Target targets for 2019

Sustainability reporting used to be about activities and actions whereas today it is more about impacts and intentions. Substantiated intentions, that is, by which I mean T-A-R-G-E-T-S. Yes, that awful, threatening, potentially blood-pressure-raising concept of actually making a public commitment to making a difference. One of the things I find most frustrating about many sustainability reports is the extreme lengths companies go to in order to describe their mission, vision, what's important to them, what's important to stakeholders, what's important to the world and why it's ALL so important ("Sustainability is in our DNA" and "The world is about to end") .... but when it comes to saying what they plan to do about it: radio silence. Vague intentions, aspirations, declaratory blurb - it's all very nice but, well, no teeth. 

Andrew Wilson, expert advisor on sustainability, author of Green to Gold and The Big Pivot, has done leading-edge work in this area. He's even quite positive in his views of how targets have progressed and become embedded in the way most large companies report on sustainability. You can gain some comfort from his article from December 2017 here. He concludes that 94% of the largest 200 companies in the world include targets in their Sustainability Reports. 

You can check out Andrew's Pivot Goals database, containing 3,923 goals that have been publicly disclosed by (large) companies in their sustainability communications over the past few years (the database contains some duplication with both original goals and those that have been superseded or replaced). While this is apparent progress, it's by no means close to critical mass for all the thousands of companies that report on sustainability. Also, as you might expect, the distribution of targets is uneven - in the Pivot Goal database, for example, in the pharma sector, I counted 13 companies with targets, ranging from one company that has 62 targets and one that discloses just one target. 

Other aspects of target setting are coverage and quality. Coverage is the extent to which a company discloses targets for all material sustainability aspects versus targets that are limited to one area, say, environmental impacts which is the most popular. Quality is the extent to which targets are SMART. You know what SMART means. SMART is not: "Continue to improve our environmental impacts". Just sayin.  

Many of the reports I view and review are GRI-based and claim to be in accordance with GRI Standards at core or comprehensive level. Now, GRI has made reporting of goals and targets mandatory in the Management Approach Disclosures. Disclosure 103-2 requires (the organization SHALL report) disclosure of goals and targets. Well, sort of. The mandatory part is diluted by the addition of some small print: if the management approach includes that component.  

Additional guidance suggests including context, time-frame, reference to legislation if relevant and more. 

So, according to GRI, for GRI compliance, reporting of targets is mandatory if you have them. If you don't, no problem. Well, no problem is exactly how most reporters approach the Approach. It's so easy to say "we are committed to", "we place great importance upon", "we are passionate about" and all those other gloriously positive affirmations, but when it comes to the crunch, it's apparently more convenient to ignore the bits that bolt those commitments down in the organization and give stakeholders something to believe in. I believe disclosing targets should be a mandatory element of material topic reporting. Every single GRI Topic-specific Standard should include a requirement to disclose SMART targets - not IF they exist, but BECAUSE they should exist. And if they do not exist, conformance to GRI Standards should not either.

Some (random) examples of how companies commit in sustainability reports:

Arguably the best-of-the-best expression of public commitments and consistent reporting of progress is Marks and Spencer, whose Plan A, when it was created in 2007, immediately set M&S apart from the crowd with a bag of 100 commitments representing the most far-reaching and comprehensive set of targets by any company at that time (as far as I know).  Although Plan A's tagline was "Because there is no Plan B", Plan A has continued to reinvent itself and currently goes under the name of Plan A 2025. Behind the scenes of Plan A is a strong commitment to sustainable business, and business that positively impacts people and planet, and the pace has been maintained even at times when the company's financial results have been a bit wobbly. Marks  and Spencer's 2018 Plan A Report includes a detailed account of progress against all targets across the four Plan A pillars in a way reflects the M&S brand: quality, detail and tailored to meet a range of needs. 

Walmart's 2018 Sustainability Report includes a range of specific commitments at the start of its 230-page report. The targets are SMART enough and cover all areas of sustainability priorities - a comprehensive approach.

At the end of the report, Walmart discloses how it is doing against these commitments:

While it's possible to correlate progress reported to the commitments made upfront, it takes a little detective work to sort it all out as the language used is different in both cases. However, Walmart's (mostly) specific time-bound targets and progress statements are enough to quench my thirst for target-juice in this report. 

