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over the past few years (the database contains some duplication with both original goals and those that have been superseded or replaced).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!

People powering trust

As a consultant, my work is most often behind the scenes of business and most of my job satisfaction derives from helping others make a difference. One of my favorite things about my work is when clients tell me they gained a new insight, or when I see the contribution I have made creating ripples in an organization or helping empower people. And in the field of CSR and Sustainability, pretty much everything I work on supports a mission of  advancing positive-impact, ethical, values-driven business which I believe is a key stepping stone to a sustainable society and planet. 

Transparency is the cornerstone of responsible business, and my geeky fascination with and love of Sustainability Reporting has become a purposeful occupation, a hobby and a vocation all rolled into one. I couldn't have imagined that this is what I'd end up doing when I started out 30+ years ago as a Distribution Manager with Procter and Gamble in England, and today, I can't imagine doing anything else. As a consultant, I think we are wired not to seek recognition for ourselves, but for our clients. As consultants, we take pride in our professional work, but we are more proud of what our clients achieve. As consultants, our success is possible because of the trust our clients place in us. And trust is what brings me to share these non-typical personal ramblings on what is usually a fairly on-topic blog. 

In the Winter 2017 Issue of Trust! Magazine,  I am quoted on the topic of trust.  

"Trust defines relationships – personal and professional. It’s the most basic currency of our interactions. When trust exists, relationships thrive and positive outcomes are possible. When trust is eroded, relationships are eroded too. In a business context, the value of trust is often underestimated. Because we can’t count trust in the same way as we can count money, products and other tangible outputs of business, we are often unappreciative of the role trust plays in making it all possible. But we must never forget that business is built on relationships… we may think business is about profit but it’s really about people… so when trust is present, relationships work and business has a good chance of success. As an optimist, I believe, we are predisposed to trust. Retaining trust is the longer-term challenge and that is done by consistently demonstrating integrity, empathy and openness (in business, that includes transparency)."

But you may notice that the Magazine cover carries a special announcement - it's from Trust Across America - Trust Around the World (TAA-TAW) honoring  global leaders in organizational trust. The TAA-TAW awards program, now in its 7th year, celebrates professionals who are transforming the way organizations do business. This year a diverse group of 84 global professionals from different backgrounds operating in different countries and sectors are honored. This list includes seven honorees who have  maintained Top Thought Leader status for five years and are presented with a Lifetime Achievement Award. The Press Release from TAA-TAW notes: "We congratulate all of our honorees whose work is shining a spotlight on the importance of trust and providing a roadmap for others to follow. They inspire organizations to look more closely at their higher purpose…to create greater value for, and trust from all of their stakeholders, and understand trust is a “hard currency” with real returns."

So it's not by accident that I am writing about all of this here. I am genuinely humbled and delighted to be among the 2017 Lifetime Achievement Award honorees. More humbled, I guess, as the list of Top Thought Leaders in Trust (which you can view in the Winter Issue of Trust! Magazine) includes so many accomplished individuals that inspire me with all they have done to change the world and the world of business.

With this post, I applaud each and every one of the Top Thought Leaders in Trust 👏👏👏👏
I encourage you to notice and appreciate the difference they make and recognize them, as I do, as a source of inspiration and optimism. This recognition by TAA-TAW is a breath of fresh air in a world in which trust is evidently more necessary than it ever has been. 

Trust Across America - Trust Around the World (TAA-TAW) is the product of the vision and focused action of Barbara Brooks Kimmel, the CEO and Cofounder of Trust Across America-Trust Around the World, whose mission is to help organizations build trust. Now in its seventh year, the program's proprietary FACTS® Framework ranks and measures the trustworthiness of over 1,500 US public companies on five quantitative indicators of trust. Barbara also runs the world largest global Trust Alliance, and is the editor of the award winning TRUST INC. book series and a Managing Member at FACTS® Asset Management, a NJ registered investment advisor. Barbara has made trust her agenda in quite a unique way. I was keen to find out why and learn more about her work: 

Me: When was your a-ha moment that trust was a pivotal factor for healthy business and society?

