Is philanthropy dead?

Apologies for that rather provocative title. Sort of. But it's a real question that I posed in one of the panels I chaired at the 7th  International Conference on Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility at Humboldt University in Berlin last week. It was a fabulous conference with some truly fascinating speakers from whom I learned a great deal. See Prof. Carol Adams's post with some of the key messages from the conference here.

You can also listen to all the Day 2 plenary sessions via the live-stream recording that can be found here  (if you have 9 hours or so to spare).

The session I'll share in this post is the panel I chaired on Innovative Philanthropy and Impact Investing, which starts at 5:25:19 (hrs:mins:secs) of the live-stream with an introduction by Professor Dr. Joachim Schwalbach, the formidable conference organizer and spirit behind the event. The experts who joined me on the panel were: 

Lisa Hehenberger  - Assistant Professor, Department of Strategy and General Management, ESADE Business School   
Kärim Chatti  - Market Director at ResponsAbility Investments
Johanna Mair - Hertie School of Governance in Berlin and Editor of the Standford Social Innovation Review
Thimo V. Schmitt-Lord  - Head of Foundations & Donations, Bayer Foundations 
Johannes Weber - Managing Director, Ananda Ventures - Social Venture Fund 

Lisa kicked off with an enlightening keynote, explaining the spectrum of philanthropy through to impact investing and the convergence towards a form of "blended social and financial value" creation. There are many hybrid ways of funding to create social value, Lisa explained. It doesn't need to follow the traditional separation of philanthropy for social value and investment for financial return. "It's possible for a foundation to be providing a grant in a more strategic way to a social enterprise that is generating revenues and it's also possible for an investor to start seeing some social and environmental returns with their investments."

Venture philanthropy is, then, very close to impact investing. Venture philanthropy is a long-term investment in an organization, providing both funding and also management support - often with an eye to measuring the impact of the organization and its activities. Impact investing is more or less the same thing, with the expectation of a financial return as well. Lisa highlighted the need for improved policy frameworks and greater transparency in impact measurement as the next stages in the evolution of this approach.

This being said, with the growth of impact investing and new types of corporations such as B Corps and Social Enterprises, the first question that I posed to the panel is: Is philanthropy dead? If both philanthropy and impact investing are designed to generate a social return, why does philanthropy still exist? What's the justification for philanthropy in this new context? 

The consensus view of the panel was that philanthropy is very necessary. In times of emergency, support is needed and there's no time to stop and calculate the social or financial return. You just need to help people. Also, in early stages of social enterprise development, seed funding is critical to support growth through to the stage where new enterprises are mature enough to be attractive to impact investors. At the same time, in early stages, enterprises do not have access to capital via loans as they have not yet developed their business infrastructure, and charities in most legal structures cannot take on debt in any case. Without philanthropy, these charities and social enterprises may not have the capacity to move out from first base. Thimo Schmitt-Lloyd actually prefers the term "non-profit investment", rather than philanthropy, as he feels that reflects the expectation of a form of return - not necessarily financial - which has meaning to the investor.

LISA: "You could almost see philanthropy as the research and development budget for social innovation. So if you don't have that, you don't get social innovation started. The impact investors would then have no deal flow and nothing to invest in." 

JOHANNA: "Philanthropy is absolutely not dead. Quite the opposite. There are two questions: Can the idea that you can invest and gain a social AND financial return be extended to all problems we have on the planet? No, of course it cannot. The second question is: What is new in philanthropy and how does that to social innovation? There is a lot of innovation in philanthropy - look at examples around the world in Germany or in Silicone Valley - entrepreneurs that turn into philanthropists - there is a competitiveness in terms of what kind of philanthropic endeavor you establish. Mark Zuckerberg, for example, doesn't use the 501(c)(3) (typical charity) vehicle. He uses an L3C  corporation structure as a vehicle for his philanthropic ventures. The drive to be innovative in this space is fueling new ways of philanthropic activity."  

THIMO: "If the risk profile of an investment is low, then the innovation potential is also low. The higher the risk, the higher the potential for failure. That's why you need very early investment in social innovation, because it provides the space to experiment, and sometimes fail, without the pressure of needing to generate a return."

So there you have it. Philanthropy is alive, kicking and innovating.. and setting the scene for responsible investment in its different forms. I then asked the next question on everybody's lips. Is impacting investing a compromise? Are investors compromising on the level of financial return they can achieve (versus mainstream investing) in order to achieve some form of social return?

KÄRIM: "In all discussions with investors and portfolio managers, return is key. We live in an environment where there are no interest rates ... so you have to look at your portfolio. Pension funds, family offices and corporate funds want returns. They want to see a nice return track record and return outlook. We deliver nice returns and nice risk profiles. On top of that we have an impact measurement system and we show all the social good that an investment supports, but that is on top. As soon as returns are tanking, large corporate investors pull out their money. In the Press Release, the CEO and the CSR Manager will emphasize the impact and the CSR benefits ... but in reality, decisions are made based on the risk-return profile. We invest in established businesses, possibly businesses planning an IPO or geographic expansion - this is different from the early stage investing that may need to be supported by philanthropy. Our investors know that."

JOHANNES: "In our social venture fund, it's different. Our funds work very well on a financial level but that's not why investors invest in us. They are not looking at the risk-return profile. Their focus is what sort of a difference their money will make."  

