Getting Human Rights Right

Unilever gets a lot of the spotlight these days on the sustainability horizon. This will help you understand why. I felt compelled to shine a light on the new report that Unilever has published on human rights. This is by far one of the best corporate accounts of position, practice, performance and intention on this subject that I have seen over the years, and again, Unilever raises the bar for advancing sustainability practice and disclosure. With this report, Unilever turns human rights from an onerous obligation that's reported by most companies with zero bells and whistles and a dollop of misplaced righteousness into a fun, colorfully-presented, superbly constructed and actually interesting 64 pages. This has to be mandatory reading for anyone thinking about their company's position on human rights - both for the insights about what's important and why and what can be done, and also for the way it's presented. Just look at the cover. Doesn't look like boring old human rights again, does it?  

Paul Polman's introduction is credible. This is because Paul Polman has become more of a sustainable brand than Unilever itself. Paul Polman's personal brand promise is about the no-nonsense practicalities of making sustainable values work. All may not be perfect at Unilever but Paul Polman cuts through the noise as a leading sustainability advocate with a trusted voice that speaks honestly and with integrity. When Paul Polman says in this report that Unilever is approaching human rights with a mixture of conviction and humility, I believe him. When he says the process of developing the Unilever's inaugural human rights report has been inspiring and humbling, I believe him. When he says this is a new beginning, and a long-term commitment, I believe him. And believing him, I am believing the report. Partly also because this report is not touted as a look-how-great-we-are report, but as a sharing of learnings and a stage in the journey. It's also a public declaration of intent to go beyond "respecting human rights" to "actively promoting human rights". There is a sense that this report is as much for Unilever itself as it is for the world.  

It starts with reiterating the social need to protect human rights and goes on to highlight milestones along the path that Unilever has taken over the years to bring human rights into the corporate consciousness.

Marcela Manubens, Global VP for Social Impact at Unilever, reinforces the approach, making a call to "rethink" business. "At Unilever, our vision is to build a company that represents the new capitalism, in which business exists to serve – not take from – society, and is a critical enabler of inclusive economic growth and job creation." 

There are many things we can learn from this report. I am tempted to quote so much of it, but that would make this post as long as the report itself. So I will limit myself to a few observations:

Unilever's approach is firmly rooted in policy, starting with external globally-accepted policy frameworks that most of us are familiar with, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and ILO (International Labor Organization) policies. It is also the first report that is aligned with the UN Guiding Principles Reporting Framework that was launched in February 2014 following the work of John Ruggie. What's interesting here is the way Unilever has created a set of aligned policies (7 in all, including the original Unilever Code of Business Principles) and while there is some overlap, each targets a specific aspect of Human Rights and /or a specific audience (such as suppliers or business partners). This suite of policies forms the bedrock of Unilever's action across the range of human rights issues in the business. 

Unilever's governance of human rights issues is clearly laid out - from the creation of HR Ambassadors across the markets to external engagement with a range of stakeholders. Long-standing collaborations with NGOs Oxfam and Solidaridad, among others, have helped shape Unilever's perspectives and performance. 

The focus of Unilever's activities has been clearly articulated across 8 core human rights issues identified as "salient" for Unilever.  (Maybe "salient" is the new "material"?).  

Each issue is addressed in its own section, providing some context, Unilever's historical and current approach, and a few case studies. It's good reading. What's most appealing, and illuminating, is the discussion of the challenges a company like Unilever faces when reaching deep into the supply chain to uncover issues at the day-to-day level of diverse operations and Unilever's sharing of examples of problems that have arisen and actions taken to resolve. For example, a supplier was found conducting pat down searches to prevent workers from bringing their mobile devices to the production area, and at a salt pan operation in India, excessive working hours, poor health and safety practices, and lack of a proper process for the payment of wages were uncovered. An an independent assessment of Unilever's tea supply chain in Turkey revealed "significant and pressing" challenges. Equally, there is an open discussion of road safety risks with 48 road traffic-related fatalities involving Unilever employees on company business and members of the public, as well as more than 250 injuries and 5,000 accidents between 2007 and 2014. Land use is a fairly recent addition to the human rights agenda, and Unilever's work in this area is also at an early stage, but the intention to create a new Global Land Rights Policy and ongoing consultations with external experts and organizations will help Unilever establish leadership here too in coming years.

