G4: The Voice of Dissent

Who speaks for the workers? At the GRI Conference in Amsterdam 22-24 May 2013, there was one voice which was loud and clear. It was that of the ITUC - The International Trade Union Confederation - representing 175 million workers in 156 countries and territories through 315 national affiliates - in the form of Sharan Burrow, the ITUC General Secretary, and colleague also speaking at the conference, Dwight Justice.

 

Of course, the timing couldn't have been more fortuitous. The Rana Plaza death toll of over 1,100 in Bangladesh, not the first but certainly the most publicized safety tragedy in outsourced garment factories in Asia in recent years, was the burning platform, both literally and figuratively, that added an almost haunting ring of truth to Sharan Burrow's plea for integration of labor rights and social standards into the norms of business behavior.

 

Sharan Burrow, ITUC, demands worker rights at  the GRI Conference

Here's a taste of Sharan's speech to the conference:

"Notwithstanding the legitimacy of the GRI and the improvements made in the new “G4” to deliver more strategic sustainability reports that are focused on those impacts that matter most to people and the planet, the reality is that the short-term quest to maximise profit pits corporations against rights and sustainability. Despite the risk of climate catastrophe, the corporate opposition to a price on carbon or industry policy-based subsidies for start-ups in new energy – let alone the major fossil fuel giants fight against a comprehensive climate agreement – is without moral or sustainability virtue.

Yet many of the same major companies file their sustainability reports without conscience. And their approach to the workers whose labour fuels their profits is criminal. Ask any CEO if they would like their sons or daughters to work in the textile factories in Pakistan, the mines in the Congo, manufacturing plants in Central America, or as beer women in Cambodia, and they shudder. But at the same time they allow the willful perpetuation of these horrors in the supply chains of their corporations.

The model is neither humane nor sustainable. Yet many corporations promote their practice as responsible. Just check the sustainability reports of the retailers that sourced from Rana Plaza in Bangladesh. There can be no more excuses, no more deaths from fire, occupational injuries or disease, no more work-related poverty and no more denial of human and labour rights. It is time to move beyond volunteerism to compliance. If corporations don't integrate labour rights and environmental standards into their core business model, then the rule of law must be effective enough to ensure compliance.

Globalisation in the manufacturing and service industries began to accelerate sharply in the 1980s as advances in communications and transport technology enabled companies to begin exploiting the vast global workforce on a scale which was previously impossible. Firms adopted business models based on locating production in countries where labour laws are weak, virtually non-existent or poorly enforced, and thus workers are effectively blocked from organising unions and engaging in collective bargaining with employers.

The global supply chain has become the means by which international brands maximise their revenues by continuously seeking an edge on their competitors by driving production costs ever lower. While the globalised business model continues to provide vast profits for companies, it comes at a tremendous cost to working people and to the economies of many of the poorest nations. The backwash of low-wage competitiveness can now be seen in the attacks on rights and collective bargaining in Europe, and along with the anti-union orthodoxy in the US, is not just morally wrong but counterproductive to sustainability."

 

Many of Sharan's remarks, and her subsequent contribution in the panel discussion, were met with nods of acquiescence, and occasional applause, from the very large crowd in the audience. We all agree that corporations should be more accountable for their impacts in the supply chain, which are where the most significant human rights abuses take place. The real question is whether G4 will go further in driving that accountability, moreso than its predecessor, G3.

 

Of course, we cannot expect a single, voluntary reporting framework to change the world and be solely responsible for the enlightened transformation of business accountability. Sustainability is a movement which requires all stakeholders, including governments, to play a role. Nonetheless, reporting is a catalyst for performance improvement, and G4 does take reporting to a new level. With a focus on the impacts that matter, in the places they matter, G4 aims to make reporting more relevant, more process-oriented, less tick-boxy and more accessible to our global community of businesses of all sizes in all sectors.

 

G4 has strengthened the coverage of reporting in the area of labor, human rights and supply chain management with new performance indicators.

 

New G4-12 General Standard Disclosure, required at both Core and Comprehensive reporting levels (see previous post for the difference between Core and Comprehensive), asks companies to describe their supply chains, indicating the number and location of suppliers active in supporting the delivery of an organization's products. Outsourced factories in Bangladesh, and elsewhere, should be disclosed as part of the supply chain.

 

Former performance indicators LA1 and LA4, now G4-10 and G4-11, covering details about the total workforce, including employees, supervised workers and percentage of employees covered by collective agreements, are now mandatory in the G4 guidelines, as General Standard Disclosures for all companies, rather than optional performance indicators as in G3/G3.1.

 

New Specific Standard Disclosures in the area of labor include G4-LA14, G4-LA15 and G4-LA16, relating to the percentage of suppliers screened using labor practices criteria, significant actual and potential impacts for labor practices in the supply chain and actions taken, and disclosure about grievances filed against the company.

