issues, where the meeting leader brings (lots of) ice cream for consumption during the meeting). There are a million ways to make the reporting process fun, even  if, at some point, there is a certain amount of  actual hard work to be done.

Engage your employees around the published report

So many reports go unnoticed by the very employees whose hard work made the report possible. That means all the employees in the company. The minute the report is published is the signal to start the work of engaging employees around the report. Rather than just broadcasting an email announcement - we published our report (yaaaaaaawn!), there are many ways to get your employees to sit up and take notice. This may include quizzes with prizes (Who is quoted on page 34 of our last report? By how much did our GHG emissions reduce last year?), games (How far can you throw our Sustainability Report?) and feedback (Cross-functional discussion groups  - can be web-meetings - each focusing on a single section of the report and analyzing the content together, with recommendations for the next report). You might even  involve your employees' children in preparing a poster about how your company makes a positive contribution to the world - requiring employees to explain the essence of the report messages to their kids. Prizes of course for the best contributions. Each company can find its own way to be creative in developing an engagement process which both informs and interests employees. You might find employees actually enjoy reading the report and discover things about the company - and their colleagues - that they didn't know. More importantly, they will be able to talk to stakeholders about the issues that matter in an informed way.

Drive your reporting throughout the supply chain
How many companies ask their suppliers to contribute to their reporting and engage suppliers once the report is published? More and more, the report of one company is both the start-point and the endpoint of the reports of other companies. I am not aware of anyone trying to track a product through all the sustainability reports of the companies involved in producing it from raw materials to end-of-life - that could be an interesting exercise. However, suppliers are big enablers of any business and their influence on the direct impacts of an organization may be quite significant. Perhaps suppliers should have a bigger place in sustainability reports - strategic suppliers can contribute data, case studies and specialist perspectives  - and may be grateful for the recognition their customers' reporting offers them, thereby reinforcing the relationship with them. Once the report is published, reverting to suppliers, emphasizing the key messages, acknowledging their role and encouraging them to adopt sustainable practices in their own businesses is a critical step in maintaining the reporting momentum.  

Celebrate reporters

It's so easy to criticize reports, it's so easy to say that reports are full of irrelevant information, it's so easy to dismiss reporting as some sort of activity that apparently everyone has been duped into doing for the wrong reasons and producing the wrong results. It's much harder to stand up for reporting and talk about what it really is: a business process that adds value, engages people and empowers employees. The folks that lead reporting in organizations have to address not only the hard work of reporting - and it is hard work - but also overcome these notions that are bandied around saying reporting is worthless. Reporting leaders in organizations should be celebrated. They have one of the hardest jobs around. Reporters play a critical role in helping organizations move forward sustainably and helping shape the future of business. I have often said that reporting is a catalyst for performance, and great reporters know how to use the reporting process to drive change.  Make sure the reporting leader in your organization gets the respect s/he deserves, has the resources s/he needs and gains the attention of management as and when needed. Ringfence your reporter and ensure s/he has enough ice cream to last through the entire reporting cycle.   

Good luck to all companies starting reporting cycles about now. Let me know how you got on with this list:)

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 Top Ten Report in 2015? Contact Elaine: info@b-yond.biz   

Rights is the new black

At the Third Smarter Sustainability Reporting conference this week in London (more about that to come on the CSR Reporting Blog), we were privileged to hear from Erinch Sahan, Policy Advisor, Private Sector, Oxfam GB about the updated Behind the Brands Scorecard, released today, 26th February. Erinch gave a passionate, informative and entertaining overview of the work he and his team have been leading at Oxfam. Sort of a Behind the Scenes at Behind the Brands.

As you may know, Behind the Brands is part of Oxfam’s GROW campaign to help create a world where everyone has enough to eat. Oxfam says that while the food system is complex and its problems multi-faceted, we know that the world’s largest food and beverage companies have enormous influence. Their policies drive how food is produced, the way resources are used and the extent to which the benefits trickle down to the marginalized millions at the bottom of their supply chains. The Behind the Brands Scorecard assesses the agricultural sourcing policies of the world's 10 largest food and beverage companies. It exclusively focuses on publicly available information that relates to the policies of these companies on their sourcing of agricultural commodities from developing countries. Companies selected are those with the largest overall revenues globally, and are included in the Forbes 2000 annual ranking, which measures companies on the basis of composite sales, assets, profits and market value. The intent is to provide stakeholders with information about the brands they engage with, and also urge them to take action to drive these companies to do more to address issues in their supply chains.

The work of the Oxfam team started with an initial assessment a year ago, and during that time there have been significant instances of engagement with the companies in the Behind the Brands scorecard and several achievements can be noted. For example, on issues relating to lack of gender ineqality in chocolate supply chains, Mars, Nestle and Mondelez all committed to investigating barriers to women and making plans to address these, as well as signing the UN Women's Empowerment Principles. Similarly, in focusing on the issue of land acquisition, Oxfam was able to drive change.