The next section of this report is dedicated to Unilever's framework: Prevent - Detect - Respond - both in Unilever's own operations and throughout the supply chain.  Due diligence, supplier audits, support and encouragement for suppliers as they try to improve, and detailed tracking analysis of compliance data are highlighted. There was a 60% decrease in conformance issues over the past couple of years, for suppliers who were re-audited, but, Unilever notes, "while these audits present us with a snapshot in time, they do not communicate the full story." Ongoing local engagement and constant vigilance are key to making sustainable change.

This inaugural Human Rights report ends with Unilever's directional objectives for the coming three years. These includes a intention to create a set of quantitative metrics, noting  "more attention needs to be given to measuring social profit and loss". Uh oh. I hope this doesn't mean that human rights impacts will be converted to $ or Euros or £ a la Kering EP&L - which could turn the focus from people and lives to endless number-crunching and bottom lines. But I certainly am in favor of a methodology that helps us understand the true measure of social impact - positive and negative - of corporations and it's possible that Unilever's dialogue-based approach may held create breakthrough in this area.

All in all, while this report, as a first report, demonstrates a maturity of approach, there are many areas where Unilever must reach even deeper and embed robust systematic sustainable change and find creative and meaningful ways to measure progress. In the meantime, hats off to Unilever for all that has been done so far and triple ice creams all round for everyone who worked on this report. It's a text book for advancing and promoting human rights and a fascinating read, presented in an optimistic way. As the report notes: "The work ahead is significant but not insurmountable."

Read this report. It's worth a half hour of your time.

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   

11 top food companies fail at sustainability

A very interesting report was published recently by Bank Sarasin and Co Ltd,  called: " Food and Sustainability: Will the seed bear fruit? " . It discusses the sustainability ratings of the top 15 listed food and beverage manufacturers worldwide including Heinz, Danone, Unilever, Nestle and others. The report highlights three central sustainability themes that affect food producers: (1) health and nutrition, (2) sourcing more raw materials from sustainable agriculture and (3) committing to fair working conditions.  How the sector approaches these core sustainability material issues is the basis for the Bank's rating.

Health and Nutrition - some of the issues

Obesity: We all know about the problems of obesity, exacerbated through manufactured, processed, ready-cooked, fast, faster, junk, junkier and junkiest food. There is also a suggestion that the drop in levels of breast-feeding in favour of infant formula may contribute to fatter kids. In fact, obesity levels have been steadily rising for the past 20 years and are predicted to continue to do so. This report quotes that the cost of healthcare could increase by 240% by 2040 due to upward-trending obesity levels, checked only by the fact that life expectancy of the expensively obese is shorter than that of the thinnies. Not that it's ok to enjoy your food and die early, because in the meantime, equitable access to nutritious food is still a problem.

Problem food content: Salt, sugars, fats, What role does and should government play in ensuring healthy food availability and non-availability of healthy food, for example, banning high-cal snacks in schools. More legislation can be expected as governments and consumers increase awareness.

Enjoyment food: I wonder if this concept existed in the days of Fred Flintstone? The entire food industry has created a special place for enjoyment, indulgent, pleasure foods, all of which are really superfluous to a healthy diet and a sustainable planet. The trade-offs between health and enjoyment are a phenomenon of our advanced commercialized world and food industry. Would banning chocolate make us all more sustainable? Oy! and what about Chunkey Monkey ..... err...... help....