CVS Health also does a great job in its 2017 Corporate Social Responsibility Report with multi-year targets and reporting of progress in the reporting year. Across four pages, CVS demonstrates a mature view of its role in society with targets that reflect its impacts on society (help create a tobacco-free generation by acting to reduce youth smoking) as well as targeting improvements it its own operations. The targets are also in line with the material impacts CVS Health defines in its report. 

A super presentation of targets is from Sinyi Realty Group, one of Taiwan's leading real estate agencies in its 2017 Corporate Sustainability Report. For key strategic areas, the company sets long-range goals, medium term targets to 2025 and short-term targets for the coming year. Sinyi transparently reflects performance against the short-term targets set in the reporting year. No room for misinterpretation or detective work required here: it all hangs together very credibly.

Google's 2018 Environment Report includes a set of targets and progress made against these. It's a clear enough presentation and scoreboard markers give you a quick overview of progress. However, while this is totally fantastic, the targets are a mixed bag, for example, two of the targets are: set targets and others are either not time-bound or relevant for the single reported year - which in sustainability terms is no time at all. All targets relate to the direct environmental impacts of Google's own operations, for example, achieving zero net operational carbon emissions, which Google has impressively done for at least the past five years.

Of course, I couldn't write a post about targets without looking at Target Corporation. I mean, if your name is Target, you have to have targets, right? Well, Target doesn't disappoint, though, oddly enough, Target's targets are called goals 😂😂😂 But, whatever they are called, they are extensive and are presented across 7 pages in Target's 2018 Corporate Responsibility Report, followed by a couple of pages of upcoming goals (or targets) in areas not measured to date or not the subject of goals so far.  

There is no doubt in my mind that the inclusion of public commitments is both a way to reinforce trust with stakeholders and a tool to catalyze performance improvements. Several leading companies are doing this really well, and I tend to agree with the analysis above that more are doing so these days than in the past. However, the leading companies across the world represent only a small fraction of the entire population of reporting companies, and many (I might even say, most) of them do not even hint at targets or commitments.

So, let's be clear: If you want stakeholders to believe you are serious about sustainability, or whatever you call it in your organization, make SMART public commitments in key areas of impact and report your progress against these year on year. 

Of course, a great addition to any Sustainability Report would be the inclusion of a target to provide a lifetime supply of free ice cream to anyone who blogs about your targets on the CSR Reporting Blog. 

Happy Holiday Season and Happy 2019 to all CSR Reporting Blog readers!

Nine Magic Tricks in Sustainability Reporting

In many cases, the publication of a Sustainability Report can be likened to a magic performance. I was taking a look at the website  of Max Maven, an internationally renowned magician. He is currently featuring on a TV show in which amateur magicians present their tricks in an attempt to fool the Master Magician, Max Maven. Max then has to pronounce his verdict: either the trick fooled him or it did not, because he recognized the magic technique behind the trick. Imagine what Max Maven would say about Sustainability Reporting. Would he be fooled, or would he be able to see right through the tricks used in Sustainability Reports? Or would he take Sustainability Reports at face value, believing them to be accurate representations of corporate performance and impact?

Techniques used in magic are varied and incredibly creative. The Wikipedia Magic page lists several types of magic. All the magic types and descriptions below are reproduced from that page.

Production: The magician produces something from nothing—a rabbit from an empty hat, a fan of cards from thin air, a shower of coins from an empty bucket, a dove from a pan, or the magician him or herself, appearing in a puff of smoke on an empty stage—all of these effects are productions.

In Sustainability Reporting terms, the production is the report itself. Some companies produce reports as though they are the subject of a magic trick, appearing in a puff of PR in an email alert somewhere. In other words, companies which have not pursued a sustainability program, and have no sustainability performance results of note to disclose, or simply want to get on the reporting train without actually wanting to be transparent, suddenly produce a Sustainability Report, as if by magic. We all know by now that Sustainability Reporting is part of a process, and not the first part by any means. In order to produce a Sustainability Report, you first have to produce results. A Magic Sustainability Report would not fool Max Maven. And it doesn't fool us, either. In the case of McKesson, it also didn't fool William D'Alessandro, who reviewed the McKesson Fiscal Year 2011 Corporate Citizenship Report for CorporateRegister.com. In this review, William says: "Taken together, the information McKesson metes out is too weak to alleviate any but the mildest stakeholder concerns about the corporation’s social and environmental affairs." Sounds like the McKesson report contained a little magic dust.