Barbara: That moment came at the height of the financial crisis in 2008 when CEOs would announce on a Friday that their balance sheets were strong and then declare bankruptcy over the weekend. I started thinking about what trust meant at the organizational level and started searching the internet for resources. I quickly realized that there was no central "clearinghouse" or website where one could go to find information on organizational trust and trustworthiness. Inherently I knew that trust played a very large role in the health of business and society, but frankly, was unaware at the time just how large that role was.

Me: What are the key challenges facing organizations that are trying to build trust ? 
Barbara: Most of the work we do at TAA-TAW focuses on public companies, although all organizations regardless of the type, tend to have similar issues. The biggest challenge is leadership. Trust is usually taken for granted. It's certainly not something that proactively comes up in meetings of Boards of Directors or CEOs, unless they are faced with a crisis, and there is certainly no budget. Trust is built over time and in incremental steps. There are so many competing forces in public companies- quarterly earnings, analysts expectations, CEO compensation and tenure, etc. That's why we have focused on building the Business Case for Trust via our FACTS® Framework. FACTS is a holistic quantitative measurement of the trustworthiness of public companies, compiled from independent third party data providers. In other words, companies do not know they are being evaluated nor do they pay us any fee. With 8 years of data, we see strong correlations between the most trustworthy public companies and long-term profitability. My message to Boards and CEOs is that without organizational trust decisions take longer, employee turnover is high, innovation slows and profits erode. Place trust on your agenda. Start meeting the needs of all your stakeholders, not just your shareholders, and your profits will increase.

Me: What was your prime motivation in developing the Top Thought Leaders in Trust Awards program?
Barbara: There are people who have devoted their entire careers to building organizational trust across every functional area of an organization. These same people should be hailed as heroes and be celebrated. Seven years ago there was no mechanism for doing this. Now there is. Perhaps the recognition opens doors for these folks to make a greater impact.

Me: Tell us a little more about the Trust Alliance? What does the Alliance achieve? 
Barbara: I started the Alliance 5 years ago to bring like minded professionals together to build tools and resources that would enhance both our website and society at large. Very little existed before the Alliance was formed. Now when visitors come to our website, there is an almost endless supply of organizational trust resources and tools. I love to connect members that have complimentary interests and watch new relationships flourish that already have a head start on trust. Understanding that trust is both holistic and global, so is our membership. We don't actively solicit new members but welcome them when they find us. It's a global group.

Me: What's top of your agenda in advancing trust in the coming year or two?
Barbara: Within the next several months we will have the ability to issue "flash reports" to public companies who have an interest in elevating organizational trustworthiness but don't know where to start. The reports will provide a good overview of where the company stands in relation to its peers. These will be driven by our FACTS ® data and provide a mechanism to get companies on the right road, at least those that want to be there! Imagine if every company published their FACTS score in their annual report! With so many years of data there is also quite a bit of interest building both in and outside the financial community. We are discussing licensing with many organizations. This is good for business and for society over the long term and will remain our focus over the next few years.

Thank you Barbara for making trust your thing and for your contribution to making trust our thing. Thank you to all the Top Thought Leaders in Trust for making our world better. 




elaine cohen, CSR consultant, Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Trust Across America 2017 Lifetime Achievement Award honoree, Ice Cream Addict, Author of Understanding G4: the Concise Guide to Next Generation Sustainability Reporting  AND  Sustainability Reporting for SMEs: Competitive Advantage Through Transparency AND CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices . Contact me via Twitter (@elainecohen)  or via my business website www.b-yond.biz   (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm).  Need help writing your first / next Sustainability Report? Contact elaine: info@b-yond.biz 

First Report Trust Factor: Arby's

This is one for the First Report Trust Factor Series. It's all about sandwiches in the U.S. For an overview of the ten Trust Factors, see this post. 

Arby's 2016 Corporate Responsibility Report

Food and Beverage - U.S. - Not GRI- 44 pages

Arby’s is a nationally franchised sandwich restaurant brand, with more than 3,300 restaurants, founded in 1964. Headquartered in Atlanta, GA, Arby's has company-owned and franchise restaurants across the United States. Arby's employs 60,000+ people. 