Raw materials and sustainable farming - some of the issues 

Problem agriculture: The report quotes that agriculture, once "an emblem of prudent management of natural resources" now accounts for 90% of global deforestation, is the biggest consumer of chemicals, generates the highest volume of GHG's and consumes about 70% of the planet's freshwater resources. Not a pretty picture, huh ? We are simply eating the planet for lunch, bite by bite. Food manufacturers are key protagonists in these global dining habits.

Organics: Even with the continuing buzz around organic food, organics is still a niche market and will account for less than 1% of farmland worldwide during the next 50 years, according to the report by Bank Sarasin. Important crops such as sugarcane, palm oil and soya are still not moving up the organic ladder. How manufacturers are revising their strategies to ensure long-term sourcing security is critical for sustainable food supply. 

Green genetic engineering: For or against? Modifying seeds to make them more resistant to pests and therefore reduce use of pesticides may well sound like an ideal solution but the technology is controversial and not readily digestable by all (haha, what a pun!). Bank Sarasin thinks the risks of GMO's outweigh the opportunities and discount seed producers from their investment recommendations. 

Sustainable farming methods:  The approach of manufacturers to ensure sustainable farming methods are a part of their overall supply chain strategy is critical. Heinz, for example, is the world's biggest producer of processed tomatoes and has pioneered the cultivation of tomatoes requiring fewer pesticides. The report mentions that some major food producers have entered into agreements with leading environmental organisations to advance sustainable farming.

Factory and field - fair working conditions - some of the issues

Global rights and global labour:  As more production is outsourced, so fewer employees are protected by international labour conventions and enjoy freedom of association, the report advises. The implementation of globally applicable employment standards is problematic leaving many workers with no protection of their rights. An indicator of this is whether a company discloses how many employees in their supply chain have a fixed employment contract. Apparently, not many disclose this detail.

Poor working conditions: Issues abound in farming and food production - seasonality, "subsistence risks through crop failure and price collapse", accidents and illness caused through agrochemicals etc. It is quoted that 60% of child labour is concentrated in agriculture.

Market power of big companies: In what Bank Sarasin called a bottleneck market structure, prices and conditions are dictated by a very small number of retailers, despite sourcing from many small-scale farmers. This gives rise to an inequitable distribution of wealth and inevitably, the small guy whose quality of life depends on the price he gets for his banana takes the hit. Fairtrade, development of relationships with farming cooperatives and other approaches are available to address these issues, in part. The take-up of these options by food manufacturers is a key element in creating a responsible and sustainable supply chain.   

Overall, this report of Bank Sarasin, authored by Dr. Gabriella Ries Hafner,  offers some fascinating insights about the sustainability impacts of the big food manufacturers. It is clear that the issues are still far from resolved and that overall, food manufacture has light-years to travel before it has a net positive sustainable impact. Rethinking the entire food value chain management in a systemic way is the task ahead. In Bank Sarasin's analysis, only four of the top 15 global food and beverage manufacturers (Danone, Heinz, Unilever and Nestle)  fall into the "social investment universe"  because they appear to be addressing these issues effectively. (See the matrix in the Bank's repease about the report)

We all have a role to play in making food supply more sustainable. The issues highlighted by the report published by the Bank are just some of the things we should be watching for as we read the Sustainability Reports of these corporations (and we should be reading them).  If they are not addressing these issues, amongst others, they are not serious about sustainability and we should be letting them know that we know.

And as for Chunky Monkey... well, every rule has its exception, no ?  

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

Measuring socio-economic impacts : new report

Social and Economic Impact : Measuring Evaluation and Reporting. A must-have guide for companies operating in vulnerable communities. This is the title of the fascinating new research paper written by Peter Davis and published this month by Ethical Corporation, and which I promised to blog about when released. Now it the time to deliver on that promise :)

Ethical Corp sent me a free review copy but they didn't tell me (or ask me) what to write.

"Corporate interest in socio-economic impact is increasingly driven by much more important drivers than simply external reporting. Certainly reporting remains important, but more and more companies are realising that understanding socie-economic impact - the interrelationships beteen the company and the societies in which they operate - is also a vital tool for strategic and operational management and decision making."

This quotation from the introduction to this study of socio-economic impact proves that it's not just about numbers for numbers sake. It's about deriving value from measurement and reporting. This is quite heartening, despite the fact, as is also mentioned in the report, that at present, there is only a very small pool of (primarily large) companies who even get close to the level of measurement and reporting that actually delivers value. However, the authors of this report point to a fundamental redefinition of the role of business in society and the engagement of business in what otherwise might be known as "development projects" (as the NGO community tends to refer to them) such as poverty reduction, healthcare and human rights.

The report was developed using data from a wide range of sources including a literature review, 2 anonymous surveys of CSR professinals and practitioners (116  and 50 respondents), a round table discussion atended by 100 experts, review of 60 MNE's CSR communications and reporting and around 30 telephone interviews with key CSR practitioners. Enough to get a good overview of the key issues, I would have thought.

The report identifies four models of socio-economic impact monitoring:

Meeting global standards - selecting which performance indicators to measure, eg. the GRI

As we all know, there is a plethora of external standards and indicators used by companies ranging from the loosely structured UN Global Compact, through various specific initiatives and indexes such as DJSI, CRD Global 1000 and more, and culminating in the  "ubiquitous" Global Reporting Initiative which claims that over 1,500 companies use its framework. Most companies use some sort of framework in deciding how to measure and report their social performance and economic impacts. There are upsides and downsides to this approach, described in the report.

Managing supply chains - standards which govern labor and procurement such as Sedex

This tends to be prevalent in apparel, coffee, tea, timber, chocolate and footwear industries, to name but a few, with a focus on human rights rather than wider economic impacts. There are well known frameworks including the ILO Labor Conventions and others which address these issues, with auditing being one of the most widely spread tools. Sedex offers a plaform for inputting audit data so that customers can evaluate the manufacturer's performance in this area.  A case study from Nike described in the report helps understand the implementation and issues surrounding such auditing processes. Another case in point is the recent hullabaloo around the Hershey's cocoa sourcing supply chain, which you can read in my blop here, and the supply chain sourcing standards established in this industry sector.

Assessing integration into the local community -  such as the Anglo American SEAT toolbox

This type of assessment tends to be used by companies which have a strong socio-economic footprint in a particular geographic area and is particularly relevant for the extractive sector. The report cites the Anglo American Socio-Economic Assessment Toolbox as one of the best-known tools to help companies understand their local impacts. In addition, a number of multi-stakeholder partnerships operate in specific sectors or industries to ensure consistent development of standards, management of expectations and a sort of level playing field for all. The report assigns primarily a commercial interest to the development of this type of assessment becuase the proximity to local communities creates a kind of interdependency which is critical to the success of the project or venture.

Contributing to social and economic development -Unilever in Indonesia or Heineken in Rwanda 

This type of assessment is rare, and adopted by companies who have a sustained long-term interest in coutries or territories in which they operate. Unilever, Procter and Gamble, Vodafone  and Heineken are cited as examples in this area. Heineken for example employs 1,000 people directly in Rwanda but estimates that its activities in that country provide employment for over 35,000 people. This is a significant level of influence and Heineken has developed a tool to help them understand their impacts in more detail which is discussed in this report. You can also read about this in Heineken's Sustainability Report.

One of the things that surprised me in this report is the assertion that, whilst there are various states of play in measurement and evaluation of socio-economic impact by the corporate players, as mentioned above, there is much greater discipline and advancement in this area by the NGO community, including the DCED Standard for Results Measurement in Private Sector Development programmes, which focuses on the scale  of initiatives, the increase in income by the targeted enterprises and the net additional jobs created. This seems to be a very interesting tool, though the extent to which  it is effectively used is not quite clear to me. Other frameworks such as the WBCSD model which was published in 2008 are also discussed in some detail. The use of these tools in the corporate sector is extremely fledgling, though there may indeed be some relevance to the argument  that there is learning to be gained from NGO's in this area.

Some of the key findings which are quoted in the Summary Report which can be downloaded free from the Ethical Corpporation website include:

67% of 116 corporate sustainability professionals who responded to an Ethical Corporation survey said their company “measures social and/or economic impact of their business on the communities where they operate”

 

73% of respondents indicated that communication of their business impacts is one of the main reasons for conducting the studies. 71% of survey respondents said that the results of impact studies directly affect their

business strategy.

What are the things most companies are measuring ?

The summary report also covers some practical information which gives some benchmarking value to practitioners as they decide to embark on their own impact study. 30% of those who have performed such studies confirm they are not a five  minute job, but take longer than 20 days to develop. (This surprised me, I would have thought that any serious study would take significantly longer than 20 days!) . 28% pay $10,000 or less for such a study, and 18% pay between $30,000 and $100,000 (40% didn't spill the beans).

All in all, this 55 page report provides a very interesting overview of most of the key points in this vastly complex area of CSR and Sustainability practice, which is growing in importance. To quote the report, "Where the leaders lead, others follow", and there is no doubt that some of the advanced practices by the more forward-thinking companies are catching on. The report offers suggestions as to the directions this enitre field of  activity is taking and some recommendations for those thinking of developing their own practices. It's a good piece, informative, thought-provoking and educational. I personally gained important new insights from this report. I hope many companies will do also.  

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

One Unilever - two Marketing standards

An excellent article in The Guardian.co.uk   called "Stand Up to Unilever's hypocrisy over skin lightening" followed by a long thread of comments, largely disagreeing with the author, prompted me to think about the essence of CSR and the responsibilities of companies to align their messages with all their brands. Unilever has been targeted for some time with charges of hyprocisy - one the one hand, promoting self-esteem and "real beauty" for women with Dove, whist on the other hand, denigrating women with sexist and humiliating ads for Axe deodorant, and now with skin whitening offers via Vaseline brand to encourage people to represent themselves on Facebook with lighter skin, which doesn't quite align with the concept of "real" beauty. Is this hypocritical or is it just horses for courses in the aggressive competitive beauty industry?

Unilever (disclosure: I worked for Unilever in the role of VP for Human Resources in Israel for 8 years) is highly regarded as a leader in CSR. Just this month  Unilever was recognised by Business in the Community as the Company of the Year. Unilever has been a consistent CSR reporter for years and years - you can view their latest 2009 Sustainable Development Report here. Unilever sources tea from Rainforest Alliance Certified Farms, and palm oil with GreenPalm Certificates, and 44% of Unilever's food portfolio is in line with internationally accepted guidelines for saturated and trans fat, sugar and salt. A DowJones Sustainability Index Industry Sector leader for the 11th year running and  a UN Global Compact signatory, Unilever consistently reduces its environmental impacts whilst helping people to look good, feel good and get more out of life. 

Unilever say: " We are committed to responsible marketing ." Examples quoted are the successful campaigns related to Dove and Omo and the awards that Unilever has received for good marketing and advertizing campaigns. And good they are. But doing good is not a license to do bad elsewhere. Unilever, originally the merger of two Companies, the Dutch Unie and the British Lever, has worked hard over the past 5 years or so to create One Unilever - the dismantling of the dual CEO structure which characterised this corporation for decades. There appears to be one part of the Company which has not made this transition quite so smoothly - the marketing division. It really is not acceptable to enhance self-esteem with one campaign and destroy it with others. Needless to say, these issues are not addressed in Unilever's voluntary CSR reporting which is rather good-news oriented.

So come on, Unilever, get your One Unilever act together and stop allowing unprincipled and irresponsible marketing campaigns to tarnish your otherwise impressive CSR and sustainability record. Get the concepts embedded. Get the Marketing people on board. Rewite the marketing manual. Do more Doves.

(NB For good order's sake, I will add that my experience of Unilever as an employer was always positive - a Company with a high work ethic and care and concern for people and society.)



elaine cohen is co-founder and co-CEO of Beyond Business, a leading social and environmental consulting and reporting firm. Visit our website at www.b-yond.biz/en

The infinite possibilities of online sustainability reporting

Online sustainability reporting is evolving rapidly. No longer does  the plain ole downloadable PDF represent the state-of-the-art of transparent presentation of sustainability performance. No longer must we wait it out for the last megabyte to appear on our screen and we can start to read the CEO statement with glee (see Wainwright Bank's 2008 13 MB download report) . These days, we should expect to be enticed, attracted and engaged by more attractive presentation of metrics and people telling their sustainability stories. We are offered different ways to control the data such as DIY report builders (see Philips report for 2008) or nice ebooks to read as we curl up in an armchair with our laptops (see Deutsche Bank 2008 report or the spectacular SeventhGeneration 2008 report). We can see videos of Company Managers telling it as it is (hear Gap Inc CEO walk his talk in the 2008 Report), see a range of podcasts (see Bayer 2008),  or even take a tour on an interactive map to the hub of csr activitiy that the Company is engaged in at a specific location (see Cisco 2009 Report).  Some Companies offer only a summary report as a dowload (see Unilever 2008) whilst others offer a regular array of local  or localized reports (see Vodafone and Telefonica) or alternative language versions (See Fedex 2008) . Some Companies do more than just report on CSR, they move towards engagement and interaction using blogs (see the Intel CSR blog) or fully-fledged websites to host genuine dialogue ( see Voices of Challenge by Timberland on their 2007-2008 Report) or interactive polls so that we can demonstrate we are still awake as we read (see Adidas 2008 Report) (Adidas even asked the verrrrrrrrrry risky poll question "Are Sustainability Reports useful ?" and to date 85% of the responders said YES!! (Hah! Vindicated at last!I hope it wasn't just the report writer and consultant who voted!). Some reporters ask for feedback  (BMW 2008 Report ) and some make it worth your while by offering a PRIZE for providing feedback (see Beiersdorf 2008, who also got really caught up in the online sustainabilty fever and urge you to take their Sustainability Quiz - oops, no prizes for winning that - wonder why?!) ).  Nexxar.com, who we partner with on reporting, as they are the leading online reporting technology and presentation specialists in Europe, produce magnificent interactive charts that you can sit playing around with forever (see Royal Dutch Shell 2008).

There have been some reviews of online report presentation - by Radley Yeldar in April 2009,  Nexxar.com  in July 2009, and more recently by AltaTerra Research in a report called "Greening the Company Website: A new Era in Sustainability Reporting" . This last review covers more than just presentation - it provides an evaluation of the substance, accessibility and navigation capabilities of 60 leading Companies and their online reports (though the focus is mainly on environmental information). Timberland scored highest, with a group of others including Alcoa, BASF, Centrica, Kingfisher, TNT and BT coming up close behind. Not surprisingly, perhaps, the highest scoring attributes for online presentation was navigationability (my new word for 2010) , whilst the provision of data substance and timeliness scored lowest. The research also reviews the degree of assurance of online data (something we have tended to expect only from printed reports). Another interesting insight from this research is that the Companies who tend to rank high in other sustainability indices are not necessarily the ones who present their reports best online. This is not dissimilar to what we found last year when we produced the Transparency Index - an evaluation of the sustainability transparency of the leading Companies quoted on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.

So, what this all about? What's the deal with reporting formats and online creativity? Does this really make a Company more sustainable? Do all these formats really make reading reports easier, better, orgasmic? What are the factors that lead us to select a certain format over another format? And what does the Reporting Blog like to see? 

Well, it's all about which wall your ladder is standing against, to paraphrase the Seven Habits guru, Dr Stephen Covey. It's wonderful to have a magnificently navigable report, but if my ladder is against a wall that requires data (positive and less positive), on time, in context and with appropriate commentary, then the most creative online extravaganza won't be effective for me, even if I climb to the top rung.

As far as online is concerned, I want to see the material issues prominently presented, and I want to navigate the website seamlessly without having to open up link after link in new windows that ultimately crash my mind, not to mention my PC. I want data against the most important indicators, GRI or otherwise. I want the ability to ask questions and provide feedback ... and get answers, not just push a questionnaire into a black hole (as I did with the Avon Report some time ago and never got any form of acknowledgement or response). I want to be able to download something, perhaps just a summary, so that I can use the report as a reference without being online, or so that I can annotate and bookmark the PDF, one of my numerous report-reading habits. I would be happy to engage in open dialogue provided I can see the dialogue of others as well, which is a true tribute to transparency and bold engagement - but I would also like to see Company employees engaging in this dialogue with external readers - no one I know does really well  yet (I think Intel is the closest).

In other words (well, in the same words, but shorter), I want to see online reporting leading us to a level of true substantive material transparent reporting, and true engagement and dialogue. Online  presentation is a TOOL to help achieve this, not an objective in itself. Professional presentation can undoubledly attract readership and make the report more palatable, even attractive, but let's not forget that the horse pulls the cart and the wall holds up the ladder.  Haha. I was tempted to write : The Monkey rules the Chunky, but i thought that might be a bit obscure for all of  you who are vanilla-only consumers.

 elaine cohen is the joint CEO of BeyondBusiness, a leading reporting and social-environmental consulting firm based in Israel. Visit our website at: www.b-yond.biz/en

the world is in trouble - i need to go on a diet

I cam across this headline from the Sun, Fatties cause global warming whilst browsing Martin Smiths updates on JustMeans.com. Overweight people cause over a BILLION tons of Co2, the article says. And then there is a picture of a polar bear looking all forlorn on a melting block of ice. Talk about emotional blackmail.

So I guess i am in serious trouble. Another reason to start that long overdue diet again. The tomorrow diet. Not only am i overweight, i am the cause of global warming. Will my kids ever forgive me ? Will polar bears become extinct because of me ? Will the world ever survive my ice-cream binges and my chocolate cravings ? I take comfort in the fact that the sum of our individual actions can never be enough to resolve our climate issues -it's a SYSTEMIC problem which has to be fixed by all of us acting together.

So i took a stroll to the Weightwatchers International dot com website, the specialists in weight loss in groups. "Each week, approximately 1.5 million people attend approximately 50,000 Weight Watchers meetings " Now, if each of these people lose 2lbs a month, thats 36 million lbs in weight loss and i bet that would offset my few extra layers of puppy fat.(Yes, it's still puppy fat ). Perhaps Weightwatchers could offer a carbon trading program, so that i dont need to actually diet, i can just buy back some weightwatchers carbon credits. How cool. Of course, the problem with weight loss is that it tends to creep back again - but let's not go THERE. Not a thing about Corporate Social Responsibility on the WW website. They obviously havent picked up on the PR value of marketing WW as a climate change program and not just a weight and health thing. Phew.

A Company who does address obesity as part of its sustainability program is Unilever. You can download a report on the 10 major food companies and their approach to obesity from the Unilever website here. This is a very interesting report on all the facets of tacking obesity from the way product R&D is driven , marketing, especially to children, and transparency and disclosure. Danone, Unilever, Nestle and Kellogg score well on addressing and reporting on obesity as part of their sustainability strategy.

Ok, so now i have confessed my personal embarrassment at being the cause of global warming, i think i deserve a little low-calorie snack. Where did i put that chunk of triple-layer smooth-fudge whipped-cream-topped high-density chocolate cake ? hmmm ?

elaine cohen is the joint CEO of BeyondBusiness, a leading reporting and social-environmental consulting firm based in Israel. Visit our website at: www.b-yond.biz