 

New Specific Standard Disclosures in the area of human rights G4 HR-10, G4-HR11 and G4-HR12, include the same set of performance indicators that refer specifically to human rights, separately from labor practices.

 

However, Specific Standard Disclosures are relevant in a G4 report only if they have been identified as material. Companies which have not prioritized material issues which relate to labor practices have no formal G4 requirement to disclose such practices in their supply chains. This creates a potential risk that companies will be rather selective about the issues they identify as material and the extent to which they will be transparent about the detail of their supply chains. The big change in G4 is the need for a structured, inclusive, documented and transparent process for identifying material issues. It's inconceivable that a company whose product lines depend on thousands of outsourced factories throughout Asia and elsewhere will not declare labor and human rights as material issues after due process. G4 requires a leap of faith that companies will apply this new reporting framework responsibly and ensure content is developed in a considered and balanced way, reflecting significant social and environmental impacts both internal to and external to the organization. 

 

G4 comes, then, with a greater emphasis on the responsibility of stakeholders to be alert to the ways in which companies use the G4 guidelines, what they prioritize and how they report. G4 is the era of, not only greater responsibility to report (companies), but greater responsibility to respond (stakeholders).  I would like to hear more from the voice of dissent, the ITUC, and from others, responding to corporate disclosure, as it happens, and not just with bold statements at GRI conference time. As G4 takes root, it is critical that we all step up our vigilance and active involvement in the reporting process. We are all stakeholders. We are all accountable. We are all the voice of dissent.

 

In the meantime, 1,600 people, nodding, in the RAI Conference Center in Amsterdam on a rainy morning in May, is a good start.

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

The P.R.I.C.E. of CSR

A few weeks back, I participated in a panel on the theme of CSR: The Way Forward at World CSR Day in India. The panel was headed up by one of the most prominent pro-CSR thought-leaders in India, Dr. Bhaskar Chatterjee, Director – General & CEO, Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs. Dr Chatterjee has a long and illustrious career, having held several positions of importance in the Indian government, and as Secretary in the Department of Public Enterprises (DPE), he led game-changing reform and change among Indian State Owned Enterprises laying special emphasis on Corporate Governance, revitalization of the MOU system, Human Resource Management, Sustainable Development and CSR.

The DPE released CSR Guidelines for Public Sector Enterprises and run workshops to assist companies in implementation, which includes an allocation of net profit of up to 5% for small companies and 2% for larger companies. Although CSR in this context refers to "CSR activities" which "may be planned in parallel to the business plan, looking at every possible opportunity to link and integrate business plans with the need based social and environmental concerns", rather than a more integrative model whereby CSR becomes the way of doing business, the heightened awareness and contribution to sustainability is important in this fast-growing economy and no doubt has a positive impact.

In the few minutes I had to present my own views on CSR: The Way Forward, I listed five key points: (you might call this The P.R.I.C.E. of CSR :-))

P is for Partnerships: The world's problems extend beyond the capabilities of any single company to solve. Supporting global or regional solutions to sustainability issues is important for businesses which wish to thrive for the long term. Partnership across sectors, and within industry sectors, offers a collective way forward which benefits companies and their stakeholders. The level of partnership activity is increasing - and this will continue.

R is for Reporting: Paul Scott, MD of CorporateRegister.com expects, after all the 2011 reports are logged, to see between 6,000 and 6,500 CSR/Sustainability Reports covering the year 2011 on a global basis. This doesn't include reports written in non-latin languages, of which there are also many (Chinese, Japanese reports etc), so, in reality, there are far more reports. Several countries are including sustainability disclosure in regulation (such as Denmark)  and Stock Exchanges are starting to demand disclosure as a condition of listing (such as South Africa JEC). Reporting - business transparency - is here to stay and will become even more important as part of the way forward. While there numerous Indian companies now  reporting on sustainability performance (watch out for the India Transparency Index 2012 - coming soon!), reporting as a way of life for Indian corporations will need to move into a higher gear.

I is for Integrate: CSR can no longer be a "project" based activity. It is no longer about philanthropy. CSR means creating sustainable business strategy in which CSR is embedded as part of the organizational culture and drives all activities. CSR is relating to the needs and aspirations of stakeholders and identifying business risks and opportunities in a holistic and fully integrated way. Indian business needs to make this shift as part of its way forward.

C is for Creating Shared Value: While the now ubitquitous notion of CSV is gaining ground - some say, too much ground, (see Dr Sustainability's opinion on  CSV), because the concept is being diluted to mean almost anything that a corporation sells that people want to buy, CSV can offer win-win's for business and society. Kevin Moss of BT wrote an interesting piece about what CSV is and what it is not. However, CSV at its core is an outcome of integration of CSR principles into business strategy, and offers a positive prism through which to drive sustainable business practices. Take a look at the Nestle CSV case study website for practical examples.

