A Compass for CSR

In 2017, there were 173 countries in the world that had a population of 500,000 people or more (CIA Factbook). Country number 174 is Brunei, with a population of 443,593. That means that, with a workforce of more than 550,000 colleagues, Compass Group would displace Brunei as the 174th largest country in the world by population, ahead of Iceland, Malta, Barbados and many more. 

Compass Group's people are dispersed across 50 countries and are engaged in the meaningful occupation of serving over 5.5 billion meals per year in over 55,000 client locations. If you assume an average employee will take one meal per day around 250 days per year, then Compass is providing sustenance and nutrition for more than 20 million people every day. Now, that's some responsibility. It's also somewhat of a challenge, because it's not just about keeping bellies full, it's about catering to different local tastes and food norms, managing the supply of locally sourced ingredients, planning and controlling a complex supply chain, ensuring food safety at every step of the chain and most significantly in my view, helping people to make relevant, healthy and nutritious food choices so that they can feel good, be well and make a productive contribution at work and in their families and communities. So much of the way our society functions is affected by what and how much people consume, that feeding 20 million people a day is no insignificant undertaking.   

Despite this complexity, Compass Group's approach to CSR - positive performance - is characterized by a certain simplicity.  For example, four key strategic KPIs are presented right at the start of Compass Group's 2016 CR Report.

Food safety, workplace safety, climate change impact and wellbeing and nutrition make sense as key areas of responsible and sustainable business practice for Compass. These are four among a set of seven material impacts (that also include compliance, supply chain integrity and employee retention) that Compass manages and tracks consistently across the global business. Together this framework makes their focus crystal clear, intuitively relevant and simply manageable.  

The CR Report is also simply consistent in its presentation. For each of the material focus areas, Compass describes its management approach, focus areas and key metrics. In each section there is also a case study of relevant practice, responding to a global challenge, the reason the topic is important to Compass and what Compass is doing about it. Each section is aligned to the relevant UN Sustainable Development Goals.  

A performance summary delivers results against 22 targets in each of these areas and describes progress made. All in all, an extremely neat, focused, compact and deceptively simple 31-page global report that does the job. 

If you live in the U.S. (where more than half of Compass’s workforce lives), or in the UK and Ireland (with 60,000 employees), you can look at country-specific reports that give local stakeholders a local menu and flavor (OK, pun intended).  

The architect of CR strategy, positive performance and disclosure is the impressive Nicki Crayfourd, Group Health, Safety and Environment Director of Compass Group PLC.   

Nicki will be joining me at the Smarter Sustainability Reporting Conference in February in London (hint: did you book your place yet?  Contact me for a discount).  Nicki will join a fascinating morning panel discussing the connection between strategy and reporting frameworks. How do global sustainability priorities and reporting frameworks (SDG and GRI, to name two that you all know) define how you build your sustainability strategy and how you report? What comes first, the framework or the strategy? How do you connect all the dots? Seems to me that Nicki must have some pretty good points to make on this topic, given the way Compass reports. 

I decided not to wait until the conference to connect with Nicki. Here's a chance to get to know her ahead of the session. 

How has your career in sustainability developed?
Nicki: "My background is a little checkered, but hospitality has always been a common theme throughout my career. It is an amazing part of the business world to work in. I started in marketing originally, then moved to sales of in-store catering contracts to retailers. After a while, I joined a large food logistics company, where I was exposed to food safety, which I expanded to include nutrition and aspects of the healthy attributes of food. Later, I was asked to join our largest retail account, and it was a bit like being thrown in at the deep end with sales, supply chain, quality, marketing and managing the entire team. In this role, I set up a new focus for safety and sustainability. My company then actually merged with Compass and I was asked to take over the same role for the whole of the UK. Since then, after a spell of working in Europe, my role has continued to expand and for the past 5 years, I have had a global role covering workplace health and safety, environment for the Group, including leading the sustainability strategy development, reporting and supply chain integrity standards. It has been a great journey. I see it as proof that you can develop an idea based on passion, and together with a good business case, you can make things happen."

What has been the key to your success in embedding sustainability at a corporate level?
Nicki: "I think the fact that I had commercial experience and good knowledge of the business as a whole has been a big help. I believe that sustainability can be much more embedded in what the company is focused on anyway - not just a one-off exercise or additional project. I have tried to think about what else is already available in terms of insights through other channels. The idea is not to duplicate. There is not enough time to do things three or four times. Sustainability needs to draw from other activities in the business that are happening anyway, such as risk assessments, internal audit, legal activities, marketing and consumer programmes etc. We need to bring those into play, rather than always trying to create new things with the same people and groups."

With such a large number of employees in the Group, how to you engage everyone across the business?
Nicki: "We have policy and flexible frameworks that help communicate our expectations for the Group to the country teams. Distilling into a format that engages all the frontline employees is the remit of the country teams. We have a global leadership conference every three years, and this is critical in terms of key messaging, setting objectives and gaining alignment. It’s a good platform - countries take the key themes and then translate them into market plans based on local needs. I am quite dictatorial on requirements for data and this is a massive part of our journey. We require proof points and strong evidence of what we are doing based on consistent definitions and understanding across the business. We have invested in a portal with a third party to collect data from countries."

What's the need for local reporting in the UK and the U.S.?   
Nicki: "There are different topics that interest our customers, regulators and employees in different countries. In addition to our two biggest markets, I would like to expand our reporting to include more countries. I think it is important to have a connection to the local market through reporting, though it is true that sometimes I have to nag for stories. Our global report must serve a range of high level stakeholders and it does that well enough. We have also invested in our corporate website with better functionality and we plan to include updates during the year, mainly for ESG analysts, investors, clients and institutional shareholders and NGOs."

Smarter reporting. What does that mean? 
Nicki: "Smarter reporting means more transparency. Transparency is having the confidence to say what we have achieved but also that there are challenges we are facing and must still work on. There is naturally a certain tension when talking about challenges. The food sector in general is often targeted by the media in the UK and U.S., and sometimes the facts get confused by the media. This makes our sector less willing to be open beyond what's required. However, I feel we are making slow but certain progress."

*****

It seems to me that there is always more to do, and there are always challenges to face. There is no perfect business. Sustainability, and the reporting bit, is a journey. However, it also seems to me that Nicki's process-oriented, focused and simple approach to embedding sustainability is a good recipe for more positive performance.


Join us at the edie Smarter Sustainability Reporting Conference on February 27 and share your thoughts with Nicki, a large group of inspiring professionals and, err, me.




elaine cohen, CSR Consultant, Sustainability Reporter, former HR Professional, Trust Across America 2017 Lifetime Achievement Award honoree, Ice Cream Addict, Author of three totally groundbreaking books on sustainability (see About Me page). 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 

Elaine will be chairing  the edie Conference on Smarter Sustainability Reporting  in London on 27th February 2018 

Lindéngruppen: a shared transparency journey

Last month, I was honored to be invited to join the next stage in the transparency journey of a wonderful, privately-owned group of companies in Sweden. The parent company is Lindéngruppen, and it describes itself as "a second-generation family business focusing on sustainable long-term development of industrial companies". In 2016, Lindéngruppen’s wholly-owned companies had a combined turnover of approximately SEK 7.4 billion, and more than 3,200 employees in 27 countries. Lindéngruppen, based in Höganäs, Sweden was founded by Ulf G. Lindén in the mid-eighties and is now led by the Chairperson of the Board, his daughter,  Jenny Lindén Urnes.  

Lindéngruppen owns and runs four companies:

Beckers is a global industrial coatings company specializing in coil coatings and industrial coatings for metal. Beckers also provides finishes for consumer electronics and lifestyle appliances. 

Colart supplies the world’s most popular art material brands. Colart’s mission is to provide sustainable, creative tools and services to release pure expression.

Höganäs  is the world’s leading producer of metal powder and the main driver of the development of metal powder applications. 

Moorbrook Textiles produces woven-textile products from luxury fibers. 

These four businesses are primarily B2B, and do not have all that much in common in terms of the nature of their business, beyond their ownership and shared values as members of the Lindéngruppen family. But that is clearly enough to sustain responsible practice, as all four companies are guided by the enlightened, passionate and visionary leadership of the group's Chair, Jenny Lindén Urnes, whom I was privileged to meet at the first Lindéngruppen Sustainability Reporting Conference for the companies in the group last month. Her commitment to growing positive-impact businesses shines clearly as an inspiration for all.

At the one-day event, where company CEOs, sustainability, EHS and HR professionals came together as a group of more than 30 people, I shared my thoughts and insights about Sustainability Reporting, with a focus on the benefits for privately owned and smaller sized enterprises, and engaged in discussion with the business leaders. During the day, teams works on future scenarios and considered the challenges and opportunities that sustainable practice might bring. And all of this took place at Färgfabriken in Stockholm, Beckers' old paint factory built in 1889 and later converted into a cultural institution, supported by Lindéngruppen, now serving as a platform for contemporary cultural expressions, with an emphasis on art, architecture and urban planning, using approaches that help explore and understand the complexities of our constantly changing world. What a superbly fitting venue for a day of free thinking and collaboration.

The Lindéngruppen companies started their sustainability journeys well before this first shared experience, however. Each company has been applying sustainability principles and transparent practice in its own way with its own particular relevance and focus.

Beckers has been publicly reporting on sustainability since 2012 and its most recent Sustainability Report for 2016 is GRI compliant report with a focus on 8 core material topics underpinned by a sustainability vision.

In this report, Beckers shares the progress made in the development of Beckers Sustainability Index, a tool to help customers understand and make more informed choices based on data about the sustainability profiles of Beckers coating products. Last year, Beckers converted the index into an IOS/android app allowing customers to easily contrast the sustainability performance of different coating systems. This is an example of Beckers integrating sustainability in its core business through the products it sells, beyond managing the direct impacts of its production and other activities. It's about the impact of the business on society, not just about operating responsibly.

Colart's Sustainability Report for 2016-2017 reflects the color and creativity that are the essence of this company. Aligning with the UN SDGs, Colart identifies 12 goals that are most relevant for its business impacts and contribution to society. Using a seven-step "GET WISER" approach to sustainability strategy, Colart has been embedding awareness and understanding across all levels of the business, and engaging in creative platforms to promote the use of art for positive impact, such as “Hospital Rooms”, a UK-based mental health charity that commissions artists to create inventive environments and artworks for mental health units and holds art workshops for mental health service users. Aligning positive social impact with core business expertise helps make this partnership a success. 

Höganäs has just started its reporting journey with an initial internal report for 2016 that has not been published as the company prepares for external reporting for 2017. Nonetheless, having had the benefit of a sneak preview, I can say that the 2016 Höganäs internal report is a strong GRI-based report, reinforcing the sustainable contribution of metal powders that help reduce resource consumption and make manufacturing processes more efficient. There is much scope here, as metal powders from Höganäs are used in component manufacture, electrical applications and filters, surface coating, welding and brazing, water purification, cleaning of industrial wastewater, soil remediation and more. With more than 700 patents on metal powder processes and products, Höganäs invests in building its expertise and creating sustainable solutions for customers. With five central thrusts in its sustainability strategy to climb "Mount Sustainability", Höganäs is advancing climate neutral operations and sustainable offerings for customers while managing direct workplace impacts and engaging in communities. Höganäs is a partner in developing and advancing Swedish Sustainable Steel Vision for 2050 with other sector players in Sweden, playing a role in shaping a more sustainable future for the industry.  

Moorbrook Textiles, owners of the Alex Begg brand, is applying sustainability practices in its operations as part of its brand approach. This includes working to eliminate hazardous chemicals from all fabric production processes, ensuring aminal welfare in the animal fiber supply chain for wool and angora and developing traceability processes for sourced fibers. I understand that Moorbrook is also building a sustainability reporting capability and aligning its reporting processes with GRI Standards. So far, this work is internal and has not yet been published. Clearly behind the Lindéngruppen vision, however, Moorbrook has a positive sustainability story to tell and I look forward to hearing more.   

Lindéngruppen is an example of privately-owned, SME-scale, B2B businesses that are engaging with sustainability as essential supply chain partners for their customers and positive presences in their communities. It's inspiring to experience the passion that each company demonstrates in finding its own relevance and establishing its unique space along the sustainability spectrum. Led by a clear-headed, team-spirited and pragmatic Group Chief Sustainability Officer, Jenny Johansson, all companies in the group have the support they need to find their sustainability voice. And each is doing so at a pace that is manageable and enables maximum learning for each company along the journey. 

Lindéngruppen is proof that enlightened leadership and a practical approach is good for people, good for business and good for all of us, no matter the size or nature of the business. I wish all the Lindéngruppen team continued success and look forward to more Sustainability Reports of their progress.  

elaine cohen, CSR Consultant, Sustainability Reporter, former HR Professional, Trust Across America 2017 Lifetime Achievement Award honoree, Ice Cream Addict, Author of three totally groundbreaking books on sustainability (see About Me page). 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 

Elaine will be chairing  the edie Conference on Smarter Sustainability Reporting  in London on 27th February 2018

BP: Back in the Picture

In the world of sustainability, there are some names that evoke a range of strong emotions and reactions and I suspect that BP is one of them. BP has had some extremely interesting sustainability successes, and also, at least one devastating low point. You don't even have to mention the company name: just refer to Gulf of Mexico, Macondo, Deepwater Horizon, I want my life back - there are a million ways to say BP and most of them are not exactly positive. But if you stand back from the oil spill disaster of 2010, and accept that we are still and will continue to be reliant upon fossil fuels as our main source of energy for some time into the future, and take a look at what BP is doing today with a pair of fresh eyes, you may be encouragingly impressed. As I was.  

I was doing my homework in preparation for a conversation  with Louise Tyson, Head of Corporate Reporting at BP (that's both financial and sustainability reporting). Louise will be sharing her insights on "Giving your report complete clarity & readability" at the Smarter Sustainability Reporting Conference in London in February 2015 (still time to register :)). As usual, as the conference chair, I like to chat with speakers in the run-up to the conference. Ahead of our call, I navigated to BP's sustainability and reporting site after what I confess to several years of not paying close attention. I was pleasantly surprised. 

BP is an employer of 83,000 people, a strong contributor to the global economy and a long-standing sustainability reporter addressing serious issues in detail in its reporting suite. BP has various reports and formats to meet different stakeholder information needs. This year's suite includes:

A Sustainability Review for 2013 in PDF format
Several country reports for 2013 including Angola, Azerbaijan and more
Site reports from different local operations
A report archive with reports in different languages and reports dating back to 1998
An economic impact report for BP's operations in the U.S.
A super-snazzy Health, Safety and Environment charting tool that enables you to play around endlessly to review 25 years of data in different visual formats.

And my chat with Louise Tyson:

How did you get into the reporting role at BP? 

"Actually, my background is not in reporting. I was in magazine publishing for ten years and then worked in online communications. I was a consultant to BP one year, putting their sustainability report online. That was my introduction to sustainability, around seven or eight years ago. BP later hired me as the Sustainability Reporting Manager. My first report was published five days before the Gulf of Mexico incident."    

How did you move from sustainability reporting to corporate reporting? 

"I realized that our financial and sustainability reporting often cover the same issues - such as climate change and human rights – and that we should be talking about them in the same voice, even if the reporting focus and purpose is different. So, when I was promoted to the head of corporate reporting role, I knew there was an opportunity to encourage more accessible language and consistency across all of our reporting It's turned out to be a really interesting challenge. But if you had asked me if I had ever imagined that I would be doing what I am doing today, I'd probably never have guessed."  

How has BP's reporting changed over the years? 

"For many years, BP was recognized as a leader in sustainability reporting. We would win reporting awards and we were generally considered as innovative in our approach. After the Gulf of Mexico incident, things changed, of course. It became even more important that we report transparently, factually, credibly and in a balanced way – responding to the disappointment and anger of many of our stakeholders. It was very tough. We needed to provide a balanced view, clearly communicating what had happened and how we were responding. And, it was essential that our communication didn’t show up as green-washing. Over time, things have rebalanced somewhat and now most of our stakeholders are asking us much the same questions that they would ask of any large oil and gas player." 

Your reporting is so detailed and includes a wide range of local and site-specific reports. How do you manage your reporting cycle? 

"We launch our sustainability report in March, and we immediately begin on the next year’s report by getting feedback from external stakeholders on how they think we’ve covered the material issues. Over the summer, we work with representatives from our policy, risk, government and public affairs, and environmental and social teams, to pull together and prioritize a list of the most important topics. This is really powerful because it offers a broad perspective on the issues and where we are and what we should be doing. From September to December, we work on the report draft and present it to the board committee focused on sustainability issues. We then spend the first part of the year incorporating all feedback before publication."

What's the policy on country reports? 

"Country reports are developed locally by the local businesses. They decide whether they want to publish a local report. For some, it's extremely helpful as an engagement tool. We do not dictate a policy at corporate level, though we do provide a framework for local reporting, for those countries that adopt this practice. We provide positioning on group issues and other guidance. We also review the reports at corporate level before publication, to ensure there is alignment around common issues and approaches. Site reports can be very relevant to the detailed discussion at local level with local stakeholders. In general, countries and sites that report do so as a response to local demand and interest. In Azerbaijan and Angola, for example, we know this is helpful in maintaining positive relations with local institutions and government offices."

I am looking forward to hearing Louise sharing more insights at the Smarter Sustainability Reporting Conference next month. 

P.S.

I couldn't resist taking a look at BP's first Environmental and Social Report for 1998, at a time when there was no GRI, no other reporting frameworks and hardly any other companies that even acknowledged the value of transparency, let alone actually put a report together.

It's fascinating to see how advanced this BP report was for its time, and of course, compare it to the latest the 2013 review. They are both 52-53 pages in length, so that's one thing that hasn't changed. Surprisingly perhaps, given the dynamic evolution of reporting and the advances in reporting practice over the years, the pioneering 1998 report has many elements that are still very relevant today.  

The 1998 report contains:

• policies, approaches and commitments - good old DMAs in GRI lingo
• a range of environmental and social data dating back to 1990 in some cases , or later years when data collection commenced - demonstrating continuity and consistency
• a 20 year GHG emissions reduction target - 10% from 1990 to 2010
• several case studies covering different aspects of BP's operations in different parts of the world, supplemented with external commentaries developed through a process of interviews with local stakeholders by an independent consultancy - a precursor to what would today be called "stakeholder engagement"
• an "attestation statement" - external verification and a precursor to what has become known as "assurance"
• a questionnaire with a pre-paid postage form requesting feedback on the report. 

Looking at the BP 2013 Sustainability Review, you can see evidence of the transformation reporting has made over the years. The discussion is far more strategic and much greater context and depth is provided. The upstream-downstream business model demonstrates a higher level of value chain thinking, and the report is far more quantitative, focused and formal. The GRI, IPIECA and UNGC frameworks and principles help structure the disclosures and the metrics. New issues such as fracking and oil sands are explained and BP's approach is described (these issues were not around in the 1998 report). 

In the 1998 report, especially when compared to today's document, there is a sense of almost naive authenticity in a sort of clumsy but trust-building way. 2013's report is far more polished, and while it is direct and balanced, I wonder if recapturing something of the early-day spirit might be an interesting thought for BP and other companies to enhance credibility. To give you a sense of this, here are a few "gems" from the 1998 report:

"Our success depends on our making, and being seen to make, a distinctive contribution to every activity in which we are involved." 

"Ours is an evolving, rather than predetermined or overly bureaucratic, approach. We know that for high standards of ethical and social behaviour to thrive as part of our culture they must be felt and understood by our people. It is more important for it to be in the bloodstream than in a set of manuals."

"Diversity in internal teams (now the norm) is highly valued as it has been seen to result in more creative solutions."

"We wanted this year’s report to include more than just the ‘official’ views of the company."

"Questions of business ethics are often not clear-cut and cannot be resolved by rules alone. With this in mind, during 1998 we revised our Guidelines on Business Conduct, which provide guidance on ethical issues to anyone who has custodianship of the company’s assets or commercial relationships."

"To mark the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights we launched a human rights page on our internet site..."

"Our social impacts can range from positive ones, such as the creation of jobs and prosperity, to less welcome ones, such as fuelling unrealistic employment expectations, exacerbating existing or latent conflicts and disrupting settled ways of life."

Anyway, that nostalgic look at the early days of reporting has given me a new sense of respect for BP and its consistent, ongoing investment in transparency. This doesn't make BP perfect and it doesn't mean that BP should not continue to be held accountable for its far-reaching impacts on society and the environment in all that it does. But, especially after my conversation with Louise Tyson, I am more ready to believe that there is earnest intention behind the written words. 

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 next Sustainability Report ? Contact Elaine: info@b-yond.biz   

The VITA Model for future Sustainability Leaders

And now for my third and final post about my adventures in Atlanta at the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) Council Meetings last week. I has to share this piece, as it's where everything comes together, and also, one of the most fun-important parts of the WBCSD activities. It's about the Future Leaders of our businesses and our sustainability efforts.

WBCSD has a fabulous program to educate future business leaders of the WBCSD member companies. It's a year-long program that provides tomorrow’s business leaders with "the skills and competencies to cope with an increasingly complex world as well as the social and environmental challenges across a changing competitive landscape."  Each year is themed, and the 2015 program is all about "scaling up business actions on climate change & improving the business case" with modules in the U.S., Hong Kong and Paris. Wow. Wish I were 10, 20, ok 30 years younger.

The 2014 Future Leaders Program (FLP) was populated with young up-and-coming mainly finance professionals from member companies and its theme was "Bridging the Capitals: Accounting for Natural & Social Capital in Business Decision Making".  25 young business people worked on this for a year, and delivered impressive outputs at the close of the program. In five teams, they worked on different aspects of the Bridging the Capitals theme and created reports that contain genuinely original and useful insights about reporting, measurement, materiality and more.

I highly recommend you take a look at some or all of these publications. I have read them all end-to-end and it was worth it.

Integrated Reporting in South Africa - From Concept to Practice: insights from interviews with South African reporting companies and investors.

Unraveling the Business Value Landscape: defining what value really means and recommendations on how to describe business value.

Integrated Performance Management: a quality approach to following through on sustainability commitments.

Sustainability - A new competence for financial leaders: a guide to help finance folks  understand, navigate and even influence the sustainability agenda.

Journey to materiality- A guide to achieve corporate goals by applying materiality to environmental, social and governance issues: views and recommendations around the challenges of defining materiality.

One of the highlights of my week in Atlanta was being asked to present my perspectives and insights  as an "expert" to this group. It's always nice to talk to young leaders and help shape their journey. Thinking about this, I wasn't quite sure what I could usefully add, given they were at the end of a year-long learning process. What could I tell them that they hadn't already heard? What could I add that could shape their journey further as they prepare for re-entry into the workplace with new sustainable-business shaded lenses? So, I used my trusty fall-back. When all else fails, build a model. In this case, I created a simple model designed to help these impressive young leaders remember to apply their learning as they grow and develop in their own professions. I called it the VITA model. Vita, according to the dictionary, is a biography or a resume. Quite fitting, I thought, because what I wanted to leave with the FLP participants was a thought about what they would want to see on their resume in 20 or 30 years time. What is the legacy of business activity they want to be proud of? How will their sustainability orientation show up in that 2030 resume? The VITA model has four main tenets:

VALUE – IMPACTS – TRANSPARENCY – ACCOUNTABILITY

VALUE:  It may still be of value even if it you can't put a money number on it.

IMPACTS: We must talk impacts not actions and get better at defining them.

TRANSPARENCY: Transparency is not the goal, relevant transparency is the goal.

ACCOUNTABILITY: The finance function must be accountable to all its stakeholders.

In talking to these points, I shared some true (and in some cases, quite incredible) stories from my own experience as a business person over thirty years, and from my work with clients (no names named!).  I won't fill up this post with stories ... but I will comment briefly on each part of the model.

VALUE:  It may still be of value even if it you can't put a money number on it. Essentially, here, despite a week about capitals, costing externalities, measurement and metrics, I couldn't help but make the point that not everything can be quantified scientifically. For example, the impact of corporate culture. Sure, we can measure employee engagement, retention, attrition, satisfaction, development and even conflict in an organization, and we can measure the cost of non-compliance or non-ethical conduct to some degree, but can we truly measure a the money value of a culture that is ethical, open and empowering? In corporate cultures where there are aspects of complicity, lack of freedom to express new ideas or lack of respect for human worth, the ripple effects are far-reaching but we don't know exactly how to count them. As young leaders, especially ones with a head for finance, it is crucially important to remember that, at the end of the day, business is just people trying to survive and thrive. Valuing them and valuing values is just as important as valuing value. Even if you can't count it.  

IMPACTS: We must talk impacts not actions and get better at defining them. I have said this many times, and often refer to "shopping-list" reports where I get what companies did but I didn't get what difference it made. Companies, and finance experts in companies, are soooooo good at calculating the last cent of the return on a capital investment. Yet companies are proud to say they donated (or even invested) tens of millions of $ in the community when they have no idea what a difference it made. We need to get better at why we are doing stuff and what impact we are trying to have. The ways of calculating impacts are partly about money but also about a range of intangibles that affect people lives which are harder to calculate. But that doesn’t mean we should ignore these impacts or even attempt to define them in at the planning stage. 

I work with a company called Netafim. Netafim is a world leader in drip irrigation – a climate-smart agricultural process that enables better yields, using less water and less fertilizer and less energy. The economic cost benefits of drip irrigation can be calculated and in each market, Netafim has amassed a range of data that supports and quantifies the environmental and economic impacts of using drip irrigation. However, there are also many intangibles. How do you factor them into the equation? How do you design them into the planning?  Rachel Shaul, the Marketing Director of Netafim went to Gujarat in India to talk to women farmers as part of a research project. Women's empowerment is a big thing in smallholder agriculture. The impact of using drip irrigation for them was the possibility of sending their kids to school, being able to buy a house for the first time or the ability to help other women become independent and self-sufficient. 

from Netafim Sustainability Report 204

How do you calculate the impact of that? Can you monetize that? Where would that get prioritized in the allocation of resources? Are these kind of impacts defined up front or are they a by-product that happens by doing business differently? Intuitively, supporting women smallholders makes sense. Objectively, data shows their economic situation improves. But how are all the other impacts on  the quality of their lives calculated? When you are looking at the difference your company makes, these are the sort of things that should also be understood more deeply and taken into account. We must get better at defining impacts in economic, social or environmental terms. We must get better at getting clearer about how a company is changing the world. And we must plan more holistically to deliver the impacts we desire to deliver. Some of that is about money, some of it is not.

TRANSPARENCY: Transparency is not the goal, relevant transparency is the goal. Everyone talks transparency, everyone believes that transparency is the goal. Everyone thinks that if they cram as much information as possible into a sustainability report or a website, that they will improve their reputation. Well, that may be. But in this world of overload, and with the increasing complexity of business, we don't need or want to know EVERYTHING. We want to know the most important things. How are those things defined and by whom? It's not easy. A materiality process can be designed to deliver the results you want to achieve. Getting granular and relevant on materiality requires good engagement. Engagement does not mean sending out a survey or having a meeting about your next contract with a supplier. Engagement means truly understanding the measure of impact you are having in a specific context and looking for the business risk and opportunities associated with that. 

ACCOUNTABILITY: The finance function must be accountable to all its stakeholders. As finance managers or business leaders, who are your stakeholders? Who is affected by the impact of your decisions?  Employees, of course. Management and their ability to advance positive reputation for your company and support business success, of course. But beyond that? Who do you have an impact on? What are the policies that you create that have an impact on society, the environment, the well-being of communities? How you establish investment policies, payment terms, restructuring frameworks and more? These all have an impact on the lives of people. This is often highly relevant when businesses undergo restructuring. The key partners in any company that manage processes such as these are the Human Resources and the Finance teams. We decide, with our policies, whether people have a future or what kind of future they can start to plan. It's that simple. 

U.S. Census data shows that more than 7 percent of American workers fell below the poverty line in 2012. Similar figures show up in Europe. Workers. Not people sitting on a beach somewhere. Workers. Going out every morning to a job and coming home and not being able to maintain a decent standard of living. Who's responsible for that ? HR? Finance? No-one? The competitive landscape? In the post-2015 agenda, the UN has begun to talk about eradicating poverty. Business has a role to play here, and so do finance managers and other business leaders. Who are your stakeholders? Are they the working poor? Or are they your management who wants to make more profit and show a better balance sheet? Of course a business must make money, profit is crucial to any business. But ultimately finance and business managers must be accountable for the impacts of their decisions, policies and actions on the way people live. And these elements must be factored into day-to-day decisions as well as in the bigger strategic directions. This means considering all stakeholder impacts up-front in the decision-making process, and not just about balancing a budget. As well as considering the long-term impact of doing business in a world where poverty is omnipresent. Behind every number is someone's life. This isn't about the financial crisis, or big events that need big responses. This is about the day-to-day of our jobs and how they have an impact on stakeholders.

That was pretty much my message to these young leaders. VITA: Value, Impacts, Transparency and Accountability. That's the legacy. That's the 2030 resume. You'll notice that most of what I said was about people not about money and not about numbers. As young business leaders, this group has the power to make change and impact people's lives for the better. They can drive a different way of doing business that is led from a new vision, a new way of thinking about the role of business in society, a new way of creating value and a new way of being accountable. In some cases, that means accounting for externalities. In other ways, it means being a decent person and making decent decisions. It always means knowing what impact you are having on all your stakeholders.

*********

Finally, with this third and final piece in a trilogy of posts, I want to extend my personal thanks and gratitude to the folks on the WBCSD team that totally impressed my with their dedication, drive and skill and made me feel so welcome. Triple fudge with sprinkles to Rodney Irwin, Anne-Leonore Boffi and Susanne Feinman.


PS: One thing can't resist adding. I was very pleased to see in Peter White's (WBCSD COO) plenary presentation about WBCSD priorities, that he mentioned my company, Beyond Business Ltd. Hahahahah. Well, he didn't really. But it looks like he did. Or maybe it's just a case of "great minds think alike"!

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. 

Why YOU HAVE to attend.......

..... the fourth annual Smarter Sustainability Reporting conference. It's on February 24th, 2015 in London.  It's THE annual conference all about sustainability reporting that I chair every year. No, it's not just for reporting geeks, though geeks are thoroughly welcome.

And the reason YOU HAVE to attend is that, for three years now, we have held these totally amazing, informative, content-rich, expertise-packed, opinion-forming, insight-generating, brain-cell-activating, networking-supporting conferences and we still do not have the answer to the question: What is Smarter Sustainability Reporting? We've debated, discussed, shared, chaired, talked, balked, asked, answered, thought, contemplated, ruminated, instigated, irritated, cajoled, encouraged, suggested, digested and just about everything else you do and don't do at conferences... and we still don't have a definitive answer. That's sad. We may have had an answer in the second conference, but then the world changed and we went back to the drawing board at conference three. At this, the fourth annual, we simply have to have an answer. Maybe YOU are the one who can help?

We have a great line-up of expert speakers and panelists - and still more to confirm.

• Nelmara Arbex, Chief Advisor on Innovation in Reporting, Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 
• Sarah Grey, Markets Director, International Integrated Reporting Council, IIRC
• Steve Kenzie, UK Network Secretariat, Global Compact Network
• Simon Howard, Chief Executive Officer, UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association (UKSIF)
• Dr. Paul Toyne, Sustainability Director, Balfour Beatty Construction Services
• Louise Tyson, Head of Reporting, BP
• Katie Buchanan, Head of Sustainability and Reporting, Virgin Media
• Irene Jakobi, Sustainability Manager, Telekom Austria
• Mardi McBrien, Managing Director, Carbon Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB)
• Shaun Davis, Group Director of Safety, Health, Wellbeing &  Sustainability, Royal Mail
• Crystal Crawford, Corporate Responsibility Manager, Liberty Global
• Verity Lawson, Sustainability Reporting Manager, British American Tobacco
• Michaela Rose, Sustainability Advisor, Forum for the Future

You would think that these fantastic experts would have ALL the answers but I can promise YOU, they can't do it on their own. They need YOU.

How do YOU define Smarter Sustainability Reporting? What makes smart smarter? And what makes reporting reporting? From GRI G4 to integrated reports to carbon disclosures to investor interest to innovation to local/global to transparency, creativity and materiality and a whole lot more, we'll be looking to get at the answer that has been evading tens of speakers and hundreds of delegates since the start of our conference series. Do YOU know? Are YOU harboring a totally intelligent response that we are all waiting for? Are YOU willing to share? Will YOU come to the conference and enlighten all of us? 

If YOU decide to come and help us out, I can offer YOU a discount (being the chair has some privileges) and I can promise to be eternally grateful. And so will everybody else. YOUR presence and contribution is absolutely what will make the difference.

That's not to say that in three years of conferences we haven't answered other questions about reporting, the reporting landscape, trends, challenges, risks and opportunities. A mix of practitioner and subject-matter experts, we have always had rich debate and generated a host of action-oriented insights. The feedback from attendees has always been strong. Each conference has been remarkable. The desire to share and learn more about what's going on in reporting is obviously very much alive for both reporting geeks and reporting non-geeks. That's why we keep doing it. 

You may be wondering by now, what's the point of having a conference every year that can't answer its own question? I remember someone quoting some smart famous person who said: if you keep doing the same things, you keep getting the same results. Or something like that, probably more elegantly put. Which is exactly why we continue to shake things up every year. No two conferences are the same. We have a different agenda, different speakers, different round-table talk sessions, different panel discussions and different areas of focus. We don't keep doing the same things but we still don't have the answer to this really truly completely fully exceptionally elusive question: What is Smarter Sustainability Reporting? Obviously, we have been missing something. Yes. We have been missing YOU. So, please come. Please share. Please tell us YOUR answer. Please help make this conference even  more remarkable. 

So: Block out the date in your diary. Contact me for a 15% discount code. Register. Get prepared to share. And watch this space in the run-up to the conference for more posts in conversation with some of our speakers.

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.   

Gone fishing. You coming?

When you are in the process of preparing a sustainability report, there is something you can't help but notice. It happens very frequently, with the best of intentions. It's the fact that people keep coming to you with things they did last month or last week and saying: "That would be good to put in the report." There seems to be a universal expectation that almost anything people did that was slightly "good" should be part of the sustainability report, because (a) sustainability report should contain "good" things and (b) sustainability reports should contain everything - aka - the more you can cram in, the more transparent you will appear to be and that can only be a good thing, right? 

This approach is not surprising, really. For years we have been talking about "doing good", giving back", "being nice","good business" and all the other fun phrases you can probably think of. It's not surprising that everyone in organizations thinks that sustainability reports should be a compilation of the highest number of good things an organization can muster up, irrespective of how significant they are. We held an Easter Egg hunt for a local school. We installed a recycling bin in our office. We hired a disabled person. We installed a low-flush toilet in the CEO's private office. We planted six trees in a park near our factory. We thought about carbon emissions. Four employees now carpool to the office. We donated left-over carrots from lunch to the local homeless shelter. Things can get a little ridiculous. Although these little things can actually be tremendously important for the individuals involved, in the grander scheme of things, and in the less grander scheme of sustainability reporting, they are probably not quite so mindblowing. 

Similarly, for years we have been talking about transparency. More is more, not less. More data, more transparent, more sustainable. More details, more respect. More stories, more trust. Transparency became this great megalithic everything that was more important that the substance itself. Transparency at all costs. This had everybody aiming for the iconic GRI "A", oft noted in press releases as the highest achievement or even the highest accolade for a sustainability report. 

In a culture which was rewarding maximum positive transparency, it's not surprising that every time someone thought of some small magnanimous action, it was considered eligible narrative for the sustainability report. 

But that was then. That was before G4. G4 has helped shift our mindset to relevant transparency, not maximum transparency. To the point that, as I conduct the hundreds of conversations with people in organizations that I serve as I help them prepare their forthcoming sustainability reports, I sort of consider myself to be somewhat of a fisherwoman. 

I fish for the information the report needs, I don't always catch the information the people want to give. 

Writing a sustainability report is like going fishing. You need a good rod, proper bait, some ice cream to help you pass the time while you reel in several empty rods or old shoes, and infinite amounts of patience as you wait for the prize fish to show. A sustainability report made up of prize fish is infinitely more useful than one which contains a not very discerning collection of general garbage. Haha. If this resonates, get a new fishing rod.   

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)

Rights is the new black

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*******

A year later, Big 10 improving but more is needed 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*****

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

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