Since this campaign, which urged companies to establish and implement a zero tolerance policy on land grabbing, including adherence to the principle of FPIC (free prior and informed consent) in the operations of the company and its suppliers, Coca-Cola announced a set of industry-leading commitments to protect the land rights of farmers and communities in the world’s top sugarcane-producing regions. Other major companies have followed suit with declarations of policy and new action in this area. Behind the Brands, therefore, is not only a review of policy but a powerful tool to drive change through transparency, engagement and focus.

When the original Behind the Brands scorecard was published, I admit to having some reservations about a tool which tracks only declared policy rather than actual practice. I asked Erinch Sahan about this. Here are his thoughts:

1. We chose policies that link to processes that would be harder to disclose without changing behavior.
2. Tracking policy also allows others to hold companies to account. Once there is a public commitment from global companies to do something, local efforts to improve practices on the ground have greater legitimacy and influence.
3. Most importantly, most of the indicators require companies to be more engaged in their supply chains collect information on the issues and often, conduct joint projects with suppliers and stakeholders to address issues and have the right requirements in supplier codes and guidelines. In our experience, these correlate strongly with the companies who are doing more on the ground.

After hearing about the massive progress that has been made in issues largely ignored in most of the Sustainability Reports of large food companies to date, I am tending to believe that Behind the Brands is indeed an effective tool to drive performance change, proving one of my long-time mantras: transparency (and reporting) is a catalyst for performance improvement.

Erinch was kind enough to send me some further information explaining the updated Behind the Brands Scorecard. Here are his words, a sort of rare "guest post" on the CSR Reporting Blog.

*******

A year later, Big 10 improving but more is needed 

It’s a year since we launched our scorecard. Having clawed through company reports, analyzing every commitment and policy of the world’s 10 largest food and drinks companies (‘the Big 10’), we scored companies on a range of issues impacting the lives of people living in poverty around the world. A year later, having rigorously updated the scorecard, we reflect on how companies are tracking on the seven issues we cover: workers, farmers, women, land, climate, water and transparency.

Most are improving 
The companies are on the right track. All but General Mills have improved their overall scores since February 2013. The top three (Nestle, Unilever and Coca-Cola) separated themselves further from the pack and saw the biggest jump in scores with overall increases of 10 percent, 14 percent and 13 percent. The companies in the middle of the pack (Danone, Mars, Mondelez and PepsiCo) saw mild improvements. There were some improvements also at the bottom of the scorecard. Associated British Foods and Kellogg’s - previously ranked 10th and 8th respectively - saw increases in scores of 7 and 6 percent respectively. As a result, General Mills is now at the bottom of the rankings.

High performers emerging 
A year ago, no company could be classified as having “good” policies on any issue (scoring 8 or above out of 10). There are now two that achieve this feat. Unilever, with its score of 8 for farmers, has shown true leadership in pursuing supply chains that are inclusive and fair for smallholder farmers. Nestle (scoring 8 on climate) continues to lead all companies on climate, where we assess both efforts to reduce emissions and to help farmers adapt to a changing climate. In both cases, the results mirror broader assessments of these companies. The Carbon Disclosure Project’s Leadership Index puts Nestle first among its peers, and Unilever is widely recognized for its work on dealing more fairly and inclusively with smallholder farmers.

No longer ignoring land and women’s rights and improvements on climate 
A year ago, it was clear that the industry was failing on two key issues: how it addresses women’s inequality and land rights. Scores were woeful and none of the Big 10 had an approach that addressed the plight of women working on farms around the world and none were making suppliers respect the rights of communities over land. In response, we spent the last year reminding companies about these blind-spots, asking supporters (nearly 400,000 supporters spoke up), investors (representing billions of dollars asked the companies to act) and civil society to join us in urging the Big 10 to start addressing gender and land issues.

The results are encouraging. Led by Coca Cola, six of the Big 10 now endorse the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent on land acquisition. This is key in ensuring communities have a say over what happens to the land they depend upon. Seven of the Big 10 have signed on to the UN Women’s Empowerment Principles, which demonstrates a commitment to ensuring the industry starts addressing the barriers faced by women on farms and markets around the world. Similarly on climate, companies have started putting in place targets to reduce emissions and start disclosing more about their carbon footprint.

Too many issues remain unaddressed 
While we saw impressive improvements on women’s rights, land and climate change, we didn't see the same level of movement in the workers, farmers and water themes. On these themes, (apart from Coca Cola on water), no company showed significant improvements. On water and workers issues, companies had already picked off the ‘low hanging fruit’ and taken some steps to strengthen their commitments. For instance, a year ago, most companies had already recognized the International Labor Organization’s labor rights conventions and were disclosing key water information through the Climate Disclosure Program’s Water Program. But a year later, still only PepsiCo recognizes the UN Human Right to Water and no company has set a specific target to reduce its water use along its whole supply chain.

On farmers, only four companies (Danone, General Mills Nestle and Unilever), mildly improved their performance over the course of the year. Most continue to ignore the importance of ensuring dealings with farmers are fair and inclusive (e.g. through transparent contracts and ensuring farmers are paid fairly).