E is (of course) for Employees: With employee engagement in sustainability having gone viral, and for good reason, corporations today must understand that CSR begins at home. Companies which invest in the compensation, safety, diversity and inclusion, wellbeing, development, environmental awareness and community  involvement  of their employees are winning the War for Talent, the War on Climate Change and the War for Long Term Sustainable Growth and Profit. As they win, we all benefit. CSR is not just about being good to employees; it's the development and systematic adoption of Human Resources policies and practices which lead to the transformation of corporate impacts ON employees to the sustainability impacts OF employees on all stakeholders. Read more about this at CSRforHR.com.

So that's The P.R.I.C.E of CSR. However, it's not a one-way road. A corporation that pays the P.R.I.C.E. of CSR delivers many dividends - and not only for the corporation. In fact, the P.R.I.C.E. of CSR has positive returns beyond standard investment ROI approaches. An article in Marketing Week quotes Marks and Spencer as having contributed an additional GBP 50 million to profit  in 2010 as a result of Plan A, while Coca Cola made $100 million savings due to packaging reductions. 

CSR: The Way Forward also includes attention to many other important aspects of doing business sustainably - such as good governance, the use of technology, especially in the race to a low-carbon economy, implications of regulation, investor demands, supply chain outsourcing, disaster and emergency relief and even the way CSR is managed in organizations. The fascinating presentations by my co-panelists and ensuing discussion highlighted many of these issues.

World CSR Day  in Mumbai was a welcome opportunity to continue spreading the message. I get the feeling that with people like Dr. Baskhar Chatterjee, and Dr R.L. Bhatia, founder of World CSR Day, at the helm, India may just be finding The Way Forward.

 

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

Ten examples of Carbon Footprint Reporting

There are just 7 days to go until close of voting in the CorporateRegister.com CRRA '12 fifth annual online reporting awards. While you are finalizing your votes, please consider voting for my own Sustainability Report - How a little consulting firm makes a big impact - which is entered in four categories: Best Report, Best First Time Report, Best SME Report and Best Creativity in Communications. Additionally, you might also please consider reviewing and voting for the Baran Group Report - which I worked on - which is entered in two categories: Best Relevance and Materiality and Best Openness and Honesty.

If you want a recap of the awards this year and the reports entered, you could look at the three posts I have written about CRRA '12:

• The CRRA Navigation Guide
• 25 examples of creativity in Sustainability Reports 
• 18 examples of (not so) integrated Sustainability Reports

Today, I thought I would see how companies are reporting on carbon, by reviewing the Best Carbon Disclosure Category. The Awards guidelines ask us to consider: Which report gives the best disclosure of the company’s carbon emissions, the implications for climate change, and the mitigation measures taken? Check for policy, quantified data, targets.

There are just 10 entries this time around in this category, three from the U.S., two from Brazil and the UK, and one each from the Netherlands, Austria and Finland. Here they all are in alfa order:

Amcor Limited - global packaging manufacturer

Banco Bradesco SA - bank

Banco Santander Brasil SA - bank

Bank of America - bank

British Sky Broadcasting Group plc - TV entertainment

Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc - beverages

Royal Dutch Shell plc - energy

Tieto Corporation - IT and product engineering services company

Vodafone Group plc - telecoms

Wyndham Worldwide Corporation - hotels and leisure

You might think it would be quite straightforward to report on Carbon Emissions. After all, it's one of the most measurable and trackable areas of sustainability performance.

The GRI Indicators covering carbon emissions are simply stated (all the reports in this category in CRRA '12 are written in accordance with the GRI Framework):

EN16:  Total direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions by weight.

EN18: Initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reductions achieved.

Calculation of carbon emissions often uses the framework of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol which defines three scopes. The GHG Protocol further categorizes these direct and indirect emissions into three broad scopes:

Scope 1: All direct GHG emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the reporting entity.

Scope 2: Indirect GHG emissions from consumption of purchased electricity, heat or steam.

Scope 3: Other indirect emissions, such as the extraction and production of purchased materials and fuels, transport-related activities in vehicles not owned or controlled by the reporting entity, electricity-related activities (e.g. Transmission & Distribution  losses) not covered in Scope 2, outsourced activities, waste disposal, etc.

However, in addition to these indicators, each company can choose to disclose a host of information which puts the data into a certain context relative to the organization's overall impacts and performance, explains the sources of carbon emissions and actions taken to control carbon emission impacts. What we actually find is that companies tend to report in very different ways. Some more detailed, some less. Some clearer, some less. Some barely giving more than a single number, some offering long stories and explanations. Some also refer to their carbon impacts on third parties - indirect impacts - which are often greater than the directly generated impacts of doing their business. All in all, reporting on carbon is as diverse as the carbon performance of companies itself. Looking at the ten companies which entered their reports in this category, aspiring to be the Best Carbon Disclosure reporters, I found this to be true.