THIMO: Today, you also have to deliver a mission. Of course you have to deliver financially, but there must be a fit with the mission. Today, people ask, what's the impact? 

Our discussion also touched on different aspects of policy development, aligning employees and digitization in these areas of philanthropy and impact investment.

LISA: "One of the outcomes of the G8 Task Force was policy innovation. One example was in France - the Solidarity Savings Funds. If you are an employee in a French company, you can invest in a pension scheme where 90% is regular investment with a strict risk and return profile and 10% is invested in social enterprise. This has significantly increased investment levels in social enterprises in France, as it was designed to do."

KÄRIM: "We see huge differences across geographies in how pension funds are invested. I suggest you go back to your pension fund and ask how it invests your money. Some funds apply certain filters and positive or negative screening, but we also see more automatic alignment with responsible investment practice in certain countries such as Norway, Holland and Canada.. In some cases, employees are consulted about where the money should be invested."  

JOHANNES: "If you are a venture investor, you will probably be very interested in digital business models which may be highly innovative and are usually easier to scale. Of the businesses we invest in, around 40% have a digital aspect. Increasingly, IT-driven people want to work in this space. Digital natives are more interested in using their skills for social advancement even if they are not as well paid as they might be working on mainstream commercial initiatives." 

Some questions from the audience were rather incisive. For example, our panelists were asked: To what degree do impact investing and philanthropy divert attention and resources from driving real structural and social change? Is philanthropy about soothing our conscience and impact investing mainly about developing a new source of revenue? 

THIMO: "It depends how you define "return" for you as an investor. When return is progressing the ecosystems in which you operate so that you can operate better as a business, that's also a big return and not a diversion."

LISA: "Traditionally investors perhaps have this notion of two pockets. In one pocket is the money used generate to a financial return and in the other pocket is the money that's given away to make us feel good. That's changing. Now, both pockets are starting play a role in generating some form of return. There's a convergence at the individual level and also at the institutional level."

JOHANNA: "The old charitable model we all know has been replaced. It's not one single model of charity. It has become more strategic." 

And, to close, a couple of stories from Thimo that demonstrate the validity of different channels of investment through non-profit or venture philanthropy  showing that blended value that can be achieved through a strategic, holistic approach.

First, a story of two engineers who have developed a portable sterilizer for Africa that runs with solar energy and dirty water - and can therefore be used anywhere. It's cost is EUR 10,000 - modest enough, but still not affordable in most parts of Africa. As a rule, medical clinics in Africa do not have sterilization equipment and its a fact that, in Africa, 30% of deaths are due to unsafe medical practices. The Bayer Foundation is funding pilot devices to be provided free to social entrepreneurs who will take the sterilizers from clinic to clinic and sell not a machine, but the use of a sterilizer by the hour. In this way, a business model is formed that creates employment, upskilling for local distributors and a practical and affordable solution for clinics. Philanthropy funds the early stage and investment will kick in when the model us up and running.

Another example refers to early detection breast cancer tactile examinations. An entrepreneur found that using trained blind women as examiners (instead of physicians) can advance the detection of tumors by an average of nine months! This became relevant to the Bayer Foundation as law requires corporations in India to provide funding for CSR initiatives. Bayer discovered there are 60 million blind women in India while at the same time, breast cancer rates are among the highest in the world. Using "CSR" money to establish a training center for blind women to become examiners, Bayer starts with a philanthropic venture that can develop into an investment-worthy business as it scales, as women will pay a small fee for testing and the initiative will ultimately generate its own revenue.

The overriding conclusion, I think, it that philanthropy is not dead and we shouldn't attempt to kill it off. It serves a very important purpose in fueling early stage social development initiatives and also, in supporting communities when they need support with no strings attached. On the other hand, the emergence of different models, such as impact investing in its nascent forms and responsible investment in its larger scale frameworks provide additional blended value opportunities to get rich(er) and save the world all at the same time. Often, as in the Thimo's examples, this forms a sort of continuum starting with giving, moving into seed funding and developing into larger scale investing. 

So, when you are next reading the "community giving" sections of Sustainability Reports ... often seen as the "nice-to-have" rather than material elements of corporate impact ... you might have a slightly different perspective. 

Thanks to Joachim Schwalbach and all the expert speakers on this panel for a fascinating discussion.

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 

When your hobby is your full-time job

Fortunately for Dr Paul Toyne, his hobby is his full-time job. He joined Balfour Beatty's UK Construction executive leadership team as Sustainability Director in October 2013 as the Sustainability Director at Balfour Beatty Construction Services. More recently in November 2014, he was appointed to Group Head of Sustainability for Balfour Beatty plc.

Paul has a diverse background having worked as an environmental scientist, conservationist and ecologist. Outside of his role at Balfour Beatty, Paul is a London Sustainable Development Commissioner for the Mayor of London, chairing its Quality of Life work. He is also a Policy Commissioner for Birmingham University's Urban Futures Commission.

Balfour Beatty is an international infrastructure group that delivers services essential to the development, creation and care of infrastructure assets from finance and development, through project management to construction and maintenance in infrastructure aspects such as transportation, power and energy and water. Balfour Beatty employs 40,000 people worldwide.

Balfour Beatty’s UK and Ireland construction business describes itself as a leading integrator of complex, sophisticated and innovative projects that improve the UK’s and Ireland’s national infrastructure and an experienced provider of local and regional projects that help build lasting communities. Balfour Beatty offers capabilities in construction, civil engineering and mechanical and electrical engineering services. Balfour Beatty’s UK and Ireland construction business employs 9,000 people.