The CEO Statement: 

Sometimes, in a first report, you just have to understand that any progress is progress and that companies have a right to be proud of any achievement. Arby's CEO confirms he is proud of what Arby's has achieved, one of the blurby statements I love to hate, but that's not what affects the Trust Factor most in this opener. What I am missing is a little depth. The CEO talks about employee giving, community projects and a water-saving irrigation program. These are good. But I'd like to have seen some reference to the impact of Arby's core business - how the business is changing peoples lives, not just through charity and eco-efficiency.  TF= 

Material focus: 

Arby's has identified four material (though not called material) areas of focus under a branded proprietary CSR program called PurposeFULL®. This includes: YouthFULL® - empowering youth,  SkillFULL® -  a winning culture, ResourceFULL® - good stewards of the environment and FlavorFULL® - adopting the highest standards in the food industry. This is evidence of thought about the approach to CSR at Arby's and these headlines frame the report. It's not quite a list of material impacts but it comes close.  TF+

Adherence to GRI: 

Nope. Not GRI. No indicators, no numbers, no Index. TF-

Transparency maturity: 

This report could be so much more impactful (and credible) if it contained some data. About the only place in this report where there are a few numbers is in the environmental section and these are mostly expressed in relative improvements rather than absolute performance data and impacts. In future reports, Arby's should find a way to disclose key performance metrics across the range of material topics in Arby's CSR program. TF-

Challenges: 

Barely a hint of challenges or obstacles to overcome in this report. The only reference to any sort of challenge that I found was the fact that customers are confused about which elements of packaging to recycle at franchised outlets. TF-

Examples of practice: 

Arby's doesn't present "case studies" in a structured sense, but the report describes examples of activities in the reporting year. While there is evidence of a range of positive actions, the report lacks solid data that tells us these initiatives are making a difference. For  example, in 2015, Arby’s joined forces with Bellevue University in Nebraska to develop a custom learning program exclusively for Arby’s team members. Participants can earn a certificate of completion that is worth 36 college credits. But we are not told how many employees joined the program nor how they progressed. On the other hand, in another example relating to the environment, Arby's shares results of an irrigation project: "In 2015, through a six month pilot that spanned 85 restaurants, we saved 7.4 million gallons of water." TF+

Stakeholder voices: 

The report contains quotations from several senior Arby's execs and franchisees. The quotes add credibility, especially those from franchisees that give a flavor of how Arby's is helping them achieve economic growth and business development. The report also includes a perspective from the U.S. Department of Energy in relation to Arby's participation in its Better Buildings Challenge in 2015 - Arby's surpassed the BBC goal by improving energy performance 24% from a 2011 baseline. TF+

Contact person: 

No contact person and no generic email dump box. TF- 

Clarity of presentation:  

This is an easy read. Too easy. It's all narrative and photos, no numbers or charts or diagrams. TF= 

Design friendliness:  

It's a plain PDF, no hyperlinks, no fancy graphics. Well-laid out narrative and imagery. This images are real - not stock anonymous.  TF+

Trust Factor conclusion: 4xTF+   4xTF-  2xTF=

Overall, this report is a positive start and reflects a consciousness at Arby's of different aspects of contribution to society and communities. The basics are there: supporting employees, supporting communities, maintaining high standards of food preparation, stewarding the environment. The environmental section is a little more detailed and contains results of a range of eco-efficiency and resource improvement projects.

The word "proud" appears 12 times in this short report. For a first disclosure, there are some elements of this report that this company can be proud of - twelve times over. However, the  report disappoints in its lack of depth and lack of transparency.  Arby's is proud of its accomplishments and that's a good thing. On the other hand, such a large organization, employing more than 60,000 people, with an important impact on our relationship to food and on the food supply chain, we would hope that, in the future, this pride would translate into greater transparency with a focus on outcomes not actions. Otherwise, it looks like the main purpose of this PurposeFULL® report is PR-FULL®. If Arby's is serious about CSR, there needs to be another couple of FULLS: TransparentFULL® and AccountableFULL® in future reports. Perhaps even a little DataFULL®.

Arby's seems to have this in hand: "Throughout 2016 and into next year, we will develop a roadmap that will more robustly steer our PurposeFULL path forward including a strategy for each of our pillars, short and long-term goals as well as opportunities for deeper collaboration and impact."