Vanish: The magician makes something disappear—a coin, a cage of doves, milk from a newspaper, an assistant from a cabinet, or even the Statue of Liberty. A vanish, being the reverse of a production, may use a similar technique, in reverse.

In Sustainability Reporting terms, the vanish is the information that the reporting company doesn't want you to know. It is the very careful omissions that the sustainability reporters stealthily slide under the reporting radar. In Kathee Rebernak's Ethical Corporation review of Shell Coorporation's 2011 Sustainability Report, she refers to several items that have vanished, for example, the lack of discussion of oil's contribution to climate change, the impacts of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and the relative pace of biofuel production in comparison to global fuel demand. It all just vanished, as if by magic!

Transformation: The magician transforms something from one state into another—a silk handkerchief changes color, a lady turns into a tiger, an indifferent card changes to the spectator's chosen card.

In Sustainability Reporting terms, the transformation is the way sustainability reports create good performance out of bad performance, or present an exaggeratedly positive version of the truth about their sustainability results. Peter Mason, in his Ethical Corporation critique of the 2011 Sky Bigger Picture Review , writes: "More evidence of Sky giving itself an easy ride emerges in the environment section, where the review describes the company’s 10 green targets as “very challenging”. Figures in the data section suggest otherwise. Sky has set itself a target of a 20% increase in energy efficiency by 2020 on a 2008-9 baseline, yet it has already comfortably exceeded that figure – with eight years to go. It wants to cut CO2 equivalent emissions by 25% by 2020, yet had already made reductions of 19% by mid-2011."  Similarly, in my review for Ethical Corporation of the Boeing 2012 Environment Report, I made the following point: "The report says: “Boeing has reduced its environmental footprint at a time of significant business growth.” The company makes reference to “unprecedented increases in airplane production”. With mainly negative revenue growth and largely flat average aircraft delivery levels noted in this report, Boeing’s environmental goals don’t seem to be breaking the sound barrier." 

Another example of transformation can be found in Raz Godelnik's mince-no-words Triple Pundit review of Chevron's 2011 CSR Report. Raz writes: "The problem starts with the general tone of the report which is positive to an almost ridiculous degree.........Chevron didn’t manage to create a balance, providing almost only good news. ........in too many parts of the report, the positive information is either presented in a biased way or is missing some important parts."

It certainly needs some sort of magic wand to make poor performance sound like great performance. Magic wands should not be standard-issue for sustainability reports. Sooner or later, when the magic trick is over, we end up seeing the company as it truly is.

Restoration: The magician destroys an object, then restores it back to its original state—a rope is cut, a newspaper is torn, a woman is sawn in half, a borrowed watch is smashed to pieces—then they are all restored to their original state.

In Sustainability Reporting terms, the restoration is the presentation of a comeback after a disaster, or the upside of a downside. For example, my review, published in the Sustainable Business Forum,  of  Chrysler's first Sustainability Report for 2010,  offers a frank review of how Chrysler has emerged from the past couple of years a different company, with new management, a new strategy and a strongly Italian flavor. The report expresses Chrysler's change of heart (and almost everything else), getting the message over loud and clear that, for Chrysler, it is definitely not business as usual. By 2011, the restoration magic had not completely worked and instead of reverting to its original state,  Chrysler's second report for 2011 is now called Fiat.

Teleportation: The magician causes something to move from one place to another—a borrowed ring is found inside a ball of wool, a canary inside a light bulb, an assistant from a cabinet to the back of the theatre, a coin from one hand to the other.

In Sustainability Reporting terms, teleportation is the use of fabulous case studies which transport us from the drab world of recording energy consumption and carbon emissions, to the life and soul of community involvement through the use of glorious case studies, amazing imagery and personal stories of inspired or inspiring people. Some sustainability reports are actually works of art in themselves. For example, the Kuoni Corporate Responsibility Report for 2010 takes us on a journey through the Lost Islands in the Maldives, Tuvalu, Kiribati and other exotic places.

When the magic wears off, however, the raw facts and candid discussion about sustainability impacts are still what makes the Sustainability Report a document of value.  

Escape: The magician (an assistant may participate, but the magician himself is by far the most common) is placed in a restraining device (i.e. handcuffs or a straitjacket) or a death trap, and escapes to safety. Examples include being put in a straitjacket and into an overflowing tank of water, and being tied up and placed in a car being sent through a car crusher.

In Sustainability Reporting terms, the escape is the assurance process. You invite an independent third party into your organization and, if they do their job well, they might just make you feel like you are being put through the car crusher. The escape is their Assurance Statement, because the minute they write that nothing has come to their attention that might not indicate the fact that there might not be anything that doesn't comply with the principles of materiality completeness and balance, you can breathe easy. Of course, not every assurance process is that rigorous, and not every Assurance Statement will feel like an escape, Sometimes it will just be another tick on the to-do list. But when it's done well, it adds value to the reporting company. See a good review of the Assurance Process by Joss Tantram of Terrafiniti  and also, an admission from the UPS Sustainability Communications Manager, Lynnette McIntire, writing for Triple Pundit, who confesses to enjoy the assurance process, describing it in this way: "a bunch of accountants come into your world for a rigorous review of your numbers. They require (gasp) documentation to prove your “facts.” They find those discrepancies between last year and this year. They challenge your subject matter experts on the methodology of their charts and graphs. And to be honest, they take a lot of glee in your mistakes."

Another form of escape is when the sustainability report gets a good review or wins an award. Regular reviews of sustainability reports can be found on CorporateRegister.com or in the Ethical Corporation Magazine, and occasionally on other sites such as Triple Pundit or those of different sustainability bloggers. Producing a sustainability report is always a risk. Transparency always makes you vulnerable, no matter how strong your performance is. Getting a good report review is like coming out of the car crusher unscathed. My review, for the Sustainable Business Forum, of De Beers Family of Companies Report to Society for 2010 notes: "The De Beers report is a delight to read, it is intelligently structured, well-cut, polished and completely aligned with the report's title "Living up to Diamonds". Getting an award for reporting is like escaping out of the handcuffs to safety. See the winners of the annual online reporting awards, CRRA, in 2012: "The star ... was Coca Cola Enterprises Inc., U.S. who took two awards with overall Best Report and Best Carbon Disclosure categories, and a runner up in the Best Relevance Category."

Levitation: The magician defies gravity, either by making something float in the air, or with the aid of another object (suspension)—a silver ball floats around a cloth, an assistant floats in mid-air, another is suspended from a broom, a scarf dances in a sealed bottle, the magician hovers a few inches off the floor.

In Sustainability Reporting terms, the levitation is  when the report contains no context whatsoever. It just remains suspended, in air, with no anchoring points of reference. I am referring to general context, such as prior year data, regional or sector benchmarks or relevant background information about the company's role in society or sustainability objectives. Emily Hayne's Ethical Corporation Review of the John Lewis Partnership Report for 2011 makes this point: "...the report as a whole fails to tell a compelling story. Rather than setting out performance in the wider context of the issues and challenges identified, it simply lists issues, indicators and activities. Individually many of these seem impressive, but the report fails to pull them together into a meaningful long-term strategy."

Penetration: The magician makes a solid object pass through another—a set of steel rings link and unlink, a candle penetrates an arm, swords pass through an assistant in a basket, a saltshaker penetrates the table-top, a man walks through a mirror. 

In Sustainability Reporting terms, the penetration can be likened to the report within the report. For example, in HP's Corporate Citizenship Report for 2010, and entire sixteen photo account of A Day in the Life of an HP Auditor enabled us to penetrate the detailed workings of the supply chain monitoring process.

Penetration might also be linkened to the mutliple types of Sustainability Reports produced by one company. Reports which link and unlink. Separate, yet part of a whole. This might include local reporting, for example, ArcelorMittal , where global and local reporting live side by side, linked by core strategy and messages, but very different in local flavor.

Prediction: The magician predicts the choice of a spectator, or the outcome of an event under seemingly impossible circumstances—a newspaper headline is predicted, the total amount of loose change in the spectator's pocket, a picture drawn on a slate.

In Sustainability Reporting terms, the prediction is, of course, the targets, future outlook and/or what we will do next section. Many reports do not contain predictions. Many of the predictions that some reports contain are also not predictions, because the targets are so vague as to be rather meaningless or, they always remain goals and never results. David Schatsky of GreenResearch did some analysis of sustainability goals and benchmarking and found, for example, that just five of the 11 largest global oil and gas companies have announced public environmental sustainability goals. There is no magic in setting good sustainability goals. But there is magic in delivering on specific targets. The Unilever Sustainable Living Plan includes some goals which, if they are achieved, will be truly magical. In the area of Greenhouse Gases for example, one Unilever target is "By 2015 we aim to reach 200 million consumers with products and tools that will help them to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions while washing and showering. Our plan is to reach 400 million people by 2020" but, Unilever say,  "We are finding this target challenging and our progress is modest." If Unilever does eventually manage to crack this, it will be nothing short of magic and Max Maven will be duly impressed, I am sure.

This concludes my round-up of Sustainability Reporting Magic. I am sure there are many companies with a few tricks up their sleeve that I haven't covered, and many more which think that the Sustainability Report will magically transform their reputation and protect them from all evils.

The truth is that there is no magic in Sustainability Reporting. Just as Max Maven knows, behind every magic trick is an accumulation of strategy, innovation, creativity, hard work, performance development, perfecting the script and flawless delivery. Behind every magic trick is methodology. Behind every Sustainability Report should be proven practice. Nonetheless, when you do come across that Sustainability Report which appears to do the best job possible, you can't help feeling that there's a little magic in the air.

 

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

How to set sustainability goals

A recent piece of research from GreenResearch ^TM, a research, advisory and consulting firm focusing on cleantech, alternative energy and sustainability, looks at the trends and best practices for defining, managing and communicating sustainability goals. This is an interesting subject. The quality, quantity, scope, "softness" and "hardness" of sustainability goals as presented in sustainability reports varies widely, from those which are clearly measurable (and therefore manageable) to those which are broad directional aspirational type statements which offer no clue as to how progress will be assessed.  (The researcher David Schatzky notes in the GreenResearch ^TM report "Aspirational goals can bring excitement to a sustainability strategy, but can engender grumbling from mid-level executives if they are held accountable for achieving them."

Mostly, I believe, the type of goals a company sets and commits to in a Sustainability Report will have to do with the company's approach to sustainability. Those companies who have a clear sustainability strategy with clear action plans will find it easier to define SMART goals. Those companies who are just doing stuff, and want to report on it, find it harder to formulate a set of quantifiable goals. There tends to be quite a clear correlation here.

Good example

The Cooperative Group Sustainability Report  2010

The Cooperative Group has a clear strategic approach to sustainability and SMART quantified goals in each of the three core strategy areas: social responsibility, ecological sustainability and delivering value. Some goals span several years. Here is an example of the goals in the Social Responsibility area:

Example of targets from the Cooperative Group Sustainabilty Report 2010 (page 9)

The top two on this list (as it's quite hard to read on this blog) are:

• Ensure that 10% of the profits available for distribution is made available for community investment by 2013, with £5m deployed per annum to tackle UK poverty around stores and branches.
• Stores and branches will act as a focus for 10,000 community initiatives per annum.

You can see how these are very specific and define measurable outcomes. All the Cooperative Group's 14 key targets are similarly expressed.

Less good example:

Mauser Sustainability Report 2010

The Mauser Group  has a list of targets in its Sustainability Report for 2010 and while the company should be commended for publishing targets, it is easy to notice the difference - the targets are not entirely quantifiable. They are just specific enough to guide the work but not specific enough to measure success. "Work on market introduction of light-weight packaging" provides an item on the action plan but hardly defines measurable outputs. Will the fact that people work on light-weight packaging be enough to meet the target? Or is the delivery of light-weight packaging the goal? And how much light-weight packaging? One item? All items?

Example of targets from Mauser Sustainability Report 2010

Another less good example

Occidental Petroleum Corporation (Oxy) Social Responsibility Report 2010

Oxy also should be commended for making commitments to targets in its Sustainability Report, however these are also quite vague. "Continue to engage with key stakeholders on Oxy’s corporate governance, HES and social responsibility efforts" doesn't really describe the kind of step-change activity or desired result. Sounds a little like a more-of-the-same soft-option target. What will people do differently? How will success be measured?