What are they hiding? 
The industry has started to disclose a little more about their agricultural sourcing, but many still shy away from revealing who they buy from. Allowing consumers, the public and communities to work out which producers connect to which global brands is key for accountability. Though the Big 10 are by-and-large preventing this.

The updated scorecard now also assesses a critical new component of transparency – taxes – focusing on whether companies disclose information linked to the use of tax havens. New indicators on transparency now ensure that we better capture this important theme. People and corporations using tax havens are depriving the world of more than $150 billion in lost revenue, enough money to end extreme poverty twice over. Through our new tax indicators Oxfam aims to identify which companies are most open and accountable in their tax dealings. With the exception of Unilever and Coca-Cola, all the companies fail miserably in tax disclosure. This helped drag the transparency scores of four companies down by 1 point, with only Unilever slightly improving its overall transparency score over the course of the year.

What next? 
We’ll continue to score the companies on these issues, highlighting where they improve and drawing attention to where they don’t. We’ll also keep talking to supporters, investors, civil society and governments to get others to also deliver the message on fair and sustainable agriculture to the Big 10.

If companies are to show leadership on these issues (and see their scores improve), they have to start taking some tougher actions, such as:

1. Pay a sustainable price
Addressing sustainability comes at a cost. In many circumstances it may seem to cost more in the short term to grow ingredients in a way that respects rights, pays farmers and workers fair prices and wages, and protects the planet. But the farmers who grow the ingredients capture a tiny amount of the value of the prices paid by consumers, with cocoa farmers receiving as low as 3.5 per cent of the price of a chocolate bar, coffee growers receiving as little as 7 per cent of the price of coffee in supermarkets and tea farmers getting as little as 1 per cent of the price of tea. With so little of the final price going to the farmers, ensuring farmers get a fairer and more sustainable price for their producer won’t necessarily require consumers to pay. It can be covered by a marginal shift in how value and profits are shared between farmers and the rest of the food system. For company commitments to be more meaningful, there needs to be an assurance of their intention to pay the price for fair and sustainable production.

2. Proactively find and address problems
The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (‘the Ruggie Principles’), which are quickly becoming the consensus on how responsible companies approach human rights, ask companies to be proactive in finding human rights risk. It is no longer acceptable to wait passively for problems to pop up. Too many companies are still struggling to show they know where the problems are in their operations and remain uncomfortable opening up their supply chains to scrutiny.

3. Focus on rights and give the poorest real voice
Emerging issues like land and women’s rights are rising up the agenda. Rights is the ‘new black’ in sustainability and recognizing and respecting rights should be core business for any company. However, ‘voice’ is quickly joining the rights agenda as the ‘next black’. Giving marginalized people a say over their lives (like on land rights where 5 of the ‘Big 10’ are giving communities the right to free, prior and informed consent) is critical. Whether it’s workers having a say in their working conditions through collective bargaining, farmers able to control their destiny through producer organizations or women able to raise concerns via women’s organizations, there are many ways the ‘Big 10’ can use their immense power to give people with little power a real voice.

4. Avoid catastrophe on climate change 
Climate change is already having a terrible impact on the lives of agricultural communities around the world. Extreme weather is also impacting the supply chains and operations of the Big 10. The Big 10 need to both reign in their own emissions (and those of their suppliers) whilst also helping farmers adapt to a changing climate. More broadly, the planet needs their powerful voice needs to get behind broader action to tackle climate change. Oxfam will be increasingly speaking up on this issue.

*****

Behind the Brands seems to me to be doing great work. I guess we will be seeing more of these issues showing up in the Materiality Matrices of the Big 10 in their new G4 Sustainability Reports in coming years. Thanks to Erinch for great insights and for the guest post!

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

Just in Time: Chocolate for Yom Kippur

It's never too late to keep a promise. One of the things that sweetened the experience of the GRI Global Reporting Conference in Amsterdam in May 2013 was the free chocolate dispensed with a smile by Tony's Chocolonely at a stand in the exhibition area and throughout the conference. In return for an even bigger gift of free chocolate, I promised to write about Tony's Chocolonely on the CSR Reporting Blog.

Chunky Chocolate with a Fair Trade taste

Yes, it has taken me only 4 months, but it's now quite opportune as it's the Eve of Yom Kippur, and atonement and reparations are the order of the day. So, I atone for not fulfilling my promise so far, and attempt to repair my tarnished integrity by doing so, possibly earning myself a better chance of being inscribed in the Book of Life for yet another year. I hope so. The year ahead promises to be an exciting one - and a whole lot sweeter now that I have discovered Tony's Chocolonely.

Arjen Boekhold dispensing chocolate with a smile

Of course, chocolate comes second to ice-cream on my indulgence league-table, but in this case, it's very special chocolate. "The Tony’s Chocolonely slogan ─ “on the way to 100% slavery-free chocolate” ─ means Tony’s is 100 percent committed to ending chocolate slavery and to giving customers a slavery-free chocolate choice." 