This is a positive statement and hopeFULLy, we will see the fruits of these efforts reflected in the next report.  

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of Understanding G4: the Concise Guide to Next Generation Sustainability Reporting  AND  Sustainability Reporting for SMEs: Competitive Advantage Through Transparency AND CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices . Contact me via Twitter (@elainecohen)  or via my business website www.b-yond.biz   (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm).  Need help writing your first / next Sustainability Report? Contact elaine: info@b-yond.biz  

First Reports -Ten Trust Factors

It's almost Q4 and you know what that means. It's almost the start of the reporting season.

YAY! 

In the final quarter of the year, many companies are starting to plan their next report, or even their first report. There is a certain seasonality to reporting, by and large: Q4 planning, Q1 preparing, Q2 publishing, Q3 recovering. Of course, not every company is on that cycle.. but about now is usually the calm before the storm.

As we anticipate the next reporting season, we can expect a flurry of fabulous new first-time Sustainability Reports that will be published in 2017. It's not that I am especially optimistic about the impact of the EU Directive that will require 6,000 companies who do not currently report to start thinking about what they will write in their Sustainability Reports for 2017. Each year brings a flurry of new reports, with or without the Directive. And that means that each year, more companies have thought just a little more about the impact they have on our lives and are taking the first steps to be held to account.

Let's face it. Reporting is a little bit of a risky business. Take for instance, Dollar Tree Inc., a Fortune 500 American chain of discount variety stores that sells items for $1 or less in 13,600 stores around the country. Dollar Tree just published its 2016 Sustainability Report . Full marks for effort but this 14-pager 7-minute read is a list of environmental and social practices with barely any meaningful performance data. Not surprising then, perhaps, that there has been some backlash.

In a press release published in PR Newswire,  angry activists representing the Campaign for Healthier Solutions  berate the company for not addressing their concerns relating to chemical toxicity in the company's products after laboratory testing has found "potentially dangerous levels of lead, phthalates, and other toxic chemicals" in Dollar Tree's products. Comparing the current report to prior reports, these stakeholders find that there is almost no difference. So, although the folks at Dollar Tree have taken some steps along the transparency journey, they still have to find the path of accountability. Reporting is risky. Arguably, the fact that Dollar Tree has made efforts to publish a Sustainability Report has added fuel to the frustration of stakeholders. But, in fact, the Campaign for Healthier Solutions is doing Dollar Tree a favor. It's creating pressure that will ultimately lead to a safer planet, a safer society and a stronger business. If Dollar Tree embraces its critics, and takes responsible action, next year's headline may well be: "Dollar Tree's Sustainability Report reflects significant progress."  Reporting, whatever your motivation, even if it's just to tick a box, sooner or later becomes part of a greater whole relating to a company's role in society. Sooner or later, Dollar Tree will change. And it will benefit from that change.

So, even with some risk, reporting adds value and first-time reports hold a special significance for reporters, report users and me. I love first-timers. There is something about the special efforts necessary to deliver a first-time report and starting to flex those transparency muscles. I believe this starts to transform the internal conversation in any company, and eventually transforms the external dialogue too (as it has done at Dollar Tree Inc.). So many first-time decisions challenge any company that's reporting for the first time that it's a bit like navigating a minefield. And almost as risky.

As you all know by now, I generally tend to be a little critical when looking at reports so here's my upfront disclaimer. Every first report is a commendable venture into accountability and transparency and the start of what is hopefully a meaningful reporting journey for any company and its stakeholders. As a reporting consultant for hundreds of years now working with many companies, I can testify to the fact that no report is easy and every first report double-proves it. Before we go any further, I say: CONGRATS to ALL first-time reporters ever - you all deserve a triple scoop. Good luck to all those first-timers planning to break through the transparency barrier in 2017. (Remember, help is at hand - you don't need to go it alone :-)).