Balfour Beatty has a Sustainability Blueprint that defines the company's approach to sustainable development in relation to its wider company strategies and explains in detail the different areas of focus, measures and metrics. The model has three pillars, 6 business goals and 23 measures.

The company's online Sustainability Dashboard reports progress against the Blueprint.

Back to Paul. In the run-up to the fourth annual Smarter Sustainability Reporting Conference, that will take place in London on 24th February 2015, which I chair, I chatted with Paul Toyne.

ME: What's so great about Balfour Beatty?
PAUL: I love working at Balfour Beatty. There are many opportunities and we have seen sustainable development become embedded in the evolution of the businesses. We can look at our internal operations and drive performance improvements, especially in the area of improving the working environment for our staff and also the natural environment though reducing resource consumption etc. But what is most fascinating about Balfour Beatty is the extent to which the goods and services we provide support future sustainability outcomes in the countries and markets where we operate. This is a fascinating place to be as the decisions we make now will affect future sustainability outcomes for us and for future generations – as assets we build last 40 to 70 years or more.

ME: Say more about the role of infrastructure in post 2015 world
PAUL: We must organize and adjust to a world with nine billion people, considering their quality of life, recognizing resource constraints and changing climate conditions. Infrastructure companies have a really important role to play. When I look at what's material in terms of the impacts of a company such as Balfour Beatty, it has to be the delivery of goods and services and design components to deliver outcomes for today and for the future. It is a big challenge for our customers – both the clients that commission our services and their understanding of the complexities of sustainable development and also in terms of the expectations of end-users, the people who live and work in the cities and towns where our infrastructure services are provided. Whether it's the provision of affordable commercial property or housing market or networks of power that we supply to citizens, transportation in electric islands or safer travel, reduced congestion and delay etc, we are working together to drive out the negative consequences of our current lifestyles and help build improved quality of life for the future.

ME: How is Balfour Beatty gearing up for this? 

PAUL: A refreshing aspect to what Balfour Beatty had put in place before I joined was the sustainability framework strategy: The Sustainability Blueprint, placing sustainable development at the heart of the business. When I saw the blueprint, it seemed to me to be a pretty comprehensive approach. However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say. It might be a great strategy, but if doesn't have traction within the business or deliver tangible outcomes, then it makes no sense. I have always been of the view that driving outcomes has to be done through collaboration – sharing success with many people, including working within the extended supply chain. Solving key issues around sustainable development needs collaboration.

ME: How have you been supporting this? 

PAUL: I observed that, despite the great framework and strategy, embedding and integrating parts of the strategy hadn't worked with all parts of the company. Through the tough challenges of different, sometimes recessionary, economic cycles, business priorities can sometimes shift. However, even in these times, some of the main tenets of sustainable development, such as resource efficiency, are key to what a business should do to stay ahead. What I found in Balfour Beatty are some fantastic examples of integrating sustainability by default, but other parts of the business being unable to make the transformation. In our last staff survey, 90 percent of the employees surveyed came back and said we believe we work for a company that is responsible. Equal numbers said we are aware of the vision and what we are trying to achieve in sustainable development. This is a testament to the leadership and the deep-seated commitment and awareness in the company. My focus has been supporting different parts of the company translate this commitment and awareness into deliverable outcomes, where this was not happening consistently.

ME: And what about smarter sustainability reporting? 

PAUL: We have been starting to integrate our sustainable development reporting in to our annual accounts since 2013, although we have not yet quite reached the optimal target state. Integrated reporting is more than just inserting a section in the annual report. It should really articulate the way we have demonstrated our thought processes and considered the social and environmental impacts of our core business activities. It should show how this will affect our ability to be successful in the future. 75 percent of the renewable energy that Scotland now provides has been connected through the engineering capabilities of Balfour Beatty. This is a significant impact for sustainable development. Our integrated approach should capture the value of this for our business and also for society. We have done some initial socio-economic analysis of our operations as a start. This is internal, so far, to help our own understanding. Ultimately, we want to be able to answer questions like: What do you get when you buy Balfour Beatty? What is the real value add? Where is the evidence? My role is to drive this evidence-based approach while improving the positives and reducing the negatives. I think it's going to stay fascinating at Balfour Beatty.

**********

Thanks to Paul Toyne for these insights. He will be speaking at the Smarter Sustainability Reporting Conference (24 Feb 2015) in the subject of How to decide what is material for your business? I think you need to be there. Click here for details and registration. Email me for a discount code!

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of Understanding G4: the Concise guide to Next Generation Sustainability Reporting  AND  Sustainability Reporting for SMEs: Competitive Advantage Through Transparency AND CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices . Contact me via Twitter (@elainecohen)  or via my business website www.b-yond.biz   (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm).  Check out our G4 Report Expert Analysis Service - for published G4 reports or pre-publication - write to Elaine at info@b-yond.biz to help make your G4 reporting  even better. 

Is EP&L a waste of time?

As promised (threatened?), another post about the work of the WBCSD and my involvement in the Council meetings in Atlanta last week.

I was greatly privileged to moderate a plenary panel session on the subject of "Redefining Value - costing externalities" with three incredible sustainability and business achievers.

Marie-Claire Daveu: Chief Sustainability Officer and Head of International Institutional Affairs of Kering and member of Kering Executive Committee.   

After embarking on a career as a senior civil servant in the field of agriculture and the environment, Marie-Claire Daveu served as Technical Adviser to the Cabinet of Prime minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, the Principal Private Secretary to Serge Lepeltier, Minister of Ecology and Sustainable Development, before joining Sanofi-Aventis Group in 2005 as Head of Sustainable Development. From 2007 to 2012, Marie-Claire Daveu served as Principal Private Secretary to Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, first within the Ministry of Ecology, then in charge of forecasting and the digital economy, and lastly, within the Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport and Housing. Since 2012, Marie-Claire heads up sustainability at Kering. Kering is a Group of 22 Luxury and Sport & Lifestyle brands such as Gucci, Bottega Veneta, Saint Laurent, Alexander McQueen, Stella McCartney, PUMA and others.  

Roberto Salas: CEO of Masisa, Chile

Roberto Salas serves as President of Grupo Nueva and, since 2008, in addition, as CEO at Masisa, one of the Latin American leaders in production and marketing of wood fiber boards for furniture and interior decorations headquartered in Santiago, Chile. Roberto began his career in Grupo Nueva in 1989, Ecuador. Roberto is Co-Chair of the Development Area of World Business Council for Sustainable Development. He was a Professor at the Faculty of Economics, Universidad Católica de Guayaquil, for 17 years.

Roberto Pedote: Chief Financial and Investor Relations Officer, Natura, Brazil

Roberto Pedote is responsible for Natura's financial and legal matters, as well as investor relations and corporate affairs. Formerly, he spent 16 years with Unilever in Brazil, England and Latin America, and served as Finance Vice-President for the Food and Ice Cream Division in Brazil. Prior to this he served as  Finance and Control Director for Nokia of Brazil. Since 2010, Roberto has been a member of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), and in 2013 he was appointed member of the Advisory Board for BM&FBOVESPA Listing. Natura is a Brazilian manufacturer and marketer of beauty products, household, and personal care, skin care, solar filters, cosmetics, perfume and hair care products. 

This was a rare occasion to have a CEO, a CSO and a CFO of major corporations together on a stage and ready to share insights about a rather controversial aspect of sustainability accounting and disclosure. I opened up with a really easy question!

"When we talk about externalities, we refer to all those often invisible impacts on society of doing business – the indirect social and environmental effects of your activities on climate change, health and the quality of life. Does it make sense to suggest that companies should calculate and account for these costs? Or is this just a diversion designed to help companies avoid doing the hard work of changing how they business in a more sustainable way?"

All three panelists responded in different ways, referring to the value of the externality costing approach, particularly as a tool to help resource allocation, prioritization and decision-making withing the company. By bringing impacts to a common denominator language in money terms - monetizing impacts - organizations have a new tool to identify and quantify the ways their business activities show up throughout the entire value chain. By using a common language, impacts can be prioritized more easily. Not only this, the exercise forces debate. It presences aspects of business impacts that have previously never been considered. Just having a conversation about externalities in your organization is an interesting first step, and the process of evaluating them, even moreso. Through debates such as these, leading edge companies are now starting to change the game. In our favor. 

To remind you, Kering was, I believe, the first organization to publish in what was thought to be a very bold move, the Environmental Profit and Loss statement of one of its companies, PUMA, back in 2011. (See a great infographic about the value of the EP&L on the Kering website) Marie-Claire Daveu promised that the EP&L for the entire Kering Group would be published soon. The EP&L now can be used to compare and reprioritize impact and risk management across the entire Kering group of companies, using the same tool.

The EP&L created quite a  stir in its day with many hailing it as the new way forward for corporate disclosure. Although many were impressed, there were also many questions. Is it reliable? Does it make sense to put a price on the environment? Is it accurate? Does monetization devalue the true impacts of business? Like, can you put a price on caring? 

We have not seen too many companies follow suit and take the leap into externality costing and disclosing the results. Partly because it is rather a complex exercise. And if you think monetizing environmental externalities is tough, then social externalities and their far-reaching impacts are even tougher to assess. And disclosure is a risk. WBCSD maintains that we will only ever be able to know the true cost of business if we make progress in understanding, assessing and accounting for these external costs, and is encouraging its members to make bolder moves in this direction. That's the essence of "redefining value", one of the strategic priorities of WBCSD in the organization's Action2020 program. The sustainability leaders in our panel discussion believe the process of externality costing adds real value.

Masisa is a company with a strong passion for sustainability and a vision through to 2050.

Masisa publishes an Annual Integrated Report and in 2013, for the first time, published monetized impacts.

Roberto Salas described one approach to externality costing on the social side. He talked about the work Masisa does in communities, considering a range of community needs and managing social development over time. His view is that, by taking a small number of social indicators, and tracking development over a period of several years, social impact will be quantifiable and correlatable to corporate interventions and positive actions. Monetization is not a one-off thing. Externality costing must be viewed as a long-term activity.

Roberto Pedote of Natura shared an important insight. Natura has not yet published an EP&L but they are working internally to develop this. Roberto made the point that the EP&L, however, is not about precision. It's about the trend that the numbers show over time, and the ability to compare the size and scale of impacts as they occur throughout the value chain. This will never be a completely precise exercise, and although it's about numbers, it's not the numbers that are most important. It's the understanding of relative weightings of different material impacts, and deep internal discussions about the accountability of the company to mitigate or improve them. As such, externality costing can be an extermely useful internal engagement and decision-making tool.

I asked the panel if stakeholders are actually asking for EP&L's? Is anyone really all that interested? The response was that, while there are not many explicit demands for this specific calculation, stakeholders are showing more interest and demanding greater transparency from companies. The requests that stakeholders make for information are often those that can be met through the work that an EP&L reqires. Doing the work on some form of EP&L accounting enables companies to respond to broader stakeholder demands for transparency in a more considered and thorough way.

I have to confess to having been somewhat dismissive of EP&L accounting prior to the session and the research I did in preparation and pre-conversation with the panelists and their teams. I had always felt that we spend too much time in analysis-paralysis and not enough time taking bold action. But, now, after engaging with such clear-thinking, driven and enlightened leaders, I am more open to hearing the benefits. As Marie-Claire Daveu, the champion of EP&L pointed out: How can you act without a tool to help you evaluate priorities in a holistic way?

While EP&L may not be everybody's double-fudge ice cream, it's a tool that seems to be helping some of the world's leading companies move forward and it's bringing the discussion around sustainable development to another level. We should probably keep our eye on externality accounting. My guess is that we will be hearing a lot more about it in the coming years.

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of Understanding G4: the Concise guide to Next Generation Sustainability Reporting  AND  Sustainability Reporting for SMEs: Competitive Advantage Through Transparency AND CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices . Contact me via Twitter (@elainecohen)  or via my business website www.b-yond.biz   (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm).  Check out our G4 Report Expert Analysis Service - for published G4 reports or pre-publication - write to Elaine at info@b-yond.biz to help make your G4 reporting  even better.  

A new era of collaboration and innovation for GRI

GRI this month welcomes a new Chief Executive, Michael Meehan

GRI's announcement states:

Mr. Meehan’s appointment comes at a crucial juncture for GRI and for sustainability disclosures. In an evolving sustainability reporting landscape, Mr. Meehan will lead GRI in working with new methodologies such as those on natural capital and around integrated reporting, and will drive GRI’s collaboration with global reporting frameworks. He will guide the organization in achieving its mission of making sustainability reporting standard practice worldwide, and promoting the role of sustainability disclosures in addressing global sustainability challenges.

Sounds like Michael is going to have a lot on his plate. And certainly, he has a strong legacy left by Ernst Ligteringen who has done a sterling job leading GRI in the face of many challenges over the past 12 years. After chatting with Michael, I am left with optimism that he will know how to embrace the value that GRI has created while skillfully navigating new themes in the zeitgeist of sustainable development and the needs of sustainability disclosure. It's a complex map, and the sort of practical entrepreneurial spirit, driven by clarity of vision and collaborative orientation that Michael Meehan brings, seems to be the right mix. I wish MM warm congratulations on his appointment and good luck as he takes up residence in GRI's Amsterdam hub. 

As Michael takes up his role, I am sure the word strategy will feature quite a lot in the first few weeks and months. I am sure that everyone will be wanting to know what his priorities are, goals, targets, new ways of doing things, more of this, less of that, new broom and all that. I expect there will be quite a few who have some advice and recommendations, seeing a new chief as a new opportunity to get some things straight and promote an agenda. Allen White was top-speed off the mark in an open letter to MM published in the Guardian (I always wondered about the point of open letters...seems a bit oxymoronish to me) in which he lays down his priorities for the new boss. I expect there will be plenty more open, closed and ajar letters that attempt to influence the new boy on the block as he scans the landscape. However, for me, what's more important than giving Michael Meehan my views about where he should lead GRI, is getting to understand who he is. I am interested in knowing more about what's important to Michael and what motivates him, because that will influence what he does at GRI. (Anyone who doesn't like ice cream, for example, would be a complete non-starter, as far as I am concerned. Happily, this is not the case with Michael Meehan).

I was privileged to have some time to chat with Michael on the phone today...and am pleased to be able to introduce him to the CSR Reporting Blog readers, and share a bit about his thinking as he takes up his new role.   

Michael Meehan At A Glance
Michael or Mike? Michael
Born in? Antigonish, Scottish Gaelic: Am Baile Mór; "The Big Town" but we called it antigonowhere.
Star sign? Scorpio
Top breakfast food? Dutch waffles (called Stroopwafels in Holland)
Last movie you saw? Whatever was playing on the plane last time
Currently reading? Stacks of organizational material about GRI
Most like about Amsterdam? Cycling
Fave social media channel? Google + because I need way more than 140 characters to express myself.
Fave wine? Amarone wine cause it’s got the grit. Not filtered. There are twigs and stuff at the bottom but it tastes great.
Fave place to scuba dive? Scapa Flow.
Fave TV show? Don’t even remember the last time I watched TV
Fave Superhero? Underdog
Fave ice cream flavor? Moose Tracks. Best one going.
Scared of? My kids not knowing what I do for a living.
One thing most people don't know about me is….. In a former life I was actually a scuba diving teacher.

Michael Meehan and what's important

What's most important to you as you take up your new role?

What's most important to me, I think, is the same as what's important to most of us. We are all working to the same goal of a sustainable future.

The reason I am here is to help strengthen GRI's role as a driver and integrator of sustainability disclosure. The reporting landscape has changed, not necessarily unexpectedly, but it has changed. It is shifting rapidly, and that's a good thing. GRI is moving toward a standard-setting approach. This is an evolutionary step that GRI has been considering for some time. The emergence of other frameworks is also evolutionary. The perception out there is that these frameworks compete. But they do not. There is no competing version of materiality – there are different internal contexts that may apply, but this is not competition. 

The thing that differentiates GRI is that it is a strong network that we can leverage to increase collaboration and innovation to create new frameworks. There is a perception is that more frameworks are bad. I don't see it that way. More frameworks are good. We want to see more frameworks that help corporations manage governance and disclosure more effectively in ways that move them forward. GRI has always been that network in the middle that helps things come together.. a sort of backbone of sustainability disclosure, holistically capturing all of the universe of things in CSR reporting that need to be addressed. No one else is doing this. My interest is to strengthen that backbone to improve collaboration and facilitate innovation. We can learn from industries – such as the technology industry – that has done this well and apply those learnings to the sustainability disclosure landscape. GRI is an inclusive framework. We can build on this.

Who are the key stakeholders that you will be looking to engage and work with as you take up your new role?

The world of stakeholders, for GRI, is expansive and we have to move forward on several fronts as we target to strengthen our collaboration and innovation in sustainability disclosure. We will set our sights in working more closely on the labor and human rights side, and supporting new regulatory initiatives relating to reporting, while continuing to build our international leadership. I'll be reviewing the excellent relationships that GRI has maintained so far and looking to accelerate and broaden the momentum in areas that support improved collaboration and innovation.

What has been your interaction with GRI to date?

I have been familiar with GRI for ages. In fact, early on in my career, I invented one of the first carbon management platforms, to help companies calculate and manage their carbon footprint. This was part of the emerging sustainability disclosure world at that time. The first things clients would ask was: how does this fit with reporting frameworks such as GRI?  That was my first taste of sustainability reporting - using a data collection and reporting framework to help companies improve their impacts. 

What do you see as the biggest opportunities for expansion/acceleration of sustainability reporting? 

The number of reporting entities is increasing rapidly. There's no doubt about that. At the same time, there are concerns about the quality of reporting. Part of our role at GRI is to help drive not only widespread acceptance but also help improve the quality of reporting overall. That's one opportunity. Another opportunity is in the area of helping remove the confusion that exists in the area of competitive frameworks. Other frameworks for sustainability disclosure understand the need for collaboration but from the outside, this looks like competition. I have already spoken to the leadership of several other frameworks and I hear a genuine desire to collaborate. We have to build on this desire and make collaboration more apparent and transparent to all those who are watching what we do and are affected by what we do. This challenge has been met time and time again in other industries. It can be done.

What are the specific skills you bring that will be of most use to moving GRI forward in the next phase?

One of the key things is related to my point above. One of the areas I specialize in is helping markets come together. One of the things I love most is being in a place at the time when everything starts to coalesce and helping it happen. I have experience in this area. It's what I find most challenging and most rewarding. There may be lots of different interests but everything has the same goal. That's the skill set that I bring to the table, and that's my focus. The outcome is for GRI to get through it with a stronger backbone. The work we are doing on standards is a part of that. We need to focus more on how people are reporting, how we interconnect with other frameworks and how we define the architecture of the reporting landscape. GRI is the only de facto sustainability metrics framework in the world. We can play a very significant role here.

The second thing that I bring is my experience with developing and using technology. The ability of organizations to capture data and information in reports is now facilitated through technology. At one time, it was impossible. Now, technology enables you to get data very quickly, cut it up in different ways and reuse it in different formats to meet different reporting requirements. A GRI report is an incredibly robust source of data and this fits very well with many aspects of corporate governance. I believe I can help advance the use of technology in reporting that will help companies become more efficient in the way they report and also enhance innovation in the reporting market place.

What can we count on from you as GRI's new chief exec?

You can count on my mantra: collaboration and innovation. I'll be looking to drive better outcomes for GRI and for all of us in the field of sustainability reporting. Communications is a big part of this. We need to make sure everyone knows what's going on. 

***********

Sounds good to me! Collaboration, innovation and Moose Tracks. I confess that I had never even heard of Moose Tracks ice cream flavor. I am going to have to track some mooses down in the very near future. At the same time, I will be sending positive vibes through cyberspace all the way to Amsterdam in support of Michal Meehan and the other capable folks at GRI, hoping to see the fruits of collaboration and innovation in better sustainability reporting in the coming years. 

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 www.twitter.com/elainecohen   or via my business website www.b-yond.biz   (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm

What would you say to the UN?

If you had the attention of the UN General Assembly in a debate about "Elements for a Monitoring and Accountability Framework for the Post-2015 Development Agenda", what would you tell them? I suppose it depends on who you are, where you come from and what you see.

If you have been one of the leaders of the most dominant business accountability organizations for the last ten years and have had a top position in the Dutch government, in charge of human rights, climate change, and scientific research, and had several international leadership positions, such as chair of an OECD Working Group, OECD President of donor governments to the Sahel, and Vice Chair of the Oversight Committee of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (hosted at the World Bank, with UNPD, FAO, IFAD and 60 governments) and climate change director during COP 6, when agreement was reached on the Kyoto protocol under the UN Climate Change Convention, what would you say?

If you are also a board member of WWF Netherlands, the second largest national WWF network with almost 1 million contributing members, and of  the International Institute of Environment and Development, a global leader in sustainable development, and of CORDAID, a large international development organization with almost a thousand partner organizations in 36 countries, combining emergency aid and structural poverty eradication, and of the SEED Initiative, a global partnership for action on sustainable development and the green economy, and of  Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF), an international network of over 100 women’s, environmental and health organizations implementing projects in 40 countries and advocating globally for a healthy environment for all, assuming you found the time to take a trip to New York, what exactly would you tell the UN General Assembly, headed by Ban Ki Moon and including delegates from 193 countries?

If you are a dynamic, thoughtful leader with a vision for a better world where business plays a positive role, how would you formulate your advice to the UN delegates?

This person did that yesterday, May 1, 2014, in the General Assembly. Yes, of course, I am talking about Teresa Fogelberg, Deputy Chief Executive of the Global Reporting Initiative. And this is what she said: 

"
A successful post-2015 Development Agenda will require a robust, inclusive and transparent monitoring and accountability framework. Accountability extends beyond government, and applies to all stakeholders being held accountable for their role in implementing a universal development agenda. And that is what I will do today: address business accountability.

There is a unique momentum bringing together two global currents, two movements: 1) the business and stakeholder movement behind the growing integration of sustainability considerations in business and 2) the growing accountability practice developed in the field of Sustainability Reporting over the past years, with the overall inter-governmental monitoring of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The reality is that the private sector is diverse. Fortunately the number of companies that appreciate the importance of their social and environmental performance is growing. But this realization is still far from universal. The UN Global Compact, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the Global Reporting Initiative are the central global players advancing this practice. We have joined forces in a new Alliance to establish a strong link between this growing practice among business and their stakeholders and the SDGs. We call our alliance the Post-2015 Business Engagement Architecture. We felt proud when UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon launched it in September 2013.

The plan is to develop private sector guidance that will help companies enhance their sustainability management and reporting with a view to global sustainable development goals and targets. The Alliance partners will work together to add a chapter to GRI’s global standard to make the connection to the forthcoming SDGs. This would provide an important element; a crucial piece of the jigsaw in crafting the Monitoring and Accountability Framework for the Post-2015 Development Agenda. It would mean that the wheel would not have to be re-invented, and that thousands of companies would bring their commitment and experience to the post-2015 implementation arena.

So what is the current global business accountability mechanism, used today as standard practice by thousands of companies from all continents? The topic of private sector accountability has appeared prominently on the agenda for over two decades now. The drivers have been a lack of public trust and a more restrictive operative license for companies. Opportunities for establishing a green economy and new markets have also arisen. There is no accountability without transparency – so sustainability reporting has become a key accountability tool for many companies and their stakeholders.

This is how the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) was born. It started as a multi-stakeholder movement by companies, civil society, labour unions, the World Bank and various foundations.The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) welcomed GRI as a collaborating center and facilitated its establishment as an independent international organisation, based in the Netherlands (and now with satellite offices on all continents). GRI established key partnerships through Memorandums of Understanding with inter-governmental organisations like UN Global Compact (UNGC), the OECD and UNCTAD, where GRI actively contributes to the intergovernmental Working Group on International Standards on Accounting and Reporting (ISAR). Over the years, investors and stock exchanges have increasingly become engaged in business accountability and sustainability reporting or disclosure, as they call it. One important initiative launched in Rio in 2012 is the Sustainable Stock Exchanges Initiative, hosted by UNEP/FI, UNGC and UNCTAD.

Governments first referred to environmental reporting at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992. In Agenda 21 of the Conference, they agreed that business and industry should be ‘encouraged to adopt and report on their environmental records, as well as on the use of energy and natural resources’. Building on this, the World Summit on Sustainable Development also underlined the importance of reporting by noting the need to enhance corporate environmental and social responsibility and accountability, including through actions such as ‘public reporting on environmental and social issues’.

In 2002, at the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, GRI launched the first mature version of the GRI Guidelines. These had been created as a de facto standard through a formal multi-stakeholder due process, with all stakeholder constituencies and geographic regions represented. GRI was referenced in the World Summit’s Plan of Implementation. Paragraph 18 of the Report reads as follows:

Enhance corporate environmental and social responsibility and accountability. This would include actions at all levels to: (a) Encourage industry to improve social and environmental performance through voluntary initiatives, including environmental management systems, codes of conduct, certification and public reporting on environmental and social issues, taking into account such initiatives as the International Organization for Standardization standards and Global Reporting Initiative guidelines on sustainability reporting, bearing in mind principle 11 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development; (b) Encourage dialogue between enterprises and the communities in which they operate and other stakeholders; (c) Encourage financial institutions to incorporate sustainable development considerations into their decision-making processes; (d) Develop workplace-based partnerships and programmes, including training and education programmes. 

The GRI Guidelines consist of accountability principles and standard disclosures or indicators in the environmental, social, and economic and governance spheres. Examples of standard disclosure fields are employment, gender equality, human rights, climate change, biodiversity, pollution, water use, corruption, as well as payments to governments and local communities. All of these disclosures are based on key sustainable development-related UN Conventions (for example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the three Rio Conventions, many ILO conventions, and CEDAW). In addition, the GRI guidelines provide a reporting language for three of the most important international normative frameworks: the UNGC ten principles, the OECD Guiding Principles for MNEs and the UN Guiding principles for Business and Human Rights.

In May 2013, GRI launched the fourth generation of the most widely used comprehensive sustainability reporting framework in the world, its Sustainability Reporting Guidelines - G4. The launch marked the culmination of two years’ extensive stakeholder consultation and dialogue with a diverse constituency of hundreds of experts across the world. G4 places the concept of materiality at the heart of sustainability reporting. This means encouraging organizations to report only on issues that are material to their organization, on the basis of a dialogue with their stakeholders. This in turn will result in sustainability reports that are more strategic, more focused, more credible, and easier for stakeholders to navigate. Such reports will center on the issues critical for achieving the organization’s main goals, and managing its economic, environmental and social impacts. An organization might monitor many sustainability indicators, but it should report only on the most material ones.

The result is stunning. Today, 5,800 companies from around the world measure their sustainability performance, and can be held accountable through their public reporting. The majority of these (3,600) are officially registered GRI reporters. However, 5,800 companies is just a small part of the 80,000 or so existing large companies. The single largest factor in the acceleration of business accountability is government policy. Governments use different policies to advance sustainability reporting, ranging from incentives such as transparency awards (for example in the Netherlands), credit and investment facilities, and voluntary guidelines, to regulation and mandatory reporting. As the “Carrots and Sticks” research by UNEP, GRI and Stellenbosch University has shown, there has been a steep increase in reporting policy. The latest data - collected in 45 countries - indicate that there are 180 regulations, of which over 70% are mandatory. Research by the Harvard Business School has revealed that mandatory corporate sustainability reporting increases the social responsibility of businesses.

In the last month alone, there have been three key examples of government policy and regulation in this area:

The EU Directive on disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups which was adopted last month by the European Parliament introduces measures that will strengthen the transparency and accountability of about 6,000 companies in the European Union. Public interest enterprises with more than 500 employees will soon have to report on environmental, social anti-corruption, bribery and human rights-related matters on a ‘report or explain’ basis. The statement will have to include a description of the policies, outcomes and the risks related to those matters. There will be no strict requirement on the reporting framework, however, – companies are expected to rely on one of the internationally recognized frameworks (GRI amongst them). The EU regulation is inspired by Danish national reporting legislation. The Danish Government has held an annual review of effectiveness and impact of this regulation, performed by the Copenhagen Business School in collaboration with the Danish Business Authority. The results are quite encouraging. More information is available on the business performance on sustainability and human rights; and the motivation by business is high.

The State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council in China is currently working on an updated document called the Suggestions on State Owned Enterprises’ Fulfilment of Social Responsibilities, the first iteration of which was issued in 2008. They have invited a team of experts to review the first draft and provide feedback. The Head of the GRI Focal Point China was included in the consultation process.

India has legislated company expenditures on Corporate Social Responsibility, as of April 1 of this year. The Companies Act 2013 mandates that companies—including foreign firms—with a minimum net worth of $500 million and net profit of at least $5 million spend two percent of their profit on CSR. An estimated 8,000 companies are affected. All these regulations will have a multiplier effect on business accountability.

The Group of Friends of Paragraph 47 is a government-led initiative that was born in June 2012 following acknowledgement of the importance of corporate sustainability reporting in Paragraph 47 of the Outcome Document of the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) – ‘The Future We Want’. The Group, which was initially formed by countries who were pioneers in the practice of sustainability reporting such as Brazil, Denmark, France and South Africa, now has ten government representatives. UNEP and GRI support the group in a Secretariat capacity and provide technical support and guidance in concert with others.

As I explained above, the Alliance partners will work together to add a chapter to the GRI’s global standard to make the connection to the forthcoming Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This adapted Sustainability Reporting Framework will provide business, stakeholders AND governments with a tool to assess and to create dialogue about their contribution to the SDG’s. Governments can use the disclosure and reporting by companies at an aggregate level, to review the performance of the companies in their countries. But they can also use it to get information about foreign companies investing in their countries. And civil society and consumer or research organisations can use the data to benchmark business performance per sector, per region.

Preparation work is now fully underway. We cooperate with the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), which maps and develops performance indicators, targeted at government and national levels. Performance indicators for business demand a specific methodology. This addition to the global standard would include new elements, depending on the goals that are agreed. One example could be more explicit or detailed disclosure on the financial contribution by companies to the post-2015 means of implementation. That would help governments, auditors general and other stakeholders, to monitor and review business contributions in their own countries. There is also cooperation with the UN Statistics Division: here, the ambition is to facilitate the capture of the private sector’s contribution to sustainable development in the macro-economic indicators being developed to measure progress on SDGs. Sustainability reporting can help with data publicly disclosed by companies.

In conclusion: the private sector is a huge force in a post-2015 development agenda. It is extremely important that companies around the world measure, monitor and report publicly on their contribution to the SDGs – both in terms of their financial contribution to the means of implementation, as well as on the impact of their core business. Let’s use today’s business accountability framework in the field of sustainability reporting: and let’s transform this into a post-2015 Business Accountability Framework. GRI, as a member of the Business Architecture Alliance, and its many partners, is ready to help make it happen.
"

That's what Teresa Fogelberg said, and it was well said.

In a world where not enough companies are engaged in advancing sustainable development,  and those that are have a lot more to do, despite progress made so far, Teresa's call to action to make sustainability reporting more central to business, more relevant, more transparent where it counts, and more aligned with the needs of our shared future, is exactly what the UN General Assembly needed to hear. I just hope they listened.

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)