What would I expect the best carbon disclosure to include?

• Overall absolute emissions - the scope (Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3) and their sources.
• The scope of the reporting - covering all operation or just a selection.
• Performance versus prior years and performance versus targets with explanations.
• The way carbon reductions have been achieved.
• How employees have been engaged in the carbon emission reduction efforts.
• How external stakeholders (customers/suppliers) have been engaged in carbon emission reduction efforts.
• Future plans/targets to reduce the emissions burden and the way these will be achieved.

What did I find ?

Overall absolute emissions - the scope (Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3) and their sources.

Amcor provides details of carbon intensity (per unit of production) by Scope over 6 years for Amcor "legacy" sites, representing Amcor prior to its Alcan Packaging acquisition.

Amcor also discloses the level of total absolute carbon emissions.

Banco Bradesco does not include details of carbon emissions in their 61 page report, but refers to the website, which is all in a foreign language - Portuguese ?  with no English option. The emissions numbers - in toneladas - are stated as part of the GRI Index. 

Banco Santander shows Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions for the reporting year:

The Bank also confirms that emissions per employee dropped 76% between 2005 and 2010.

Bank of America details Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions for 2010 and prior year 2009, by source, including details of Renewable Energy Credits.

British Sky Broadcasting provides details data for Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions since 2008 baseline tracking. Data is shown for absolute emissions and per GBP million turnover. Even the Sky News Helicopter is detailed as generating 183 tons of (Scope 3) carbon emissions in 2010/2011.

Coca Cola Enterprises reports in detail against all three Scope emissions, explaining methodology, sources, and even an estimation of the likely effect of new additional territories:

Royal Dutch Shell provides 10 years of carbon emission data in a concentrated data table separate from the report narrative. The narrative states that higher emissions were due to higher production, especially in Nigeria because of an improved security situation. Shell makes a distinction in the report narrative between Scope 1 and 2 emissions (also splits emissions between production operations and flaring). It is not clear whether Scope 3 emissions are included.

Tieto explains the sources of carbon emissions, mainly generated through data center consumption plus employee work and travel.

Tieto provides details for all Scope 1, 2 and 3 for the year 2010.

Between 2009 and 2010, Tieto has increased the scope of its reporting from 7 offices in Sweden and Finland to 58 offices - a significant achievement- but rendering an absolute comparison with prior year data not relevant.  As you might imagine, total CO2 emissions increased significantly with increased business activity. However, while Scope 1 and 2 emissions per person decreased in 2010 vs 2009, Scope 3 emissions per person increased from 0.7 tons to 0.82 tons in 2010, this, despite a stated decrease in travel expenses per person by 3% (Scope 3 emissions, as can be seen, is primarily business travel). This is not explained.

Vodafone reports absolute emissions in the printed report, supplemented by significant detail on the Vodafone Sustainability Report website.

Wyndham Worldwide Corporation reports total Scope 1 and Scope 2 carbon emissions and sources.

The scope of the reporting - covering all operations or just a selection.

Amcor's reporting covers all manufacturing sites.

Banco Bradesco's report covers all the Bank's operations.

Banco Santander's report covers all the Bank's operations.

Bank of America's report covers the entire activities of the Bank.

British Sky Broadcasting covers all sites except joint ventures and is annualized data based on 11 months operations.

Coca Cola Enterprises reports on all the business with some omissions for newly acquired territories in 2010/2011. 

Royal Dutch Shell reports on all operations.

Tieto's carbon reporting covers between 73% and 90% of employees (18,000 employees).

Vodafone's report includes all operations with the exception of joint ventures.

Wyndham Worldwide Corporation reports on all facilities over which the company has direct control.

Performance versus prior years and performance versus targets with explanations.

Amcor reports a 2.4% carbon emission reduction in intensity (per unit of production) over 5 years for Scope 1 and 2 but did not meet the 10% 5-year target. No explanation for falling short of targets is provided. 

Banco Bradesco does not refer to prior year performance or express any carbon targets.

Banco Santander does not disclose targets and does not explain performance versus prior years beyond a passing reference.

Bank of America shows a big increase in Scope 3 emissions. However, 2010 data now includes all forms of business travel, not just air travel which was the only element reported in the 2009 report - a good example of how reporting scope improves from year to year. BoA also reports emissions from waste disposal and negative emissions from recycling and composting (232,171 tons).

British Sky Broadcasting clearly shows performance against targets over two reporting periods.