In looking at any report, including first-timers, it's important to consider that the overarching purpose of any Sustainability Report is to build trust. If it doesn't do that, heck, you're wasting your time. I've been taking a look at first-timers - it's always fun - to see how this is working. There are probably a thousand ways in which reports build trust, but, in order to help me apply a consistent approach when looking at first-timers from around the world, I  selected ten basic aspects of a first-time Sustainability Report that, for me, help build trust. These aspects do not carry equal weighting and they are far from scientific. These elements contribute to building any report's TF (Trust Factor) in my personal and subjective view. In sharing my thoughts, as always, my goal is to encourage reporting, in the hope that first timers will become second and third timers. My intention is not to be overly critical, but in some cases, forgive me if I can't help myself!

Here are the ten TF (Trust Factor) elements I  consider in my series of first-timer report reviews:

• The CEO Statement: Must be meaningful, relevant and authentic, not just some generic any-company rhetoric about "how proud we are of what we have achieved but there is more to be done". 
• Material focus: Must state the most important sustainability impacts and provide relevant disclosures. Oh, and that doesn't mean a list of material topics somewhere at the beginning of  the report, and no further reference to materiality. It means using materiality to frame the content of the report.
• Adherence to GRI: Yes, a GRI compliant report gains a point in my book. While there are many fantastic and genuinely impressive non-GRI reports, using GRI implies for me a predisposition to align with the most widely-used global reporting framework that relies on general stakeholder expectations of rigor in reporting content and quality. 
• Transparency maturity: This means  providing a critical mass of relevant sustainability performance data, not just declarations of approach and positions. No numbers, no good.
• Challenges: No company has no challenges. Authentic reports discuss challenges. 
• Examples of practice: Yes, I believe case studies build trust. They also help make the report more interesting and reduce yawn-time. 
• Stakeholder voices: I think reports that contain direct opinions from stakeholders tend to show that the reporting company has good relationships, a collaborative culture and appreciates stakeholder involvement. Including stakeholder voices - and faces - bring a report to life. 
• Contact person: I like reports that provide a person to contact, not an anonymous email dump-box. If you are proud of your report, put your name on it.
• Clarity of presentation: We have to be able to understand data and charts quickly and read the narrative with ease. Too much technobabble drives me crazy. If I have to pore over a chart for more than 35 seconds to understand what it's telling me, it's a bad chart, no matter how creative the designers have been. 
• Design and format friendliness: While design is not necessarily a trust-builder, good, clean, compatible design makes reading easier and shows the reporting company considers not only how to get the message across but how to get it through. Easy navigability is a plus. (I don't read eBook reports, so first-timer non-downloadable eBooks don't get my time.)  I don't like online-only which ties me to the speed and reliability of my internet connection wherever I am in order to navigate. I love PDFs. When I download a PDF, I can read it quickly wherever and whenever I want, search, highlight and make notes. Online formats undoubtedly offer interactivity advantages, but for me, they slow me down.

In upcoming posts over the next few weeks, in the run-up to Q4, I will review first reports that were published over the past couple of years against my TF (Trust Factor) framework. Watch out for posts with a First -Time Trust Factor title.

Let me know if you have recently published a first report.
Or even better - let me know if you'd like some help in preparing your first report. I would totally love that.

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of Understanding G4: the Concise Guide to Next Generation Sustainability Reporting  AND  Sustainability Reporting for SMEs: Competitive Advantage Through Transparency AND CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices . Contact me via Twitter (@elainecohen)  or via my business website www.b-yond.biz   (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm).  Need help writing your first / next Sustainability Report? Contact elaine: info@b-yond.biz  

Trust - it's no accident

One of the things that Barbara Brooks Kimmel, CEO and CoFounder of Trust Across America-Trust Around the World™ (TAA-TAW), has succeeded in driving home in her intensive work over the past two decades, is that trust in business is no accident. Trustworthy business is underpinned by trustworthy people. Trustworthy people advance trust in business through their words and actions, and the compatibility of the former with the latter. Doing business without trust is like running a marathon with a blindfold. You might keep running but who knows where you will end up. You could also fall and break your leg.

 

Trust is at the root of any successful business. But while that may sound obvious, we all know the consequences of lack of trustworthiness. Martin Winterkorn might want to weigh in here, alongside a thousand others I could mention. I don't believe that trustworthy characteristics are the product of a carefully conceived strategy. I believe that trustworthy business leaders were trustworthy before they were business leaders. I believe it's part of who they are. So why should we celebrate people for doing business in a trustworthy way, just because that's the way they are? Shouldn't trustworthiness be a minimum acceptable baseline? Does it deserve recognition?