Another of Oxy's targets is "Maintain efforts to make Oxy’s workforce reflect the communities in which the company operates, through national, regional and local hiring practices and equal opportunities for women and minorities." Any time a target or goal starts with "maintain efforts", it is describing the effort, not the result. It's hard to measure efforts. Stakeholders don't buy efforts. They buy results.

Anyway, the above-mentioned research had 32 respondents (senior executives at major corporations in USA, Europe and Asia) from companies which are considered to be leaders in sustainability. The research therefore targeted to represent best practice, not all practice. Additionally, interviews were conducted with with 14 companies including Alcatel-Lucent, Barclays, Dell, Edelman, Johnson Controls, Kraft Foods, Nokia, Unilever and Telefonica  and more. Key questions addressed by the research are:

• What is the right way for companies to establish sustainability goals?
• How should companies manage sustainability performance to ensure they achieve their goals?
• When and how should sustainability goals be communicated to the public, and what is the place of internal sustainability goals?

The research shows that several factors influence the establishment of sustainability goals:

Factors influencing the selection of sustainability goals from GreenResearch 2011

Interestingly, the top factor relates to environmental impact goals, arguably the easiest and most quantifiable area of sustainability practice (though I believe all other areas of sustainability performance can be quantified in clear goals). The research shows that 79% of respondents have publicly declared goals on carbon emissions, 57% on overall energy consumption, 45% on solid waste, water and renewable energy consumption and 41% on recycling.

55% of respondents indicate that goals are set annually with only 3% setting goals on a 3-5 year horizon. This may be indicative of approach or of semantics. Sustainability requires longer term thinking, so annual goals are inadequate. However, multi-year goals with annual milestones which are adjusted along the way is a good approach. Sometimes milestones may be expressed in terms of annual goals.

Another interesting aspect of goal-setting includes the degree to which executive compensation is tied to sustainability goals. The research shows that very few companies mandate that all leaders and managers should have part of their compensation package related to sustainability, and only 7% of companies indicated that some or all Board members are compensated on this basis. 

Link between compensation and sustainability from GreenResearch 2011

Finally, the research around Sustainability Goals refers to the debat about publication of goals externally versus the use of goals at an internal level only. Why would a company (which reports on sustainability externally) not publish goals externally? Some suggestions thrown up by the research:

• Belief that this is not very relevant to external stakeholders.
• Lack of good tracking systems or credible data for measuring performance.
• Lack of confidence in their ability to meet their goals, sometimes because of a dependence on third parties to achieve a goal.
• Regional factors affect goal-setting such that an overall global goal would not be realistic.
• Competitive considerations, including a reluctance to see competitors outpacing the company by setting more ambitious goals.
• Creating a sustainability report (with goals) would be redundant, time consuming and costly (a direct reference to Apple's statements relating to Apple's (misguided) reluctance to report on sustainability).

I agree with GreenResearch that publicly stated goals have power and making an external commitment should really be the best practice that companies aspire to both as a management tool and as a route to gaining trust and credibility with stakeholders. No-one expects perfection, it is understandable that some goals may not be achieved, but as a minimum I think we should expect transparency. If sustainability reporting is about building trust, reporting needs to address what companies WILL do not just what they HAVE done.

The conclusions shared by GreenResearch are:

• Companies should craft sustainability goals in consultation with internal and external experts and stakeholders, combining bottom-up and top-down analysis to produce goals that are material, achievable, quantitative and time-bound. A quarter of sustainability executives at leading companies have “aspirational” sustainability goals without a clear plan to achieve them.
• CEO support, operating executive accountability and regular progress reporting are the best practices of managing sustainability goals. Fifty percent of sustainability leaders tie part of C-level executive compensation to the achievement of sustainability goals. But over forty percent say progress on sustainability goals is reported to senior management only semi-annually or annually.
• Public sustainability goals demonstrate commitment and help galvanize internal staff and drive results. Seventy-nine percent of sustainability leaders have public greenhouse gas emissions goals while 45 percent have public waste and water goals. Companies with immature management or measurement practices should start with internal goals but aim to go public in short order.

So, time for a review of your sustainability goals?

Learnings from GreenResearch's report might indicate it might be a worthwhile exercise.

(Disclosure: I have no relationship with GreenResearch and do not benefit from sales of the company's reports)

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