Coca Cola Enterprises provides data for prior years, showing improvements in absolute performance while increasing sales. 

Royal Dutch Shell makes general comments about performance relating to manufacturing efficiency.

Tieto Corporation of Sweden makes no secret of their carbon vision - though it is not clear by when this is scheduled to be achieved. 

Vodafone provides good, clear detail relating to performance versus objectives:

Wyndham Worldwide Corporation does not provide details of past performance (this is a first Sustainability Report).

The way carbon reductions have been achieved.

Amcor refers to "a range of procedural and technical improvements" including lighting replacement, improving boiler efficiencies, insulating steam pipes and replacing inefficient heating with infrared space heating.

Banco Bradesco offers no information. In fact, it is not clear whether there have been any carbon reductions.

Banco Santander advances construction or maintenance of branches to reduce the use of natural resources and raw materials that contribute to the Bank´s direct and indirect GHG emissions. It also compensates its emissions through the Projeto Floresta Real. 2010 emissions will be offset by March 2011 by planting 60,000 native forest trees in degraded areas with low Human Development Index (HDI) levels.

Bank of America achieved a 7.5% reduction in Scope 1 and 2 emissions in 2010 by improving energy efficiency in its retail banking centers, office buildings, and data centers and optimizing real estate portfolio to make the most efficient use of space. The Bank also discloses that there was a reduction in the GHG intensity of the U.S. electricity grid, which also contributed to their improved performance.

British Sky Broadcasting refers to building efficiency improvements including lighting, increased air sensors and air conditioning chiller units. Energy at UK Sites is purchased at renewable tariffs. The British Sky report also includes a page entitled "30 things we have done to reduce our environmental impact", many of which relate to energy consumption and carbon emissions.

Coca Cola Enterprises provides data for prior years and detailed explanations of what carbon emissions are generated where and what actions have been taken through energy-efficient technologies in manufacturing (compressed air, lighting and heating), renewable energy use, transportation efficiencies and cooling equipment for soft drinks (which are 62% of Coca Cola's core business emissions) and vending machines. Also, plant production lines are equipped with energy meters which show energy consumption performance in real-time and can be used to make adjustments which affect resulting carbon emissions.

Royal Dutch Shell does not give details about specific actions taken to reduce carbon emissions.

Tieto's main advance has been the opening of  "one of the most environmentally efficient" data centers in Sweden, called "Tieto Cave", with 20 meter rock solid walls. Wow. Sounds like a good setting for Mission Impossible 6. I can just see Tom Cruise tunneling through that. When fully utilized, the data center will supply 1,000 homes with heat and warm water.  

Vodafone discloses great detail about the way carbon efficiencies have been achieved including using fresh air to cool equipment instead of air conditioning, increasing temperature at which base stations can operate, thereby reducing cooling requirements, remote shutdown of base stations, installing more energy efficient base stations, reducing number of computer servers, using alternative energy (solar and wind) for part of the operations and reducing operating time of generators through technology improvements.

Wyndham Worldwide Corporation provides a long list of carbon-reducing activities relating to lighting, heating, Energy Star appliances and the company purchases 100% of its energy usage from wind power at the corporate HQ.


How employees have been engaged in the carbon emission reduction efforts.

Amcor does not refer to employee engagement in carbon emission reductions. Amcor refers only to an EMS, using ISO18000.

Banco Bradesco offers no information.

Banco Santander lays on 85 free daily chartered buses between subway stations and the organization's administrative buildings. The service is used by 1,662 employees. Santander also provides bicycle parks and changing rooms with showers, towels and shampoo.

Bank of America engages "thousands" of employees in environmental issues through workshops and other activities. Employees saved 2,268 tons of carbon savings and 350 employees became Environment Ambassadors.  Bank of America also offers a subsidy to employees to purchase hybrid electric (and now also, compressed natural gas) vehicles - over 3,700 employees have bought hybrids since 2007. This is important as Scope 3 emissions, which are mainly employee commuting and business travel, increased in 2010. Business travel emissions increased by over 150%.

British Sky Broadcasting ran a second Flight Challenge for employees focusing on minimising flights between Scotland and London by raising awareness of alternatives.

Coca Cola Enterprises does not specifically refer to employee engagement in environmental performance though there is one short employee story.

Royal Dutch Shell does not mention employees.

Tieto does not specifically refer to employee engagement in Green activities, though much of the company's carbon performance will be affected by reducing business travel which clearly requires employees to collaborate.

Vodafone does not specifically refer to employees in relation to carbon emission activities.

Wyndham Worldwide Corporation runs a Wyndham Green Council with representatives from across the Company, including over 200 associates from cross-functional departments in each business unit in over 20 countries. Innovations, experiences, and best practices are regularly shared across the Company and published annually in a Global Best Practices document.