 

Yes it does. Because no matter how deeply entrenched your personal trust characteristics are, there are many temptations along the way. So many conflicting interests to appease, so many challenging targets to achieve, so much competitive and regulatory noise, so many demands, so many corners available to cut, so many new challenges that emerge from new market dynamics. Even the most trustworthy of us might be tempted to ease off around the edges in order to protect assets developed and reputation hard-earned. Corporate leaders that rise above the noise and stay true to a backbone of trustworthy character in all their undertakings are an inspiration for us all. A little celebration of trustworthiness can only serve to reinforce it.

 

Similarly, capturing and embedding trustworthiness throughout a large organization takes more than  one trustworthy leader at the top. The leadership-halo ripple-effect reaches only so far in large, complex organizations. A structured approach of walk, talk, training, recognition and discipline is required to ensure that every single employee in an organization knows that trustworthiness is more than a value, it's a non-negotiable. Every single employee needs to know the behavioral expectations that support trustworthy business in each daily action in each role. The influence and work of many individuals who support business leaders in embedding trustworthiness in their organizations should also be celebrated. They are an essential part of the trustworthiness chain of custody.  

 

Enter TAA-TAW. Now in its 6th year, TAA-TAW celebrates professionals who are transforming the way organizations do business and honors 2016  Top Thought Leaders as well as Lifetime Achievement Awards to seven individuals who have maintained Top Thought Leader status for five years. 

 

According to Barbara Kimmel: "The release of this year’s list coincides with the beginning of the 4th year of the formation of our Trust Alliance, a growing group of global professionals committed to learning about and advancing the cause of organizational trust. Many of this year's honorees are well-known CEOs, authors and leadership advisors, while others are quietly working behind the scenes as teachers and researchers. We acknowledge and reward all their efforts in elevating societal trust. We congratulate all of our honorees whose work is shining a spotlight on the importance of trust and providing a roadmap for others to follow. They inspire organizations to look more closely at their higher purpose...to create greater value for, and trust from all of their stakeholders, and understand trust is a "hard currency" with real returns."
 

Check out the 2016 Lifetime Honorees here.

Check out the full list of 2016 Honorees in the Winter 2016 issue of TRUST! Magazine

And here I will also mention that I am personally honored and delighted to be included once again in 2016 in this carefully selected group of illustrious and inspiring group of individuals. I am humbled to be on this list with so many truly world-changing individuals. 

 

I hope you will join me in thanking Trust Across America and Barbara Brooks Kimmel for the hard work that goes into the nomination, judging and award process for the annual selection of Top Thought Leaders, and also in congratulating the 2016 Honorees and Lifetime Honorees.

 

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of Understanding G4: the Concise Guide to Next Generation Sustainability Reporting  AND  Sustainability Reporting for SMEs: Competitive Advantage Through Transparency AND CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices . Contact me via Twitter (@elainecohen)  or via my business website www.b-yond.biz   (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm).  Need help writing your first / next Sustainability Report? Contact elaine: info@b-yond.biz  

Do you trust Sustainability Reports?

This follows my post about trust and the Top 100 Thought Leaders in Trust. Which got me thinking.

There are some questions that are apparently very simple to ask but not so simple to answer. Do you trust Sustainability Reports? Of course, there are reports and reports. Maybe you trust part of what's written in a report, and maybe not other parts. Bottom line, however, if you don't trust it all, you don't trust it.

What makes sustainability reports trustworthy? We often talk about credibility when referring to Sustainability Reports, and this is defined as "the quality of being worthy of trust". So I guess it boils down to the same thing. Do we believe what we read? If yes, trust is the outcome. If not, mistrust is. But it's not quite as simple as that. Reports are not just about what is written. They are about who is writing them. When you pick up a report of a company that you don't trust, the credibility start-point of that company's Sustainability Report is already in the red. The report has to work much harder to be believable. But it's not quite as simple as that. One report doesn't do it. I have often said that what makes sustainability reports credible is the fact that they are one of a series ... one report is a drop in the ocean, a series of annual Sustainability Reports that display consistency over time is what builds trust. Consistency is a big trust differentiator in reporting. But it's not quite as simple as that either. Here are some more factors that influence whether we trust reports.