Slavery in chocolate is still prevalent enough to put us off our daily (hourly?) treat.  The “good life” is still a distant dream for many cocoa farmers and the problems of child and forced labor are still very much in evidence. Based on estimates for the year 2013, at least 460,000 people (children and adults) in West Africa work as cocoa “slaves”, of which about 15,000 to 30,000 children are trafficked into slavery (human trafficking).

This is what Tony's Chocolonely says about slavery in the chocolate industry in West Africa:
 

"There’s a nasty ingredient hidden in that sweet chocolate bar: Slavery. That’s right, lurking in the shadows of the monolithic chocolate industry, modern-day slavery is common practice in many cocoa-producing countries. West Africa, accounting for 60 percent of the world’s cocoa supply, is a notorious haven for chocolate slavery, most often taking the form of child labor abuse. In the Ivory Coast and Ghana, children, hoping for a better life, are lured onto cocoa plantations and tricked into slavery. Most are under the age of 16, working excessively long days, for little or no pay, under physical and mental duress, with no option to leave."
 

Tony's Choc has a different approach, based on the development of direct relationships with farmer cooperatives, working together to develop programs with specific goals and targets for production, in order to support the development of farmer organizations. This means that Tony's Chocolonely has its own  Bean-to-Bar segregated supply chain, through which the cocoa beans of the farmer cooperatives are shipped directly to the production facility. This way, the folks at Tony's Choc know exactly where the beans in their chocolate come from.

In 2012, Tony's Chocolonely signed long-term contracts with two cocoa farmer cooperatives: ABOCFA (Ghana) and Ecookim (Ivory Coast), committing to a five-year purchasing agreement in which the farmers can be certain there is a buyer for their cacao, and at a good price. With the certainty of a buyer, the farmers invest in improving their farms, professionalize and grow. In buying directly from the farmer,  intermediary trade is effectively eliminated and the farmer gets more compensation.   Within this long-term arrangement, Tony's Chocolonely facilitates training for farmers, enabling increased cacao productivity per hectare and also drives awareness of the need to eliminate child and forced labor and help strengthen the position of women.

ABOCFA is a farming cooperative of around 400 farmers in 13 communities in Ghana. In 2008, the ABOCFA farmers gained organic and Fairtrade certifications, becoming the first such operation in Ghana to do so, based on interest expressed by Cadbury's for the Green and Black label. However, after the subsequent acquisition of Cadbury's by Kraft (now Mondelez), interest in ABOCFA farmers' Fairtrade organic cacao ceased, leaving hundreds of farmers wondering how they would recoup their investment. Enter Tony's Chocolonely, who in 2012 became the first purchaser of the Ghanan ABOCFA cacao, turning it into that fabulous-tasting chunky chocolate that 1,600 delegates at the GRI Conference in Amsterdam could enjoy. Me included. Part of Tony's Choc's approach is to help drive interest in the ABOCFA cooperative, to attract more buyers and help ensure the sustainability of the operation. In the Ivory Coast, Tony's Chocolonely purchases from a single village of 128 farmers, working under the auspices of the bigger cooperative union. Again, these farmers have achieved Fairtrade certification and revenue from sales is reinvested to drive increased efficiencies and professional long-term supply.  

Arjen Boekhold recently visited both Ivory Coast and Ghana, taking with him a generous supply of 'Bean-to-Bar' chocolate with him, so the farmers could taste the chocolate which was made from their own cocoa beans. This made them very proud. For many of them, it was the first time they tasted chocolate at all. Can you believe that? Arjen reviewed the cooperative activities and the ways in which funds to support human rights in the chocolate supply chain have been used. For example, Tony's Chocolonely initiated and supported funding for an awareness campaign on (child) slavery and women's rights, and also provided funds for a cocoa warehouse. The collaboration is as sweet as the chocolate itself.
 

Photo with permission from Tony's Chocolonely

Check out Tony's Chocolonely also on Facebook.
More importantly, go buy some!
Even more importantly, go eat it!
But maybe not on Yom Kippur :)

(Oh and by the way, for all those of you observe Yom Kippur, the CSR Reporting Blog, and me, wish you Well over the Fast and that you should be inscribed in the Book of Life for a healthy, safe, prosperous and happy year ahead!) (Even if you don't observe Yom Kippur, we wish you that anyway, except for the Fast bit).


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)

G4: The Voice of Dissent

Who speaks for the workers? At the GRI Conference in Amsterdam 22-24 May 2013, there was one voice which was loud and clear. It was that of the ITUC - The International Trade Union Confederation - representing 175 million workers in 156 countries and territories through 315 national affiliates - in the form of Sharan Burrow, the ITUC General Secretary, and colleague also speaking at the conference, Dwight Justice.

 

Of course, the timing couldn't have been more fortuitous. The Rana Plaza death toll of over 1,100 in Bangladesh, not the first but certainly the most publicized safety tragedy in outsourced garment factories in Asia in recent years, was the burning platform, both literally and figuratively, that added an almost haunting ring of truth to Sharan Burrow's plea for integration of labor rights and social standards into the norms of business behavior.