In addition, Wyndham offers Sustainability 101 training in 10 languages, and has already trained 35% of the company's employees. This is supplemented by educational efforts reaching 76% of the workforce on Earth Day and around other events. Wyndham also has a Green Kids program, designed to teach children about sustainability and the best of all, a Caught Green Handed program, to recognize positive environmental performance of employees.

How external stakeholders (customers/suppliers) have been engaged in carbon emission reduction efforts.

Amcor does not disclose information on how Amcor engages with customers or suppliers with regard to carbon reduction efforts, except in the area of future targets. 

Banco Bradesco is a signatory to the Equator Principles and reports on how they apply environmental thinking to credit decisions. The bank offers four environmentally positive investment funds. However, aspects related to carbon disclosure are not specifically discussed.

Banco Santander participates in the Sectoral Forum for the Management of GHG Emissions – Engagement of Suppliers. The objective is to persuade suppliers to adopt a systematic inventory process, establishing activities for mitigating and offsetting emissions.

Through its core business, the Bank of America is committed to advancing a low-carbon economy and has generated low-carbon business worth $11.6 billion between 2007 and 2010 including more than $1.9 billion in “green” commercial real estate debt and equity transactions, $1 billion in debt and equity for green affordable housing in 23 states, $476 million in financing for energy efficiency upgrades and retrofitting for K–12 schools, colleges and universities and acted as underwriter on four IPOs, raising $3.7 billion in capital for renewable energy, clean technology and energy efficiency companies. Bank of America also held a supplier conference, encouraging disclosure to the Carbon Disclosure Project - 75 of the Bank's largest suppliers responded to the CDP.

British Sky Broadcasting asked 50 most carbon intensive suppliers to measure their carbon footprint and further reduce emissions using the Carbon Disclosure Project reporting framework. 25 agreed to participate so far. Through the Sky Rainforest Rescue campaign, in partnership with WWF, British Sky involves customers in a campaign to help save one billion trees in the Amazon rainforest.

Coca Cola Enterprises does not specifically refer to customers though the section on sustainable packaging and carbon footprint throughout the lifecycle of Coca Cola products involves consumers and requires their participation in responsible environmental behavior such as recycling.

Royal Dutch Shell describes in detail what the company is doing to develop produce cleaner energy and advanced biofuels and lubricants developed to help customers use less energy.

Tieto confirms that their core business offering, data centers and IT solutions, can help customers reduce their carbon footprints.

Vodafone reports on offerings of low-carbon solutions including smart metering for customers. "Combined with innovative technology from our partners – such as Isotrak’s Active Transport Management System or AMS’ smart metering solutions – more than 5 million Vodafone M2M connections are providing access to data that help businesses improve efficiency and cut costs. We believe that at least 4 million of these connections also help to reduce energy use and related carbon emissions."

Wyndham Worldwide Corporation operates a vacation ownership program with certification programs reaching over 800,000 timeshare owners, focusing on reduction of energy, water and waste. At Wyndham Hotel Group, the Green Franchisee Hotel Advisory Board was formed in 2010 in which 12 cross-brand hotel owners and general managers showcased and shared green practices to advance sustainability in the hotel group portfolio. Also, Wyndham has a Green Supplier initiative to partner with suppliers and vendors who have a similar commitment to protecting the environment.

Future plans/targets to reduce the emissions burden and the way these will be achieved.

Amcor announces a new target of an additional 10% reduction in carbon intensity by FY 2015/2016. This will be achieved through engaging suppliers, working with customers to make packaging more environmentally friendly and continuing internal efficiency drives.

Banco Bradesco established an Eco-efficiency Working Group which developed a Master Plan that aims to establish an environmental management structure in line with the Bank’s activities, including actions to be developed over the next five years. What this space, as they say.

Banco Santander is not explicit about future plans to achieve carbon reductions.

Bank of America has declared a goal to reduce carbon emissions by 15% in the next 5 years. They will do this by increasing LEED certified space to 20% by end 2015 and will offer monetary rewards and career advancement for employees who contribute to achieving environmental goals.

British Sky Broadcasting includes a narrative relating to next steps, in which the company will continue to do what it has already been doing in terms of carbon management.

Coca Cola Enterprises: "We are reviewing our carbon reduction goal in 2011, looking at our carbon impacts beyond our immediate operations and the demands of our stakeholders and policy makers." Watch this space, too.

Royal Dutch Shell does not specify future targets.

Tieto explains how the company will work towards carbon neutrality: reduced business travel, lower data-center energy consumption, lower office energy consumption etc.

Vodafone offers a detailed program for future carbon emissions reduction, the only reporter in this category to do so at this level of detail:

Wyndham Worldwide Corporation also give some specific through not quantifiable targets, indicating positive intention.