The CEO: Leslie Gaines Ross, with whom I had the honor to share a stage in Berlin last year, says that the reputation equity of a company is influenced by the reputation of the CEO at a level of 50%. When you get a CEO or a senior leader that makes non-trustworthy statements, this has a direct impact on the Sustainability Report credibility of the company. When a company's Chairman makes a public statement which is anti-gay, as in the case of Barilla, you have a hard time believing anything that is written in the company's Sustainability Report. When a CEO openly discriminates about people who do not match a beauty stereotype, as in the case of Abercrombie and Fitch, you are likely to have a hard time believing the Sustainability Report. Write whatever you want in your Sustainability Report, if no-one trusts your CEO, no-one will trust your report. 

The Bits you Leave Out: Reporting is often as much what you don't report as what you do report. If you have had a major scandal, major restructuring or major crisis, and this is not referenced anywhere in your report, what IS referenced in your report is treated with suspicion. One of the first things I generally ask my reporting clients is: what do you not want to report? Every company has these. Every company wants to minimize the negatives. Yet it's these very issues that create credibility and trust in your report. After the big celeb scandals in the UK, the BBC did not avoid reporting the impact on its organization.

After the horsemeat scandal in Tesco frozen beefburgers, Tesco did not shy away from referring to its actions to increase food trust in the 2013 Tesco and Society Report.

The bits you leave out are the bits everyone wants to read. There is a likelihood that there is even an expectation that you will report  on exactly those things. Not doing so erodes trust in your reporting and in your company.

The Reporting Ecosystem: GRI was devised to create a common platform for reporting so that we would have a measure of comparability that would also make it possible to know which reports are green-washing and which are serious about reporting the issues that matter. While comparability has never truly been achieved, the overarching framework of GRI sets an expectation of the scope of reporting and the basic elements of a report that are considered to meet the needs of a wide range of stakeholders. Reporting whatever suits you, without referring to a broad set of stakeholder expectations can often erode trust, as readers believe that you are reporting what's easy or shiny and not what matters. 

The Buzz Ecosystem: Whether you trust a Sustainability Report can often be influenced by the buzz on the street and not the report itself. When the buzz about your company is negative, your report has to work much harder to generate trust. So, for example, companies such as Walmart, Gazprom, Chevron and a range of other companies that feature in the Public Eye Hall of Shame have to overcome gross mistrust before they can build trust. Reports such as Behind the Brands expose the issues that companies are addressing, or not, in their supply chains, and these can influence the way you read the reports of the companies reviewed. On the positive side, we might argue that rankings and ratings (if they themselves are credible) create a more positive disposition regarding whether you are prepared to trust a company's report. The DJSI rankings are often held to represent a solid guide to sustainable corporate practice and high-rankers tend to gain a head-start in trust.  And lets not forget the Twitter community and other online forums, bloggers and commentators. They all create the reporting buzz ecosystem and influence the way you relate to a report by setting expectations, positive or negative.  Managing your buzz ecosystem is part of managing trust in your Sustainability Report. 

The Quality of the Content: Reporting quality impacts the way we trust reports. If we get past the trust barrier and actually read the report. If the content is poorly written, if the report is poorly constructed, if there are many errors in the report, if the data is not clear, if there are gaps in data presentation... everything influences how you read a report and how you trust it. Also, companies that translate their reports into English are to be commended, but if that translation is just awful, it reduces our trust in the report and the company.  

The Timing: Who trusts a report that is published more than 12 months after the end of the reporting period? Enough said.

The Person Behind the Report: Behind every report is a person who created it. Often there were many people involved in the creation of the report. But there is always one person who has the ultimate responsibility for a report and its contents. If we trust the person, we trust the report. Very few people put themselves on the line and admit to writing and being responsible for a report and very few people who are reporters allow us to get to know them. I say that reporters in companies should make themselves more accessible, identify themselves with the reports they have created and be available to the report-reading public. These days, there are many online opportunities to get to know corporate sustainability reporting leads, with CSRChats, webinars and so on. A couple of examples spring to mind - Kathrin Winkler of EMC puts herself out there - she is often interviewed, writes a great blog, and generally helps us get to know her and what she stands for. Before I even open EMC's sustainability report, I am inclined to start with a bag-load of trust. Dave Stangis of Campbell's is another great Sustainability Officer who lets us get to know him. And Nikki Kelley King, who leads the Campbell's CSR Report compilation, tells her story in the latest report. Getting to know Dave and Nikki through their willingness to talk about themselves and what's important to them is a big plus in the trust scale for Campbell's reporting.  

These are just a few thoughts about Sustainability Reports and trust. It's not an exhaustive list and I am sure there are many other factors that impact the way we trust Sustainability Reports or otherwise. One of the key takeouts is that reporting is just part of your corporate reputation and your corporate communications. Reporting is not everything. It is part of a holistic approach to sustainable and responsible business behavior that must be reflected across all stakeholder touch-points. The downside is that, even if your report is super-trustworthy, people may not trust it. The upside is that when you manage your reporting as part of an integrated approach to sustainability communications and aligned corporate behavior, it can contribute significantly to positive reputation, credibility and yes, trust. 

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

What does trust mean to you?

This week saw the publication of the 2015 Top 100 Thought Leaders in Trust. You can see who made the list this year, including 15 Lifetime Achievement Award winners, in the free download of the Winter 2015 magazine issue. I was honored once again to be selected as one of the Top 100, and humbled to be in the company of those I feel are much more deserving of this recognition. This is the 5th year that Trust Across America - Trust Around the World - under the visionary leadership of Barbara Brooks Kimmel - has recognized professionals from business, academia, nonprofits and consulting whose work is elevating organizational trust. The leaders were selected by a distinguished panel of judges  - big names in responsible business - and you can read about them too in the Trust! Magazine Winter Issue. 

The theme of trust is so central to everything we do in sustainability and both a driver and an outcome of sustainable behavior. Several of the lifetime honorees took time to reflect on what trust means to them, and much of what they said resonated strongly with me. For example:

Patricia Aburdene: "In the business world, trust literally transmutes into success and profitability."

Steven M.R. Covey: "Trust underlies and affects the quality of every relationship, every communication, every work project, every business venture, and every effort in which we are engaged."

Jed Emerson: "Confidence in our collaborations with others is the foundation of successful organizations, and the best collaborations are always fundamentally a question of creating a trusting relationship."

Leslie Gaines-Ross:  "Trust is the bedrock of relationships."

Mary Gentile: "Trust means integrity – acting in accordance with our words and commitments—and making sure those words and commitments are worthy of this consistency."

Charles H. Green: "Trust-based organizations encourage and enable the art of trusting and the virtues of trustworthiness in all the personal relationships they touch. In so doing, they also increase the social and financial value of the organization."

Jim Kouzes: "Trust rules your brand image."

Linda Locke: "Trust, and reputation are about how you make people feel. We want to conduct business, and have relationships with people and organizations we respect and hold in high esteem. Trust is a central strategy for business growth in a reputation economy."

Edward Marshall: "We yearn for relationships and organizations that operate with integrity, honor, transparency, and grace. It is possible."

There is no sustainability without trust. There is no business success without trust. Often imperceptibly, trust builds stronger organizations. This got me thinking about the role of sustainability reporting in helping to build and enhance trust in a range of ways. Whose Sustainability Report do you trust and why? And what affects the trust we place, or do not place, in sustainability reporting. This is the topic of a future post (coming soon!). 

In the meantime, each of the 100 Top Thought Leaders in Trust offers inspiration that we can create a business environment that has trust at its core. Barbara Kimmel and Trust Across America is committed to helping us do just that, and the annual honoring of thought leaders, the suite of books published in the Trust Inc. series, the frequent blogs on trust and related matters and the F.A.C.T.S. framework for trustworthy business behavior are all making their impact felt.  

Congratulations to all the 2015 honorees and especially the Lifetime Achievement Award winners!

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).