 

Sharan Burrow, ITUC, demands worker rights at  the GRI Conference

Here's a taste of Sharan's speech to the conference:

"Notwithstanding the legitimacy of the GRI and the improvements made in the new “G4” to deliver more strategic sustainability reports that are focused on those impacts that matter most to people and the planet, the reality is that the short-term quest to maximise profit pits corporations against rights and sustainability. Despite the risk of climate catastrophe, the corporate opposition to a price on carbon or industry policy-based subsidies for start-ups in new energy – let alone the major fossil fuel giants fight against a comprehensive climate agreement – is without moral or sustainability virtue.

Yet many of the same major companies file their sustainability reports without conscience. And their approach to the workers whose labour fuels their profits is criminal. Ask any CEO if they would like their sons or daughters to work in the textile factories in Pakistan, the mines in the Congo, manufacturing plants in Central America, or as beer women in Cambodia, and they shudder. But at the same time they allow the willful perpetuation of these horrors in the supply chains of their corporations.

The model is neither humane nor sustainable. Yet many corporations promote their practice as responsible. Just check the sustainability reports of the retailers that sourced from Rana Plaza in Bangladesh. There can be no more excuses, no more deaths from fire, occupational injuries or disease, no more work-related poverty and no more denial of human and labour rights. It is time to move beyond volunteerism to compliance. If corporations don't integrate labour rights and environmental standards into their core business model, then the rule of law must be effective enough to ensure compliance.

Globalisation in the manufacturing and service industries began to accelerate sharply in the 1980s as advances in communications and transport technology enabled companies to begin exploiting the vast global workforce on a scale which was previously impossible. Firms adopted business models based on locating production in countries where labour laws are weak, virtually non-existent or poorly enforced, and thus workers are effectively blocked from organising unions and engaging in collective bargaining with employers.

The global supply chain has become the means by which international brands maximise their revenues by continuously seeking an edge on their competitors by driving production costs ever lower. While the globalised business model continues to provide vast profits for companies, it comes at a tremendous cost to working people and to the economies of many of the poorest nations. The backwash of low-wage competitiveness can now be seen in the attacks on rights and collective bargaining in Europe, and along with the anti-union orthodoxy in the US, is not just morally wrong but counterproductive to sustainability."

 

Many of Sharan's remarks, and her subsequent contribution in the panel discussion, were met with nods of acquiescence, and occasional applause, from the very large crowd in the audience. We all agree that corporations should be more accountable for their impacts in the supply chain, which are where the most significant human rights abuses take place. The real question is whether G4 will go further in driving that accountability, moreso than its predecessor, G3.

 

Of course, we cannot expect a single, voluntary reporting framework to change the world and be solely responsible for the enlightened transformation of business accountability. Sustainability is a movement which requires all stakeholders, including governments, to play a role. Nonetheless, reporting is a catalyst for performance improvement, and G4 does take reporting to a new level. With a focus on the impacts that matter, in the places they matter, G4 aims to make reporting more relevant, more process-oriented, less tick-boxy and more accessible to our global community of businesses of all sizes in all sectors.

 

G4 has strengthened the coverage of reporting in the area of labor, human rights and supply chain management with new performance indicators.

 

New G4-12 General Standard Disclosure, required at both Core and Comprehensive reporting levels (see previous post for the difference between Core and Comprehensive), asks companies to describe their supply chains, indicating the number and location of suppliers active in supporting the delivery of an organization's products. Outsourced factories in Bangladesh, and elsewhere, should be disclosed as part of the supply chain.

 

Former performance indicators LA1 and LA4, now G4-10 and G4-11, covering details about the total workforce, including employees, supervised workers and percentage of employees covered by collective agreements, are now mandatory in the G4 guidelines, as General Standard Disclosures for all companies, rather than optional performance indicators as in G3/G3.1.

 

New Specific Standard Disclosures in the area of labor include G4-LA14, G4-LA15 and G4-LA16, relating to the percentage of suppliers screened using labor practices criteria, significant actual and potential impacts for labor practices in the supply chain and actions taken, and disclosure about grievances filed against the company.

 

New Specific Standard Disclosures in the area of human rights G4 HR-10, G4-HR11 and G4-HR12, include the same set of performance indicators that refer specifically to human rights, separately from labor practices.

 

However, Specific Standard Disclosures are relevant in a G4 report only if they have been identified as material. Companies which have not prioritized material issues which relate to labor practices have no formal G4 requirement to disclose such practices in their supply chains. This creates a potential risk that companies will be rather selective about the issues they identify as material and the extent to which they will be transparent about the detail of their supply chains. The big change in G4 is the need for a structured, inclusive, documented and transparent process for identifying material issues. It's inconceivable that a company whose product lines depend on thousands of outsourced factories throughout Asia and elsewhere will not declare labor and human rights as material issues after due process. G4 requires a leap of faith that companies will apply this new reporting framework responsibly and ensure content is developed in a considered and balanced way, reflecting significant social and environmental impacts both internal to and external to the organization. 

 

G4 comes, then, with a greater emphasis on the responsibility of stakeholders to be alert to the ways in which companies use the G4 guidelines, what they prioritize and how they report. G4 is the era of, not only greater responsibility to report (companies), but greater responsibility to respond (stakeholders).  I would like to hear more from the voice of dissent, the ITUC, and from others, responding to corporate disclosure, as it happens, and not just with bold statements at GRI conference time. As G4 takes root, it is critical that we all step up our vigilance and active involvement in the reporting process. We are all stakeholders. We are all accountable. We are all the voice of dissent.

 

In the meantime, 1,600 people, nodding, in the RAI Conference Center in Amsterdam on a rainy morning in May, is a good start.

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)

Behind the Report Behind the Brands

The new Oxfam Report Behind the Brands is a must-read. It's only just been released and respected commentators such as Marc Gunther and Jo Confino of the Guardian have already published their insights with spectacular headlines such as "big food is failing the poor" and "multinational companies are failing on CSR goals".  Well, we sort of knew that before the Oxfam report, but Behind the Brands pulls everything together quite spectacularly, highlighting the issues and challenges that large food companies face and/or create, brand by brand, punch by punch. The report is Oxfam's move to get the world's ten largest Food and Beverage companies to sit up and shape up, and work harder to create a more equitable food system and a more sustainable future.

The Oxfam narrative reads a little like a sustainable business horror story. There's not much that's new, but  it's combined in a very effective round-up of the issues that have been on the sustainability agenda in the F&B sector for some time now.   "For more than 100 years, the world's most powerful food and beverage companies have relied on cheap land and labor to produce inexpensive products and huge profits. But these profits have often come at the cost of the environment and local communities around the world, and have contributed to a food system in crisis." With lack of supply chain transparency, (almost) unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions, water scarcity, food waste, exploitation of small-scale farmers, the impact of agriculture on climate change, obesity, diabetes and other effects of sugary, processed food  forming a long list of negative impacts of this sector, we would all be forgiven for going the route of  Neil Boorman in the "Bonfire of the Brands".

Oxfam has little good to say about the food and bev giants, which makes me wonder if this report would not be just a little more persuasive if it were just a little more balanced. Sure, we all know the nasty, negative, effects of big business. That's why the sustainability movement has become what it is. But if we go down the track of painting all business with a big black brush, we may be at risk of overlooking the many positive benefits of economic development and quality of life which these companies have also been responsible for creating. Transparency, accountability, responsibility should not be trade-offs, I agree, but in acknowledging what's not been done, perhaps there should be room for acknowledging what has been done.

By now, you will all have seen that Unilever, Nestle and Coca Cola make it to the top of the list, with highest-scoring Nestle attaining a 54% result, while General Mills, Kellogg's and Associated British Foods trail the pack with scores below 25%. Kudos to Oxfam for making their methodology transparent - you can download the base data of the research to see exactly how points were assigned and scores developed. This is very interesting.

But here's the thing. The Oxfam Behind the Brand ranking is an assessment of policy statements. It's not an assessment of practice:

"Oxfam's Behind the Brands scorecard assesses, scores and ranks food and beverage companies on their corporate policies and commitments aimed at taking responsibility for the social and environmental injustices that lie within their agricultural operations. Only publicly disclosed policies are considered for the scorecard. ...... Oxfam acknowledges that policies are just a first step toward promoting socially and environmentally acceptable practices, and many companies do not actually enforce such policies within their supply chains."

In the question, for example, of  'Does the company explicitly recognize forced labor as an issue?', every company gets full marks.  In the question  'Has the company declared to seek to improve the role of rural women in their supply chain?', only Nestle, Coca Cola and Mondelez get full marks, because they have a policy declaration (and not because they have actually done anything).

I checked out the reference supplied in the Behind the Brand data file as Nestle's response to this question about rural women, and the link goes to a page on the Nestle website on rural development, in which there is one mention of women in one paragraph: 'Long term, we seek to increase the training and support we provide to farmers. In general, such input – focused mainly on the efficient use and conservation of water, land conservation, access to clean water for farming communities, improving the status of women in rural communities and improving education – leads to greater yields of higher-quality and more varied crops for Nestlé, and increased income and higher standards of living for our suppliers'.      Better than nothing, I suppose, but women seem somewhat buried in a range of other priorities.

I guess my point is that I have learned to value action over declaration. In many ways, making a declaration is easy. Backing up that declaration with a set of strategies, policies, plans, goals, targets, metrics, and transparent reporting is not so easy. Standing by your policy declarations in times of conflicting priorities is even more not so easy. We are still in an age where companies are not held to account for the way they have implemented all their policy declarations. Even if all companies have the same policy, where does that leave our sustainable future? In the same place as it is now. Even if they all get 100% scores according to the  Behind the Brands methodology, our global sustainability score may not be any different. This is how Oxfam puts it: "According to the scorecard rankings, Nestlé and Unilever are currently performing better than the other companies, having developed and published more policies aimed at tackling social and environmental risks within their supply chains." Performing better ... having published more policies? Excuse me. Are we on the same planet?   

The question is to what extent we can expect this focus on policy development to be a real precursor to practice development? I'm a reasonable person (mostly, when I have had my daily dose of ice-cream). I tend to agree. So I applaud Oxfam for their massive investment in this research and for highlighting how companies are speaking about sustainable development. Certainly, now, if we want to, we can go and check if the big F&Bs are walking the talk or just publishing it on their websites and in their Sustainability Reports.

But, in reading the Behind the Brands report, let's be clear about what it actually is. An assessment of policy. Not of practice. Not of impacts. Not of sustainability. Not something which would cause me to change my choice of brand or join Neil in putting my Pepsi Max on a bonfire. Perhaps Oxfam might consider a next report that ranks the actual practices of F&B companies against their stated policies and assesses the impacts they create. They could call it "Because of the Brands".

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

David fights Goliath Thales on bad ethics

Should I be flattered or concerned ? I came accross an interesting (unintended?) use for the the Expert CSR Report Reviews that I regularly publish on CorporateRegister.com. This was a review I wrote about the Thales aerospace and defense company Sustainability Report of 2008 (read it here). My review was critical of the Thales report, referencing the lack of transparency and highlighting  the greenwashy language used in the report. As with all my report reviews, which I write on a voluntary and unpaid basis, of companies with whom I have no personal or commercial relationship. I base my assessment on what I find in the report itself, plus additional review of material in the public domain - company website, previous reports, online news. My reviews are my own independent professional assessment, as a general stakeholder of all companies, and include my impressions of the reports and the way they deliver on content, communication and credibility. Whilst I know my reviews are used in academic curricula, it was quite a surprise to find one being quoted in private disputes between companies and their suppliers. However, this has happened in the case of "DataSonic versus Thales".

A company, DataSonic Ltd UK, which was established with the support of Thales to supply proprietary specialist training systems, was allegedly forced to cease trading as a result of a personal vendetta by a Thales Purchasing Manager who cancelled partially-fulfilled orders, reneged on agreements worth quite a lot of money to a small supplier and claimed rights to designs owned by the supplier. Allegedly, complaints to Thales did not yield any reasonable conclusion of this issue and Thales continued doing their stuff whilst this small supplier went out of business and the owners suffered significant personal financial hardship. The former directors of DataSonic, David Giles and Matthew Pitt, have published a website called EthicalThales which describes the story in all its gruesome details and personal profiles of all the Thales people involved, accusing the company of stealing, lying and cheating.

Hmm. My thoughts on this:

The ethical behaviour of corporations almost always comes down to the individual behaviour of a single person in the organisation. Any unethical process or practice can always be traced back to one person. One person, therefore, has the power to make or break the ethical reputation of any company. In this story, one person is cited as being responible for a series of unethical practices which have now become public. Whether this will make a big hole in Thales' reputation or not remains to be seen, but it's certainly something that investors, managers, employees and other suppliers will not relish reading. The value of embedding ethical behaviour right down to the last employee, and ensuring that ethical practices are positively unpeld in the business by all employees, is  critical, as this sad story shows. 

The ethical behaviour of big businesses can often be measured by the way it treats small suppliers. Small suppliers have few options to ensure they are treated ethically by big customers if the big customers themselves do not behave ethically. Payment terms, timeliness of payments , ordering procedures, complaints handling, dialogue, behaviour around price tenders, confidentiality of information, rights to intellectual property and more are issues which can make or break small suppliers, who do not have the bandwith to fight court battles on each of these issues. As a small supplier myself, I know only too well how cashflow management can be nightmarish if large customers so not pay on time, or how price-squeezing by multi-million $ companies can force us into agonizing decisions about whether or not to offer suicide prices just to get the business, or how non-negotiable payment terms means we are funding our large customers with our own (expensive) credit  (one large client, who I now do not do business with, unilaterally advised me of payment terms "current month plus 94 days", after accepting our offer based on regular current plus 30 days terms, and after the work had been done - meaing work that we did in Month 1 was actually paid in Month 5!), or how we are given the runaround, attending several meetings and discussions in the course of providing offers for our services, only to find that subsequent decisions are made based on non-commercial factors, such as personal relationships. As a small business, when this happens, we learn and move on, refusing to do business with suppliers who are unethical, and trying to ensure our exposure is never such that one big company can bankrupt us. However, this is a lesson some learn the hard way. DataSonic was apparently very dependent on the Thales business  and was not able to recover from a major change in policy and alleged defaults on commitments. In this case, I can understand a small supplier who has been burned resorting to the internet to publicise an ethical issue which apparently no-one else takes any interest in, and the accused company refuses to engage. Purchasing process is a key element of CSR and ethical purchasing practices are a very telling aspect of corporate behaviour. All companies must ensure Purchasing Managers behave in accordance with ethical standards. The boomerang is never too far from returning home.   