So, any conclusions about which report YOU will VOTE for in this category? (if you got this far, CONGRATULATIONS!!!)  

My votes go to Vodafone, Coca Cola Enterprises, Wyndham and British Sky. I especially like Wyndham's employee practices.

So remember, carbon is carbon is carbon but reporting is not reporting is not reporting is not reporting. Help the best reporters gain recognition and raise the bar through your VOTES >>>;.

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

Strauss: a lesson in stakeholder engagement

Working in my home market, Israel, on sustainability, I am often reminded of the two shoe salesmen who visit Africa and find that people do not wear shoes. The first reports back to his boss: "They have no shoes. Great. What a market opportunity!". The second reports back, saying: "They have no shoes. Terrible. We have no market." Here in our small market, the advancement of corporate responsibility and sustainability should be characterized by the first approach, but  is regrettably, mostly characterized by the second. The number of companies which have shown leadership in truly advancing sustainable practices is low, the number which operate with a respectable degree of transparency is even lower, and the number of companies which engage in stakeholder dialog in a meaningful way is lower still. Against this background, it is a pleasure to praise one company who has taken the lead in demonstrating all three. It is no coincidence that I write this post now, having just returned from participating in a stakeholder engagement event which is certainly a first in our market and, I believe, a world first.

The company is Strauss Group, Israel's second-largest food and beverage company and also an international corporation with approximately 13,500 employees operating 25 production sites in 21 countries around the world. The Group has partnerships with leading multinationals such as Danone and PepsiCo and recently Strauss Water and the global electronics giant Haier Group entered into partnership to produce, market and sell watermakers in China. Strauss is an iconic brand in Israel, carrying the name of the even more iconic Strauss family, who have been admired and respected business leaders in Israel since their humble beginnings in the 1930s. Today the Group is skillfully led by the First Lady of Israeli business, Ofra Strauss, granddaughter of the founders, who took over the helm as Chairwoman in 2001. Ofra Strauss has always been a visionary, strategic, thoughtful businesswoman who has steered the Strauss company into globalization with a good measure of talent and the entire legacy of the Strauss family values and ethical approach to business.

Strauss Group published a first Corporate Responsibility Report in 2008 (covering year 2007 and 70% of Strauss operations) and today launched their fourth report, compliant with GRI at Application Level A, covering 100% of the Company's global business. Strauss is the only company in Israel to have issued four reports, consistently, year after year, once having set the ball rolling.  The 2010 report is at present online in the local Hebrew language only but the English version will be out in a week or two.

The report is in digital / social media format, and closely linked to the Company's Facebook activity. On each page of the report, there is room to include feedback or questions (and receive responses), with all posts feeding directly to Strauss's Facebook page. Equally, there are a range of social media sharing tools for each page to Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin and RSS. This is a first for our local market and is a sign of a company who is boldly embracing transparency (Strauss has been in the top three in the Israeli Transparency Index for the past three years) and using cutting edge social media tools to do so.

However, equally important as the report itself is the way the report was launched. The Company held a Stakeholder Dialog meeting with 90 representatives of business, academia, government and non-profits, who had previewed the report a week before the launch. The stakeholders were split into different groups focusing on workplace, environment, governance, ethics, community involvement and product responsibility and all were able to provide feedback to Strauss on the report, ask questions and engage in open discussion. The entire meeting was streamed live to Facebook, and those not present were able to ask questions which were answered by a panel of senior managers in the closing session.

Stakeholder discussion on responsible workplace

Opening the meeting, Ofra Strauss, Chairwoman of Strauss Group, said that you are never 100% prepared to receive criticism. "It is not always pleasant but it is always necessary." She added that transparency is an essential part of the way Strauss runs its business, and this is not only due to increasing pressure from regulators. "It is good that the regulators are waking up", she said, "but it's not enough. As a business, we have to do more. Change is only possible when we do it together".

Ofra Strauss opening the 2010 CR Report dialog launch meeting

This launch dialog is important in many ways, and not just for Strauss. The digital format will ensure ongoing accessibility and engagement but the face-to-face meeting was pivotal.

First, I am sure that the company received important insights  - I know that in our discussion group, many important comments were made and I believe that the Strauss representatives in our group found them interesting and not entirely predictable. There is a great tendency to publish a report and sit back thinking that everyone will rush to shower praise and congratulations. In the frank discussion that took place, while there was praise, there were also clear expectations and some criticisms. I believe this form of dialog is very humbling and ensures that the report lives longer than it takes to upload it to the internet.

Second, the 90 people in the meeting all learnt something new. By participating in the dialog, they heard new perspectives and perhaps, for those who don't live sustainability reporting (guilty), gained a new paradigm about the value of reporting and how to read reports. Talking about sustainability reports is a form of educating stakeholders, not just involving them.