No issue is a small issue in CSR terms. Everything counts. A small issue can be symptomatic of bigger issues. Or a small issue can grow into a big issue. Therefore CSR-minded companies cannot afford to leave small issues to fester. Things need to be resolved to adequate solutions. As a qualified mediator, I have often found that mediation can be a very positive tool in disputes such as these. Refusing to engage, without closing out issues in a respectful way, can only place strain on an organisation in ways it might not fully anticipate.  

Should my report review be "evidence" supporting the case of the small supplier against the big customer? At one level, I am flattered to see that my reviews are being read and quoted. At another level, I am a little concerned that my review is quoted in this context. The anti-Thales website states:

We are not alone in questioning the validity of Thales 'ethical credentials'.  Written in 2010 and without our first hand experience, an article by Elaine Cohen of BeyondBusiness Ltd suggests "there is little evidence, beyond rhetoric, of embedded processes and practices".  This reflects our direct experience precisely; read the full text here. 

  

I must point out that I did not question the validity of Thales "ethical credentials". I  criticized the quality of their Sustainability Report. This is not the same thing. I am not sure I am happy with my reviews being used in this way which I feel is a touch misleading.

Things are not always what they seem. There are two (or more)  sides to every story . The anti-Thales website tells one side of this painful issue (though a letter from a former Purchasing Manager at Thales appears to give DataSonic's claim some legitimacy). Whilst the alleged facts and figures are presented from the point of view of DataSonic, in rather emotional style, what actually went on may be a combination of other factors as well. I do have sympathy with a small supplier who is obviously suffering significant pain and can undertand how such situations come about. It will certainly be interesting to know if the EthicalThales website generates any response from the company and what action ensues.    

I will continue, of course, to write my report reviews. I just hope I don't get hit with a subpoena one of these days :)

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)

Inform, inspire and involve to embed CSR in operations

Embedding, post number 4. We already covered embedding CSR in Human Resources, the Procurement function, and the Finance function. All of this, as you may recall, is based on Ethical Corporation's 2009 research report called How to Embed Corporate Responsibility across different parts of your Company. This time, i will cover the ways Companies embed CSR in the "Facility, Logistics and Operations" bits of the Company. Having managed logistics for many years with Procter and Gamble in Europe, this is an area of the business I am familiar with. The report looks at:

• How to make facility or manufacturing operations more efficient and more  environmentally friendly through consultation with operators and line workers
• Developing low energy or socially innovative solutions for triple bottom line benefit
• Indentifying no-cost innovation solutions
• Developing partnerships to drive suggestions for improvements

Most people will understand quite easily that environmental opportunities are abundant in the Manufacturing and Logistics functions. With examples from Boots, Hewlett Packard, Novo Nordisk and Vodafone, the report cites examples of innovative solutions in different aspects of the supply chain which offer benefits for customers and the business, and which have been developed using insights and suggestions of those involved on the ground. Opportunities such as haulage partnerships with non-competitive companies to optimize truck payloads, recycling and re-use rather than disposal of products, real-time energy monitoring  are some of the solutions highlighted. The key common demoninator of the development of these solutions is : dialogue. Creating a culture where employees of the business, suppliers and customers can contribute to developing triple bottom line solutions is core.

Developing new ways of doing things, and maintaining a constructive dialogue with suppliers, customers and employees does not happen automatically. A company looking for CSR opportunities in the manufacturing and logistics functions needs to define its objectives and create awareness for the concepts of social and environmentally preferred ways of manufacturing or trucking. This means creating  communications processes for all these stakeholders, so that CSR is part of their mindset when they are reviewing operational activities. "Greening employees" for example, reflects the process of educating, informing, involving and inspiring  employees regarding environmentally friendly practices.

What better Company to use for a review of the embedding of CSR in the logistics function than a logistics Company. I took a look at Fedex 2008 CSR report. Here is an example:

"At the FedEx Packaging Lab, our engineers use the latest materials and tools to solve shipping challenges, including environmental ones. FedEx engineer Yongquan Zhou recently helped a customer shipping heavy exercise equipment from China find a more protective and environmentally friendly alternative for a commonly used cushioning material known as expanded polystyrene foam (EPS). His result: a honeycomb-style packaging with corrugated pads and banding, a packaging solution that not only reduces damage at a comparable cost, but is also better for the environment."

I assume Mr Zhou didn't wake up one morning out of the blue and thought to himself over the morning cornfakes: "Hmm, I need to find environmentally friendly packaging solutions today". I bet he didn't say to himself " Wow. Honeycomb-style packaging, gotta do something with that". I bet he didn't think, as he helped himself to a third bowl of cornflakes,   "I can contribute to saving the planet today by developing environmentally-friendly solutions for Fedex clients". Maybe he did, but the chances are that if he did, it was because of a culture that had been developed at Fedex to ensure employees are aware of their possibilities to contribute to environmental efforts, and provide them with the opportunity to do so.

You can't embed CSR if you don't inform, inspire and  involve.
 
elaine cohen is the joint CEO of BeyondBusiness, a leading reporting and social-environmental consulting firm . Visit our website at: www.b-yond.biz/en