Third, the participation of a wide range of Strauss managers in this process placed them in the frontline of stakeholder interest and influence. None of them can now say that "CSR is not my responsibility". All of them now have a direct experience of how stakeholders feel. This reinforces their roles not only as managers but also as CSR ambassadors in their organization.

Fourth, this meeting represents a commitment to ongoing dialog. The written word, published to anonymous stakeholders, is a form of commitment. Talking about the content with real people face-to-face reinforces that commitment in an acute way. When Strauss managers think about their responsibility, they will see the faces of those who attended the stakeholder dialog meeting.

I will keep you posted when the English report is published. In the meantime, I add my praise and congratulations to the Strauss leadership and hope they are charting a path that many other local companies will follow.

Oh, and before you ask, no, there was no ice cream.

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)

Bedbug footprint: new CSR performance indicator

An interesting article in Workforce Management about the prevalence of bedbugs in the workplace caused me to ponder about the Corporate Responsibility of businesses to ensure a bedbug free workplace.

Apparently commercial offices are beoming increasingly susceptible to bedbugs, as employees unwittingly bring bugs into the workplace from, one can assume, their own beds (or wherever they happened to sleep, I suppose. Better not ask too many questions). Bedbugs are incredibly versatile and adaptable and can infest "practically any soft surface like chairs, rugs, sofas and even cubicle dividers". This is clearly a concerning situation, which all employers should be aware of. Any business who has chairs, rugs, sofas and cubicle dividers should be on the alert. I believe it is the Corporate Responsibility of all businesses to forbid entry to bedbugs in all workplaces and refrain from complicity in bedbug workplace infestation. At this point I would like to commend Vestergaard Frandsen, an interesting business operating under its own Humanitarian Entrepreneurship business model who offers in the company's 2009 Corporate Responsibility Report  a solution to the bedbug disaster in the form of a thin layer of woven cloth impregnated with insecticide that you stick to the walls of your home, office, meeting room or cubicle, to inhibit the spread of bedbugs and other little gatecrashers. This treatment is effective for three years, at which point you should renew the sheet or start scratching.

The timing of this bedbug alert is actually quite fortuitous, as the GRI has announced their intention to work on the G4 version of the Reporting Framework, to be ready by the end of 2012. This is the perfect time to introduce a set of bedbug performance indicators. I would suggest a new section in the G4 called BB Performance Indicators. Here are my suggested indicators:

Aspect: Bedbug Demography

BB 1.  Number of bedbugs found on company premises by gender, location and source

BB 2.  Number of bedbug fatalities due to employee brutality on discovering bedbugs in their offices

BB 3.  Number of bedbugs attending Executive Leadership meetings without an invitation

Aspect: Employee Health and Safety

BB 4.  Number of employes falling sick due to bedbug bites

BB 5.  Number of bedbugs falling sick due to employee bites

BB 6.  Number of walls treated with insecticide to kill off bedbugs

BB 7.  Number of lost workdays due to employee sickness due to permanent exposure to insecticide.

Aspect: Training

BB 8:   Number of hours spent on bedbug avoidance training

BB 9.   Number of employees trained in bedbug prevention

BB 10. Number of employees complaining of having bedbugs in their offices

BB 11. Number of employee claiming discrinimation due to not having bedbugs in their offices

Aspect: Supply Chain

BB 12:  Number of suppliers trained in bedbug avoidance

BB 13:  Number of suppliers screened for bedbug free operations

Aspect: Employee Privacy

BB 14.  Number of anonymous compaints about bedbugs recieved from employees

BB 15.  If the complaints were anonymous, how do you know they were from employees?

Aspect: Environment

BB 16:  Number of bedbugs released into the atmosphere (bedbug footprint)

BB 17:  Total amount of bedbugs recycled and made into useful items such as jewellry or PC components or lunch

If every Company adopts these performance indicators in their CSR reports, we will very soon have an accurate picture of our global  bedbug footprint and measures underway to reduce it. This would open up the possibility for an annual CSR Bedbug Elimination Award. Companies who demonstrate leadership in de-bedbugging would be elligible to pay to enter a global contest to determine the Best Bedbug-Free workplace. 

Finally, I would  also recommend that the United Nations Global Compact add an eleventh principle. 

"Businesses should support and respect the protection of the internationally proclaimed human right to a bedbug free workplace and take measures to ensure a precautionary approach to bedbug avoidance". 

Hmm. Wonder why Kofi didnt think of that.

Finally finally, because bedbugs can cause significant reputational damage, it is probably best if Companies do not include this in their CSR reports unless they can confirm 100% beyond compliance with bedbug legislation. After all, not everyone understands that bedbugs are not just for beds. Just like Chunky Monkey is not just for Monkeys.

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, CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm)