Here's a link to a report "Corporations, institutions and better governance" that we published back in 2008.
It's a bit niche, but its perhaps useful for any of you interested in how companies can become engaged in institutional capacity building in developing countries.
I.e. going further than simply building a school or community centre or auditing factories.
We're holding a conference related to this next week.
There's a shorter essay on the topic, published in the magazine.
And here's a short podcast on the report.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
A real job for the World Economic Forum
Davos is all well and mediocre. The CEOs, lobbyists and fawning politicians all get together, at shareholder and taxpayer expense, and spout platitudes about responsible/sustainable/trusted business. Then they all fly home.
Perhaps 20 CEOs sign a letter calling for sustainable agriculture/water/CO2 limits/insert issue here.
Does it make a difference?
A bit perhaps. But not much.
It does make the CEOs feel good about their 50K-200K spend on Davos though.
Here's a job for the World Economic Forum: Get 100 CEOs, get 250, get 500 CEOs, to sign a Magna Carta on sustainability by 2012. Or 2013. Soon.
The Magna Carta will be holistic. It will be challenging. It will set politicians tasks, deadlines, purpose.
Democracy alone ain't cutting it. A 100 CEOs, or better, 250 or 500 CEOs, calling out our spineless governments on sustainability, might just work.
There's a REAL job for the World Economic Forum.
Better that than continued massage of fevered egos.
Perhaps 20 CEOs sign a letter calling for sustainable agriculture/water/CO2 limits/insert issue here.
Does it make a difference?
A bit perhaps. But not much.
It does make the CEOs feel good about their 50K-200K spend on Davos though.
Here's a job for the World Economic Forum: Get 100 CEOs, get 250, get 500 CEOs, to sign a Magna Carta on sustainability by 2012. Or 2013. Soon.
The Magna Carta will be holistic. It will be challenging. It will set politicians tasks, deadlines, purpose.
Democracy alone ain't cutting it. A 100 CEOs, or better, 250 or 500 CEOs, calling out our spineless governments on sustainability, might just work.
There's a REAL job for the World Economic Forum.
Better that than continued massage of fevered egos.
Corporate responsibility: We need more pressure
I have just had dinner with three very different, but very experienced, and agreeable folks. One from consulting with business clients, two from leading NGOs in sustainable business (read: slightly more sustainable business).
One thing we all agreed on: There's maybe 1000 big companies, if that, in the world, taking note of sustainability. ('taking note' is a broad term).
There's maybe 100-300 companies doing some interesting work (large ones, say over $500 million a year turnover).
There's about 30-40 leading large firms who, to varying degrees, are doing innovative, target-based work.
That leaves somewhere between 80,000 and 150,000 'transnational' companies, doing compliance. At best.
We need to raise our game. The big corporates who some work are getting complacent.
Governments are nowhere, generally.
NGOs have been weak on campaigning.
The media is in structural chaos, and cannot be relied upon as in the past to do much at all.
The corporate responsibility 'industry' is in a poor state. Yes we have made some progress. But we are not cutting it in the mainstream. Not yet.
Time to get to work. I include Ethical Corporation in that.
How should we raise the game?
Your turn.
Tell me I am right/wrong/mad/irrelevant.
Say something.
One thing we all agreed on: There's maybe 1000 big companies, if that, in the world, taking note of sustainability. ('taking note' is a broad term).
There's maybe 100-300 companies doing some interesting work (large ones, say over $500 million a year turnover).
There's about 30-40 leading large firms who, to varying degrees, are doing innovative, target-based work.
That leaves somewhere between 80,000 and 150,000 'transnational' companies, doing compliance. At best.
We need to raise our game. The big corporates who some work are getting complacent.
Governments are nowhere, generally.
NGOs have been weak on campaigning.
The media is in structural chaos, and cannot be relied upon as in the past to do much at all.
The corporate responsibility 'industry' is in a poor state. Yes we have made some progress. But we are not cutting it in the mainstream. Not yet.
Time to get to work. I include Ethical Corporation in that.
How should we raise the game?
Your turn.
Tell me I am right/wrong/mad/irrelevant.
Say something.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Forestry: Industry group in terminal decline?
We know NGO-founded issue-specific groups such as Forest Stewardship Council and Marine Stewardship Council have their challenges.
But multi-stakeholder groups, despite their flaws (which are inevitable), are clearly the only way to go when there are significant NGOs with expertise, influence and reach in the area at hand.
This is clearly the case in forestry and seafood. Whilst some companies have found their standards too exacting for scale (another common problem for certification), setting up a competing sustainable standard with lighter-touch rules is probably not the answer in those two cases.
So it is proving with the "Sustainable Forestry Initiative", as this recent news may demonstrate.
The story? That "Seven companies, including four from the Fortune 500, have made new commitments and actions to stop using the Sustainable Forestry Initiative's (SFI) 'eco-label' on branded paper products or company publications."
Admittedly, this is from ForestEthics, which campaigns against the SFI, but it clearly must be true. A partner organisation to SFI, PEFC, suffers from the same credibility and image problem. Some brands might use it, but few boast about it as they are entitled to do with FSC.
All this is not to say that companies cannot, and should not, go their own road when faced with little alternative choice. Many are, and are correct to do so.
But where there is already a credible organisation in place, such as with MSC and FSC, big brands and their suppliers should look to work with what is in place, rather than setting up their own, 'lighter' versions.
My prediction is that over time we'll see these light green industry-driven 'NGOs' fall away.
Without significant challenge from real, consumer-backed NGOs, they will fail to drive progress towards significant targets for serious corporate members and will not have the credibility to convince consumers.
For interested readers, here's a recent PDF article we published on credibility and the eco-certification debate. you can get more of these if you sign up as a subscriber, of course.
But multi-stakeholder groups, despite their flaws (which are inevitable), are clearly the only way to go when there are significant NGOs with expertise, influence and reach in the area at hand.
This is clearly the case in forestry and seafood. Whilst some companies have found their standards too exacting for scale (another common problem for certification), setting up a competing sustainable standard with lighter-touch rules is probably not the answer in those two cases.
So it is proving with the "Sustainable Forestry Initiative", as this recent news may demonstrate.
The story? That "Seven companies, including four from the Fortune 500, have made new commitments and actions to stop using the Sustainable Forestry Initiative's (SFI) 'eco-label' on branded paper products or company publications."
Admittedly, this is from ForestEthics, which campaigns against the SFI, but it clearly must be true. A partner organisation to SFI, PEFC, suffers from the same credibility and image problem. Some brands might use it, but few boast about it as they are entitled to do with FSC.
All this is not to say that companies cannot, and should not, go their own road when faced with little alternative choice. Many are, and are correct to do so.
But where there is already a credible organisation in place, such as with MSC and FSC, big brands and their suppliers should look to work with what is in place, rather than setting up their own, 'lighter' versions.
My prediction is that over time we'll see these light green industry-driven 'NGOs' fall away.
Without significant challenge from real, consumer-backed NGOs, they will fail to drive progress towards significant targets for serious corporate members and will not have the credibility to convince consumers.
For interested readers, here's a recent PDF article we published on credibility and the eco-certification debate. you can get more of these if you sign up as a subscriber, of course.
April 2011 cover: Ethical corporate spying
Here's our latest magazine cover for April's edition. We really like it. Click on the image below (or download if you get this via email) to check it out:
Top ten countries interested in corporate responsibility
OK, my headline is a little misleading. Below are the top ten countries where people who read www.ethicalcorp.com are based, according to Google Analytics.
1 United Kingdom
2 United States
3 Canada
4 India
5 Australia
6 France
7 Malaysia
8 Germany
9 Netherlands
10 South Africa
Of course, web stats, like any others, can be interpreted in a number of ways.
We know we have a core audience of around 40,000-70,000 readers, some who come often, and some who only visit occasionally.
Beware CSR 'social media' websites or online sustainability 'communities' (light on content, heavy on hubris) who claim hundreds of thousands of 'members' after publishing light news (at best) by non-professional writers or junior wannabe consultants and 'social media experts' (read: under-employed snake oil selling charlatans)
Their "we have a million members" stats probably are not true. Or their data is comprised of spam email. It may be a little harsh to say, but it's likely an accurate assessment.
If our core audience, ten years and 7500 quality articles in, is still fairly small, theirs are likely similar, or less.
That's not a bad thing. A focused business audience is not unusual in niche publishing/online communities.
It just says to me that we should be careful assuming that the community of business managers working in sustainability is growing exponentially, I am not sure that it is.
Interest is not the same as action, as we well know!
1 United Kingdom
2 United States
3 Canada
4 India
5 Australia
6 France
7 Malaysia
8 Germany
9 Netherlands
10 South Africa
Of course, web stats, like any others, can be interpreted in a number of ways.
We know we have a core audience of around 40,000-70,000 readers, some who come often, and some who only visit occasionally.
Beware CSR 'social media' websites or online sustainability 'communities' (light on content, heavy on hubris) who claim hundreds of thousands of 'members' after publishing light news (at best) by non-professional writers or junior wannabe consultants and 'social media experts' (read: under-employed snake oil selling charlatans)
Their "we have a million members" stats probably are not true. Or their data is comprised of spam email. It may be a little harsh to say, but it's likely an accurate assessment.
If our core audience, ten years and 7500 quality articles in, is still fairly small, theirs are likely similar, or less.
That's not a bad thing. A focused business audience is not unusual in niche publishing/online communities.
It just says to me that we should be careful assuming that the community of business managers working in sustainability is growing exponentially, I am not sure that it is.
Interest is not the same as action, as we well know!
Monday, March 28, 2011
Ten good practices in managing ethics for competitive intelligence
I mentioned in a previous post that our April 2011 issue, out in a few days time, has a briefing on the risks of corporate spying, and how to gather intelligence ethically. More on the full briefing and other articles here.
From our forthcoming five page feature article, here are ten tips on being ethical when gathering intelligence:
1) Establish clear guidelines on CI practice.
2) Integrate CI into the organisational code of conduct.
3) Establish or refer to a stand-alone CI ethics policy.
4) Factor in international variations in legal and ethical standards on CI.
5) Extend guidelines to business partners.
6) Back up guidelines with targeted training.
7) Ensure training is tailored to relevant audiences.
8) Develop a clear streamlined process for providing legal/ethics approval or advice.
9) Facilitate regular cross-functional reviews of CI practice and guidelines by management.
10) Support professionalisation of CI through industry/professional associations.
Source: Competitive Intelligence: Ethical challenges
and good practice, a report authored by Andrew
Crane & Laura J Spence, published by Institute of
Business Ethics, UK, in December 2008
You can get our in-depth article if you subscribe. Quote "blog" for £100 discount on full-price subscriptions.
From our forthcoming five page feature article, here are ten tips on being ethical when gathering intelligence:
1) Establish clear guidelines on CI practice.
2) Integrate CI into the organisational code of conduct.
3) Establish or refer to a stand-alone CI ethics policy.
4) Factor in international variations in legal and ethical standards on CI.
5) Extend guidelines to business partners.
6) Back up guidelines with targeted training.
7) Ensure training is tailored to relevant audiences.
8) Develop a clear streamlined process for providing legal/ethics approval or advice.
9) Facilitate regular cross-functional reviews of CI practice and guidelines by management.
10) Support professionalisation of CI through industry/professional associations.
Source: Competitive Intelligence: Ethical challenges
and good practice, a report authored by Andrew
Crane & Laura J Spence, published by Institute of
Business Ethics, UK, in December 2008
You can get our in-depth article if you subscribe. Quote "blog" for £100 discount on full-price subscriptions.
Carbon stats
Some useful carbon stats:
A person, per year:
Average Malawian: 0.1 tonnes
Average Chinese: 3.3 tonnes
World average: 7 tonnes
Average North American: 28 tonnes
Flying from Los Angeles to Barcelona return:
Economy class: 3.4 tonnes
First class: 13.5 tonnes
More stats, here.
The book on it all is here.
And some recent editorial coverage on the UK's Carbon Reduction Commitment is here.
A person, per year:
Average Malawian: 0.1 tonnes
Average Chinese: 3.3 tonnes
World average: 7 tonnes
Average North American: 28 tonnes
Flying from Los Angeles to Barcelona return:
Economy class: 3.4 tonnes
First class: 13.5 tonnes
More stats, here.
The book on it all is here.
And some recent editorial coverage on the UK's Carbon Reduction Commitment is here.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Big corporate espionage cases and allegations
Our April 2011 issue, out in a few days time, has a briefing on the risks of corporate spying, and how to gather intelligence ethically.
Here's an excerpt from it, a time line of some of significant spying moments and cases:
2011: French carmaker Renault suspends three senior executive for allegedly leaking trade secrets related to the company’s electric car project in partnership with Nissan. The case was subsequently dropped.
2010: Greenpeace files a lawsuit in the US accusing Dow Chemical, Sasol and others of spying and stealing information.
2010: Google says its China operations were hacked to steal intellectual property and email information of human rights activists. The hacking operation is suspected to have targeted at least 20 other multinational companies
operating in China.
2010: US firm CyberSitter accuses the Chinese government of stealing its anti-pornography software and using it in Green Dam, a government-led programme for installing censoring filter in all personal computers in China.
2009: Retailer Sears is accused of spying on online customers, but settles the case with the US Federal Trade Commission.
2009: Starwood, a US hospitality company, accuses competitor Hilton of stealing corporate information including brand concepts when Hilton hires 10 executives from Starwood.
2009: Personal details of thousands of customers of T-Mobile in the UK are stolen and sold to a rival.
2009: Shanghai police arrest three Rio Tinto employees in China for allegedly obtaining state secrets that included data on China’s steel industry.
2007: Wal-Mart apologises to the New York Times after being accused of recording the conversations between a Times journalist and Wal-Mart employees. The company fires the technician who taped the conversation.
The fired employee goes public telling the Wall Street Journal that the company used large surveillance system to spy on critics, board directors, stockholders and even on consulting firm McKinsey.
2007: McLaren-Mercedes Formula One team is disqualified from the F1 constructors’ championship and fined $100m for possessing secret technical information about the rival Ferrari team’s cars.
2006: US customs officers detain a former Chinese employee of Motorola at the airport before she boards a plane to Beijing and discover more than 1,000 confidential documents allegedly stolen from Motorola. The employee is
also a co-defendant with China’s telecom equipment giant Huawei in a separate civil lawsuit brought by Motorola.
2001: Procter & Gamble voluntarily admit that its agents had engaged in espionage against Unilever to gather information on Unilever’s hair-care business in the US.
In a settlement, P&G return stolen documents, reportedly pay $10m to Unilever in compensation, and promise not to use the gathered information to its advantage.
1993: General Motors’ German division Opel accuses Volkswagen of espionage when eight executives leave to join Volkswagen. Volkswagen eventually agrees to pay $100m to GM in settlement and buy car parts worth $1bn from the company over seven years.
1991: Air France is accused of helping the French secret service gather corporate secrets by installing microphones in planes’ seats.
1950s: Operation Brunnhilde was an industrial espionage operation allegedly directed by the former East Germany’s ministry for state security. Suspected spoils include information about supersonic jet Concorde’s electronics system
You can get the briefing if you subscribe. Quote "blog" for £100 discount on full-price subscriptions.
Here's an excerpt from it, a time line of some of significant spying moments and cases:
2011: French carmaker Renault suspends three senior executive for allegedly leaking trade secrets related to the company’s electric car project in partnership with Nissan. The case was subsequently dropped.
2010: Greenpeace files a lawsuit in the US accusing Dow Chemical, Sasol and others of spying and stealing information.
2010: Google says its China operations were hacked to steal intellectual property and email information of human rights activists. The hacking operation is suspected to have targeted at least 20 other multinational companies
operating in China.
2010: US firm CyberSitter accuses the Chinese government of stealing its anti-pornography software and using it in Green Dam, a government-led programme for installing censoring filter in all personal computers in China.
2009: Retailer Sears is accused of spying on online customers, but settles the case with the US Federal Trade Commission.
2009: Starwood, a US hospitality company, accuses competitor Hilton of stealing corporate information including brand concepts when Hilton hires 10 executives from Starwood.
2009: Personal details of thousands of customers of T-Mobile in the UK are stolen and sold to a rival.
2009: Shanghai police arrest three Rio Tinto employees in China for allegedly obtaining state secrets that included data on China’s steel industry.
2007: Wal-Mart apologises to the New York Times after being accused of recording the conversations between a Times journalist and Wal-Mart employees. The company fires the technician who taped the conversation.
The fired employee goes public telling the Wall Street Journal that the company used large surveillance system to spy on critics, board directors, stockholders and even on consulting firm McKinsey.
2007: McLaren-Mercedes Formula One team is disqualified from the F1 constructors’ championship and fined $100m for possessing secret technical information about the rival Ferrari team’s cars.
2006: US customs officers detain a former Chinese employee of Motorola at the airport before she boards a plane to Beijing and discover more than 1,000 confidential documents allegedly stolen from Motorola. The employee is
also a co-defendant with China’s telecom equipment giant Huawei in a separate civil lawsuit brought by Motorola.
2001: Procter & Gamble voluntarily admit that its agents had engaged in espionage against Unilever to gather information on Unilever’s hair-care business in the US.
In a settlement, P&G return stolen documents, reportedly pay $10m to Unilever in compensation, and promise not to use the gathered information to its advantage.
1993: General Motors’ German division Opel accuses Volkswagen of espionage when eight executives leave to join Volkswagen. Volkswagen eventually agrees to pay $100m to GM in settlement and buy car parts worth $1bn from the company over seven years.
1991: Air France is accused of helping the French secret service gather corporate secrets by installing microphones in planes’ seats.
1950s: Operation Brunnhilde was an industrial espionage operation allegedly directed by the former East Germany’s ministry for state security. Suspected spoils include information about supersonic jet Concorde’s electronics system
You can get the briefing if you subscribe. Quote "blog" for £100 discount on full-price subscriptions.
Business and human rights, some practical advice
According to the excellent business-humanrights.org website, yesterday:
"The United Nations released a much-anticipated set of Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights…The Guiding Principles seek to provide for the first time an authoritative global standard for preventing and addressing the risk of adverse human rights impacts linked to business activity."
In light of that rather significant moment, Anthony Ewing, who teaches business and human rights at Columbia Law School in the US, has a two part piece on the subject on our website:
UN Human Rights Framework: What executives need to know and do about human rights, part I
UN Human Rights Framework: What executives need to know and do about human rights, part II
"The United Nations released a much-anticipated set of Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights…The Guiding Principles seek to provide for the first time an authoritative global standard for preventing and addressing the risk of adverse human rights impacts linked to business activity."
In light of that rather significant moment, Anthony Ewing, who teaches business and human rights at Columbia Law School in the US, has a two part piece on the subject on our website:
UN Human Rights Framework: What executives need to know and do about human rights, part I
UN Human Rights Framework: What executives need to know and do about human rights, part II
Dodgy practices from Sky
As a Sky customer, usually I can't fault their customer services. At least not in the last year or so. But one thing they just did has annoyed me, so I'm going to blog it.
I just had a call on my mobile from someone calling "on behalf of Sky" who didn't give their name or their company name. Not a great start to a call.
(It's how most PR company people are when they call you, at least the junior ones who are not trained how to use the phone properly)
My one year warranty on my Sky HD box has now expired, the lady (I say lady in the most generous sense of the word) calling told me.
"And?" I inquired politely. "Well", she said, "what will you do if it breaks now? You'll have to pay call out charges and for repairs".
"But", she said, "If you buy our protection insurance, we'll make sure you don't need to pay for repairs or call-out charges". How generous.
I asked if she was aware that these kinds of protection insurance plans had been discredited in recent years.
I asked if she or her company knew that there had been a huge rise in complaints across the country at dodgy practices by insurance and electronics firms, amongst others.
She said she was not aware. I found this rather odd.
I asked why my Sky HD box was likely to break, suddenly, after a year with no problems? "Well" she said, "it could break at any time, and you'll have to pay".
This sounded like a promise, a prediction if you like. Almost a threat.
I disagreed, saying that given I had had no problem with it in the past year, it was unlikely to suddenly implode. Modern electronic kit doesn't often do that, I said.
We then had a rather curious short conversation where the saleslady tried to persuade me that a perfectly functioning piece of equipment (my Sky HD box) was likely to break at any moment, and that I should pay her to make sure I did not become liable.
As you might guess, I disagreed, and she become rude, surly and then simply hung up on me without saying goodbye.
So now in the space of five minutes I have gone from a relatively satisfied Sky customer into one who feels like he has just been mildly threatened.
Not only that, but also treated with rudeness, by a company who Sky have sold their customer database to so that they can sell an unnecessary, and ethically very dodgy, product to.
How many vulnerable (elderly, for example) customers are being sold to and treated this way? Thousands potentially.
When I was a student I observed at first hand BT's (at the time) similarly dodgy practices.
I don't think BT still does them (it was 13 years ago) but I am surprised, and slightly disappointed with Sky, that they would now allow the same to happen in their name.
I just had a call on my mobile from someone calling "on behalf of Sky" who didn't give their name or their company name. Not a great start to a call.
(It's how most PR company people are when they call you, at least the junior ones who are not trained how to use the phone properly)
My one year warranty on my Sky HD box has now expired, the lady (I say lady in the most generous sense of the word) calling told me.
"And?" I inquired politely. "Well", she said, "what will you do if it breaks now? You'll have to pay call out charges and for repairs".
"But", she said, "If you buy our protection insurance, we'll make sure you don't need to pay for repairs or call-out charges". How generous.
I asked if she was aware that these kinds of protection insurance plans had been discredited in recent years.
I asked if she or her company knew that there had been a huge rise in complaints across the country at dodgy practices by insurance and electronics firms, amongst others.
She said she was not aware. I found this rather odd.
I asked why my Sky HD box was likely to break, suddenly, after a year with no problems? "Well" she said, "it could break at any time, and you'll have to pay".
This sounded like a promise, a prediction if you like. Almost a threat.
I disagreed, saying that given I had had no problem with it in the past year, it was unlikely to suddenly implode. Modern electronic kit doesn't often do that, I said.
We then had a rather curious short conversation where the saleslady tried to persuade me that a perfectly functioning piece of equipment (my Sky HD box) was likely to break at any moment, and that I should pay her to make sure I did not become liable.
As you might guess, I disagreed, and she become rude, surly and then simply hung up on me without saying goodbye.
So now in the space of five minutes I have gone from a relatively satisfied Sky customer into one who feels like he has just been mildly threatened.
Not only that, but also treated with rudeness, by a company who Sky have sold their customer database to so that they can sell an unnecessary, and ethically very dodgy, product to.
How many vulnerable (elderly, for example) customers are being sold to and treated this way? Thousands potentially.
When I was a student I observed at first hand BT's (at the time) similarly dodgy practices.
I don't think BT still does them (it was 13 years ago) but I am surprised, and slightly disappointed with Sky, that they would now allow the same to happen in their name.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Free renewable energy industry analysis websites
For a couple of years now I have been working with the parent company of Ethical Corporation on publishing strategy across our different businesses.
As a result we now have a variety of half-decent online publications with weekly newsletters.
Each has a weekly newsletter. If you'd like to keep up to date with developments in Wind, Solar, Tidal, SmartGrids, Electric Vehicles and so on, take a look at the links below.
Smart Grid Update - Yes it's about the smart electricity grid
Electric Vehicle Update - All about how EV's and infrastructure is being developed
Wind Energy Update - On offshore, onshore wind and operations and maintenance
Concentrated Solar Power Today (Think mirror farms, think "parabolic troughs", if you want)
Tidal Today (Tidal and Marine power)
Thin Film Photovoltaics (solar cell stuff)
Concentrated Photovoltaics (er, don't ask me much about this, but the site is good)
As a result we now have a variety of half-decent online publications with weekly newsletters.
Each has a weekly newsletter. If you'd like to keep up to date with developments in Wind, Solar, Tidal, SmartGrids, Electric Vehicles and so on, take a look at the links below.
Smart Grid Update - Yes it's about the smart electricity grid
Electric Vehicle Update - All about how EV's and infrastructure is being developed
Wind Energy Update - On offshore, onshore wind and operations and maintenance
Concentrated Solar Power Today (Think mirror farms, think "parabolic troughs", if you want)
Tidal Today (Tidal and Marine power)
Thin Film Photovoltaics (solar cell stuff)
Concentrated Photovoltaics (er, don't ask me much about this, but the site is good)
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Corporate ESG reporting requirements summarised
Here's a handy and concise summary of national/regional corporate social responsibility reporting requirements all around the world.
A useful at-a-glance guide to regulation with a bit of analysis. I hope the authors at Jones Lang LaSalle will keep it updated. It's not everything that's out there, but quite a bit of it is neatly summarised.
(who said all blog post have to be long, or feature a list of ten things?...)
Here's a link to the briefing we did on the topic late last year.
A useful at-a-glance guide to regulation with a bit of analysis. I hope the authors at Jones Lang LaSalle will keep it updated. It's not everything that's out there, but quite a bit of it is neatly summarised.
(who said all blog post have to be long, or feature a list of ten things?...)
Here's a link to the briefing we did on the topic late last year.
Corporate responsibility: Ten pros and cons of hiring from the public sector and academia
I don't know about you, readers, but here at Ethical Corporation and in our parent company FC Business Intelligence (which I spend about half my time working in), we are getting a lot of C.V.'s from folks in the public sector and academia, looking for jobs.
That's no surprise, of course, given all the public sector and university funding cuts.
(For international readers, in case the terminology is different elsewhere, when I say public sector I mean employed by government)
We're advertising for research analysts, managers, conference organisers, marketers and so on.
At first I was really sceptical, I must admit. "What do public sector/academic folks know about business?" was the first thought that went through my head.
The C.V.'s you get are also often incredibly complex, written in UK government bureaucracy-speak or academic code-language.
(I imagine this is the modern public sector's version of corporate management speak gobbledygook. Not worse than corporate-speak, just awful in a different way)
So the first few C.V.'s I got were filed for 'later'.
But having now interviewed a couple of people with considerable public sector / academic experience, it occurs to me that the responsible business world can learn a few good lessons from folks with government-related experience, if they can adapt to the business world.
It's worth noting, for example, that one of the few financial journalists to spot the credit crunch was Gillian Tett of the Financial Times, (now assistant editor!). Tett has a PHD in anthropology. That must have helped, and she has noted that it may have done so.
Here are some pros and cons of hiring public sector/academic folks for responsible business roles:
Pros of hiring from the public sector / academia:
1) They are used to dealing with complexity on issues beyond simply selling more widgets or following a set business process or standard. (many of which don't work so well when it comes to tricky corporate responsibility issues)
2) They often have great experience negotiating with myriad stakeholders. If you can handle the demands of civil servants, parents, children/difficult clients at the same time, for example, that's got to be useful experience applicable to CSR.
3) They are used to working hard for little money. As we know responsible business is not the best paid area in companies. Thankfully that is changing slowly, but most of us don't do it for the money, it's the intellectual work out and satisfaction that counts for more.
4) They know how to take a long view. Kind of essential for a corporate social responsibility professional making incremental progress, or aiming at 2015 targets.
5) They have had to innovate (some of them) with limited resources. Useful considering most sustainable business teams are very small, and will probably stay that way (and should do).
Cons of hiring from the public sector / academia:
1) Some have an inherent anti-business bias. This may be from reading the Guardian too much, or from left wing academic teaching, or just because of a sometimes-prevalent attitude in government departments, particularly in Europe.
2) Inflexibility can be a problem. Some are used to more rigid systems than business can bear, and may struggle to adapt fast, to changing circumstances much more common in business.
3) Speed of action: Some are used to targets that are perhaps too long term even for a sustainable business role.
4) Acceptance of risk. In the UK a culture of risk-aversion has become prevalent, particularly in the public sector. This may not help in faster-moving business areas.
5) Accepting trade-offs. When complex outcomes mean some stakeholders don't get what they want, will limited progress cut the mustard for those used to expecting more equitable outcomes?
(In the vague interests of disclosure, I come from a family of half public sector / academic backgrounds and half business/heavy engineering, which is probably how I ended up working in the area of responsible business. I'n not that clear how relevant that is, but I'm throwing it into the mix anyhow, because I can)
There are no hard and fast rules on hiring for CR job roles from the public sector and academia, of course.
Some people will be excellent, others will be hopeless, it depends entirely on the individual.
It does strike me that more and more socially-aware experts in complex stakeholder engagement, social outcomes measurement, impact assessments etc, will be needed in the responsible business world.
Companies are starting to realise that social impact measurement by those with the requisite skills (not just environmental consultants with an engineering background!) will be key to getting expansion into emerging markets right.
If the academic and public sector experts can write C.V.'s that can be read by a business person, there could be significant opportunity for business in the current climate.
An opportunity to look wider than the usual niche consultancy or internal person for help on a socially-sensitive project or two.
When it comes to difficult stakeholder engagement, measurement of social impacts and appropriate target setting, there are lots of companies out there that will be needing help in the coming years of further globalisation.
Even in our office-based jobs at Ethical Corporation / FC Business Intelligence, involving complex project management (relatively) I am realising that someone who has juggled the projects some of those I have recently interviewed have managed, can easily turn their hand to our work.
In some ways (not all) our business is much simpler: We research product, make it, ship it, and make a margin.
That's a much clearer outcome than in non-profit areas.
So here's to hiring in a more diverse way in the coming few years.
I'm looking forward to it.
(For more on diversity and corporate responsibility, see:
Essay: ageing society - Grey skies thinking
David Grayson says that companies can benefit from recognising that society is ageing)
That's no surprise, of course, given all the public sector and university funding cuts.
(For international readers, in case the terminology is different elsewhere, when I say public sector I mean employed by government)
We're advertising for research analysts, managers, conference organisers, marketers and so on.
At first I was really sceptical, I must admit. "What do public sector/academic folks know about business?" was the first thought that went through my head.
The C.V.'s you get are also often incredibly complex, written in UK government bureaucracy-speak or academic code-language.
(I imagine this is the modern public sector's version of corporate management speak gobbledygook. Not worse than corporate-speak, just awful in a different way)
So the first few C.V.'s I got were filed for 'later'.
But having now interviewed a couple of people with considerable public sector / academic experience, it occurs to me that the responsible business world can learn a few good lessons from folks with government-related experience, if they can adapt to the business world.
It's worth noting, for example, that one of the few financial journalists to spot the credit crunch was Gillian Tett of the Financial Times, (now assistant editor!). Tett has a PHD in anthropology. That must have helped, and she has noted that it may have done so.
Here are some pros and cons of hiring public sector/academic folks for responsible business roles:
Pros of hiring from the public sector / academia:
1) They are used to dealing with complexity on issues beyond simply selling more widgets or following a set business process or standard. (many of which don't work so well when it comes to tricky corporate responsibility issues)
2) They often have great experience negotiating with myriad stakeholders. If you can handle the demands of civil servants, parents, children/difficult clients at the same time, for example, that's got to be useful experience applicable to CSR.
3) They are used to working hard for little money. As we know responsible business is not the best paid area in companies. Thankfully that is changing slowly, but most of us don't do it for the money, it's the intellectual work out and satisfaction that counts for more.
4) They know how to take a long view. Kind of essential for a corporate social responsibility professional making incremental progress, or aiming at 2015 targets.
5) They have had to innovate (some of them) with limited resources. Useful considering most sustainable business teams are very small, and will probably stay that way (and should do).
Cons of hiring from the public sector / academia:
1) Some have an inherent anti-business bias. This may be from reading the Guardian too much, or from left wing academic teaching, or just because of a sometimes-prevalent attitude in government departments, particularly in Europe.
2) Inflexibility can be a problem. Some are used to more rigid systems than business can bear, and may struggle to adapt fast, to changing circumstances much more common in business.
3) Speed of action: Some are used to targets that are perhaps too long term even for a sustainable business role.
4) Acceptance of risk. In the UK a culture of risk-aversion has become prevalent, particularly in the public sector. This may not help in faster-moving business areas.
5) Accepting trade-offs. When complex outcomes mean some stakeholders don't get what they want, will limited progress cut the mustard for those used to expecting more equitable outcomes?
(In the vague interests of disclosure, I come from a family of half public sector / academic backgrounds and half business/heavy engineering, which is probably how I ended up working in the area of responsible business. I'n not that clear how relevant that is, but I'm throwing it into the mix anyhow, because I can)
There are no hard and fast rules on hiring for CR job roles from the public sector and academia, of course.
Some people will be excellent, others will be hopeless, it depends entirely on the individual.
It does strike me that more and more socially-aware experts in complex stakeholder engagement, social outcomes measurement, impact assessments etc, will be needed in the responsible business world.
Companies are starting to realise that social impact measurement by those with the requisite skills (not just environmental consultants with an engineering background!) will be key to getting expansion into emerging markets right.
If the academic and public sector experts can write C.V.'s that can be read by a business person, there could be significant opportunity for business in the current climate.
An opportunity to look wider than the usual niche consultancy or internal person for help on a socially-sensitive project or two.
When it comes to difficult stakeholder engagement, measurement of social impacts and appropriate target setting, there are lots of companies out there that will be needing help in the coming years of further globalisation.
Even in our office-based jobs at Ethical Corporation / FC Business Intelligence, involving complex project management (relatively) I am realising that someone who has juggled the projects some of those I have recently interviewed have managed, can easily turn their hand to our work.
In some ways (not all) our business is much simpler: We research product, make it, ship it, and make a margin.
That's a much clearer outcome than in non-profit areas.
So here's to hiring in a more diverse way in the coming few years.
I'm looking forward to it.
(For more on diversity and corporate responsibility, see:
Essay: ageing society - Grey skies thinking
David Grayson says that companies can benefit from recognising that society is ageing)
Monday, March 21, 2011
McKinsey on long-term capitalism
Traditionally I've been in two minds about McKinsey. On the one hand I've admired their global reach and ability to influence chief executives and politicians.
Like all the management consultancies, they jumped on sustainability and responsible business five or so years ago as a new long term trend they could "monetise", as they might put it.
(Thankfully no management consultant I have come across has yet said there is a "burning platform of opportunity for CR". That was a term I used to hear them say all the time in the dot.com boom. It was usually uttered by a perma-tanned silver-haired partner often named after a second division Scottish football team, a 'Hamilton Academical' or 'Partick Thistle II", working for a big management consultancy in the US and who lived on permanent conference calls. For ages I mis-understood and thought a "burning platform" meant someone had accidentally set their treehouse on fire. But I digress)
On the other hand, I have found the management consultancy industry's volte-face away from shareholder value to 'stakeholder considerations' a little abrupt and nakedly commercial. And I cannot forget Malcom Gladwell's point about McKinsey creating Enron's management ethos (and more).
The recent accusations being bandied about in high-profile US court cases also leave something of a sour taste in the mouth.
About four years ago, we published an excellent and thoughtful essay on McKinsey's culture and history at this link. (free to my blog readers)
I would imagine the court case currently in the news involving a former McKinsey partner is a one-off, rather than a systemic problem. McKinsey had better hope so, or they could go the way, spectacularly, of Arthur Andersen not a decade ago.
Given McKinsey's power to influence powerful individuals, the 2005 essay "The biggest contract" by then-MD Ian Davis (in response to the Economist's broadside against CSR) was a smart move and a watershed moment of sorts for responsible business.
It didn't tell anyone working in the field anything new, but it represented a serious shift towards sustainability in the upper echelons of management consulting.
Now that thinking has been updated and expanded to summarise the challenges of long term capitalism and sustainable economic thinking in a new Harvard Business Review essay. It's by the current McKinsey boss, Dominic Barton, and it's well worth a read.
I have 'embedded' it below in the blog, and those reading via email can click on a link below to get it. You should all print it out and read it.
That's not because it points out anything new, but what it does superbly is summarise the challenges, and sensible potential solutions for governments and business.
This kind of clear, easy to read in the back of a limo/front of a plane summary is vitally important. As we know, people in power have to read selectively and concisely. So articles like this, in publications with a wide reach, such as HBR, can really make a difference.
Decide for yourself, but I think it's an excellent piece. Click here or read below for some solid insight.
Like all the management consultancies, they jumped on sustainability and responsible business five or so years ago as a new long term trend they could "monetise", as they might put it.
(Thankfully no management consultant I have come across has yet said there is a "burning platform of opportunity for CR". That was a term I used to hear them say all the time in the dot.com boom. It was usually uttered by a perma-tanned silver-haired partner often named after a second division Scottish football team, a 'Hamilton Academical' or 'Partick Thistle II", working for a big management consultancy in the US and who lived on permanent conference calls. For ages I mis-understood and thought a "burning platform" meant someone had accidentally set their treehouse on fire. But I digress)
On the other hand, I have found the management consultancy industry's volte-face away from shareholder value to 'stakeholder considerations' a little abrupt and nakedly commercial. And I cannot forget Malcom Gladwell's point about McKinsey creating Enron's management ethos (and more).
The recent accusations being bandied about in high-profile US court cases also leave something of a sour taste in the mouth.
About four years ago, we published an excellent and thoughtful essay on McKinsey's culture and history at this link. (free to my blog readers)
I would imagine the court case currently in the news involving a former McKinsey partner is a one-off, rather than a systemic problem. McKinsey had better hope so, or they could go the way, spectacularly, of Arthur Andersen not a decade ago.
Given McKinsey's power to influence powerful individuals, the 2005 essay "The biggest contract" by then-MD Ian Davis (in response to the Economist's broadside against CSR) was a smart move and a watershed moment of sorts for responsible business.
It didn't tell anyone working in the field anything new, but it represented a serious shift towards sustainability in the upper echelons of management consulting.
Now that thinking has been updated and expanded to summarise the challenges of long term capitalism and sustainable economic thinking in a new Harvard Business Review essay. It's by the current McKinsey boss, Dominic Barton, and it's well worth a read.
I have 'embedded' it below in the blog, and those reading via email can click on a link below to get it. You should all print it out and read it.
That's not because it points out anything new, but what it does superbly is summarise the challenges, and sensible potential solutions for governments and business.
This kind of clear, easy to read in the back of a limo/front of a plane summary is vitally important. As we know, people in power have to read selectively and concisely. So articles like this, in publications with a wide reach, such as HBR, can really make a difference.
Decide for yourself, but I think it's an excellent piece. Click here or read below for some solid insight.
Revenue transparency rules to be expanded to forestry, maybe
The FT has an interesting interview this morning with Michel Barnier, the EU internal market commissioner.
The article notes: "Europe is set to impose mandatory transparency measures for mining and forestry companies, requiring them to detail their financial relationships with foreign governments"
Barnier has told the FT that: "...the new transparency obligations – which would cover money flows, such as tax payments and royalties to foreign governments – were likely to extend beyond “extractive” industries such as mining and energy, and cover other “primary materials” businesses, such as forestry."
He is quick to add that the cost of doing this and the effectiveness of any measures will be taken into account.
At the core of debate seems to be a discussion about whether an EITI (Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative) model could be used, or whether regulation is best.
My sources in Brussels tell me the European Commission remains very keen to push companies on all kinds of responsible business related disclosure in the coming years. Increased corporate disclosure is on the way via some kind of regulation, they tell me. What that looks like and how it will work is another matter.
This is not surprising. We've seen pushes on all sorts of disclosure in recent years, from Danish CSR reporting requirements, Swedish state-owned firms having to use GRI, and increased calls (and some action) around mandatory carbon reporting. Water, too, is coming up this agenda, alongside older issues around the extractive industries.
Here's some further reading:
Conflict minerals: time to dig deeper
Lumber regulations: Cutting out illegal timber
France Briefing Part 4: Government and legislation - From the top
The article notes: "Europe is set to impose mandatory transparency measures for mining and forestry companies, requiring them to detail their financial relationships with foreign governments"
Barnier has told the FT that: "...the new transparency obligations – which would cover money flows, such as tax payments and royalties to foreign governments – were likely to extend beyond “extractive” industries such as mining and energy, and cover other “primary materials” businesses, such as forestry."
He is quick to add that the cost of doing this and the effectiveness of any measures will be taken into account.
At the core of debate seems to be a discussion about whether an EITI (Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative) model could be used, or whether regulation is best.
My sources in Brussels tell me the European Commission remains very keen to push companies on all kinds of responsible business related disclosure in the coming years. Increased corporate disclosure is on the way via some kind of regulation, they tell me. What that looks like and how it will work is another matter.
This is not surprising. We've seen pushes on all sorts of disclosure in recent years, from Danish CSR reporting requirements, Swedish state-owned firms having to use GRI, and increased calls (and some action) around mandatory carbon reporting. Water, too, is coming up this agenda, alongside older issues around the extractive industries.
Here's some further reading:
Conflict minerals: time to dig deeper
Lumber regulations: Cutting out illegal timber
France Briefing Part 4: Government and legislation - From the top
Monday, March 14, 2011
Shortlist for the Ethical Corporation 2011 awards announced
Here's the list of the companies and others shortlisted for the 2011 Ethical Corporation awards.
We had over 150 entries in 2011. After several exhausting days with our editorial team and panel of judges, the shortlist for the awards is now below.
The awards gala dinner will be held on May 3 2011 in London. I hope you can come join us on the night. Companies can buy tables, and individuals can come along at a very reasonable rate.
For more on the awards, go here. Here's a link to the press release.
Category: High Performance
PepsiCo
Yeo Valley
Unilever
Alcoa
U.S. Postal Service
National Australia Bank
Levi Strauss & Co.
Category: Innovative Reporting
International Post Corporation
L'Oreal
Man Group
National Australia Bank
Petrobras - Petróleo Brasileiro
Category: Authentic Communications
Coop
Anheuser-Busch InBev
Interface FLOR
National Australia Bank
O2
Yeo Valley
The Body Shop and L'Oreal
Category: Individual Leader
Abdulkareem Abu Alnasr - National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia
Bart Becht - Reckitt Benckiser plc
Fábio Barbosa - Banco Santander (Brasil) SA
Category: Sustainability Commercialised
ArcelorMittal
Unilever
Telecom Development Company Afghanistan
Santander
Origin Energy
ENDESA
Helveta
Kingfisher
Kraft Foods Inc
Marks & Spencer Plc
Timberland
ISA TanTec
Category: Best Private Company
Amsterdam RAI
Firmenich
InterfaceFLOR
Kohler
National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia
Category: Effective Campaigner
38 Degrees (nominated by others)
Rainforest Action Network
Category: Best Collaboration
Arval & Energy Saving Trust
Caribou Coffee & Rainforest Alliance
Cemex & RSPB
Coca-Cola Hellenic & Green Danube Partnership
Earthwatch & HSBC
Kingfisher & BioRegional
Kuoni Travel Holding & Fair Trade Tourism South Africa
Marks & Spencer & Oxfam
Marshalls & Hadoti
National Australia Bank & ACER
Nestlé & The Forest Trust
O2 & Forum for the Future
Telenor Serbia & UNICEF
Find out how to come along and join us here.
We had over 150 entries in 2011. After several exhausting days with our editorial team and panel of judges, the shortlist for the awards is now below.
The awards gala dinner will be held on May 3 2011 in London. I hope you can come join us on the night. Companies can buy tables, and individuals can come along at a very reasonable rate.
For more on the awards, go here. Here's a link to the press release.
Category: High Performance
PepsiCo
Yeo Valley
Unilever
Alcoa
U.S. Postal Service
National Australia Bank
Levi Strauss & Co.
Category: Innovative Reporting
International Post Corporation
L'Oreal
Man Group
National Australia Bank
Petrobras - Petróleo Brasileiro
Category: Authentic Communications
Coop
Anheuser-Busch InBev
Interface FLOR
National Australia Bank
O2
Yeo Valley
The Body Shop and L'Oreal
Category: Individual Leader
Abdulkareem Abu Alnasr - National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia
Bart Becht - Reckitt Benckiser plc
Fábio Barbosa - Banco Santander (Brasil) SA
Category: Sustainability Commercialised
ArcelorMittal
Unilever
Telecom Development Company Afghanistan
Santander
Origin Energy
ENDESA
Helveta
Kingfisher
Kraft Foods Inc
Marks & Spencer Plc
Timberland
ISA TanTec
Category: Best Private Company
Amsterdam RAI
Firmenich
InterfaceFLOR
Kohler
National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia
Category: Effective Campaigner
38 Degrees (nominated by others)
Rainforest Action Network
Category: Best Collaboration
Arval & Energy Saving Trust
Caribou Coffee & Rainforest Alliance
Cemex & RSPB
Coca-Cola Hellenic & Green Danube Partnership
Earthwatch & HSBC
Kingfisher & BioRegional
Kuoni Travel Holding & Fair Trade Tourism South Africa
Marks & Spencer & Oxfam
Marshalls & Hadoti
National Australia Bank & ACER
Nestlé & The Forest Trust
O2 & Forum for the Future
Telenor Serbia & UNICEF
Find out how to come along and join us here.
WWF responds to my blog post on NGOs losing the plot
After my recent posting: "Have campaigning NGOs lost the plot?" I promised Dax Lovegrove at WWF that I would give his response some airtime.
I don't usually publish complete responses on the blog, given that I encourage comments and that debate in that format is the traditional use of blogs.
But after some thought I figured I owe WWF some airtime in response.
So here's Dax's response in full. I don't apologise for what I wrote. My belief is firmly that large NGOs are far too fat and happy, suffering from the same malaise that can fall upon big companies in just the same way.
On my original criticism of WWF, I should point out that this is not just my view. I wrote the post because so many people, senior executives, NGOs, academics and so on, have made the point to me about large NGOs getting too comfortable and friendly. I linked in the previous post to recent blogs and books on this.
This is real concern, not just me sounding off on a whim. Here's what WWF said in response to my post.
I'd be interested to hear if readers think this response cuts the mustard. I don't believe it does.
"Dear Toby,
To suggest we need to up our game on activism and campaigning shows little understanding of what WWF has been doing for the last 50 years and little grasp of the challenges ahead. While many other NGOs do a good job on the activism front, and we challenge various unacceptable activities - for example oil and gas operations in places such as the Arctic, Sakhalin, Alberta and the Virunga National Park, our main focus is on working with business to arrive at sustainable solutions.
Moving our economic system to being aligned with protecting the environment instead of degrading it requires a whole range of improvements to the way business is done and above all, we need new thinking. This is where WWF comes in. Our collaborative efforts through the Finance Lab, Tasting the Future, Green Game Changers and various partnerships, and, our reports such as the Livewell Plate and our global energy report are all about pushing business further and faster along the path towards sustainability.
So, yes, come to our World with a Future event, where we dare to go where most mundane CSR conferences won't. We will be asking the tough questions - Can the world economy keep growing? Is green growth really the answer? Do we need to think about radically new ways of doing business?
Dax Lovegrove,
Head of Business & Industry,
WWF-UK."
I don't usually publish complete responses on the blog, given that I encourage comments and that debate in that format is the traditional use of blogs.
But after some thought I figured I owe WWF some airtime in response.
So here's Dax's response in full. I don't apologise for what I wrote. My belief is firmly that large NGOs are far too fat and happy, suffering from the same malaise that can fall upon big companies in just the same way.
On my original criticism of WWF, I should point out that this is not just my view. I wrote the post because so many people, senior executives, NGOs, academics and so on, have made the point to me about large NGOs getting too comfortable and friendly. I linked in the previous post to recent blogs and books on this.
This is real concern, not just me sounding off on a whim. Here's what WWF said in response to my post.
I'd be interested to hear if readers think this response cuts the mustard. I don't believe it does.
"Dear Toby,
To suggest we need to up our game on activism and campaigning shows little understanding of what WWF has been doing for the last 50 years and little grasp of the challenges ahead. While many other NGOs do a good job on the activism front, and we challenge various unacceptable activities - for example oil and gas operations in places such as the Arctic, Sakhalin, Alberta and the Virunga National Park, our main focus is on working with business to arrive at sustainable solutions.
Moving our economic system to being aligned with protecting the environment instead of degrading it requires a whole range of improvements to the way business is done and above all, we need new thinking. This is where WWF comes in. Our collaborative efforts through the Finance Lab, Tasting the Future, Green Game Changers and various partnerships, and, our reports such as the Livewell Plate and our global energy report are all about pushing business further and faster along the path towards sustainability.
So, yes, come to our World with a Future event, where we dare to go where most mundane CSR conferences won't. We will be asking the tough questions - Can the world economy keep growing? Is green growth really the answer? Do we need to think about radically new ways of doing business?
Dax Lovegrove,
Head of Business & Industry,
WWF-UK."
Codes and standards: Beware the impending chaos of ISO 26,000
ISO 26,000 has had a lot of airtime in Ethical Corporation in the last few years.
Here's a recent article, free to all.
In a follow-up recent letter to Ethical Corporation, Adam Greene of the US Council for International Business pointed out a few fact which some readers may not have been aware of:
"....the decision was taken in the working group that ISO 26000 would not be certifiable.
However, it turns out that ISO’s national standards bodies are not bound by that decision, something that came as quite a surprise to many of us in the process.
Under the ISO rules, its national standards bodies are free to develop national variations of ISO 26000 for the sole purpose of offering certification – and many are. The latest example is the Danish standard DS 26001, where the title is obviously designed to link the product with ISO 26000."
This, he argues, will lead to mass confusion on the basis that:
"...they create very real confusion in the marketplace by offering certification to 26000-like standards that the uninformed will clearly confuse with ISO 26000" and that:
"...rather than creating international standards in order to avoid many different national standards, ISO 26000 is being used by national standards bodies to create many different national standards so that they can sell certifications!"
Hence the title of this blog. If Adam is right, this is extremely worrying.
More GRI-like badges for "good behaviour" loom in the global market for good corporate school reports.
How this helps actual businesses become more sustainably responsible to wider stakeholders, including the environment, is less clear.
For more many companies, when it comes to corporate responsibility, policy still matters more than challenging positive outcomes. The worry is that the ISO situation above may encourage much more of the former than the latter.
Discuss...
For more on the exciting world of codes and standards, go here.
Meet people who deal with them every day, here. And if you are in the US, here.
Here's a recent article, free to all.
In a follow-up recent letter to Ethical Corporation, Adam Greene of the US Council for International Business pointed out a few fact which some readers may not have been aware of:
"....the decision was taken in the working group that ISO 26000 would not be certifiable.
However, it turns out that ISO’s national standards bodies are not bound by that decision, something that came as quite a surprise to many of us in the process.
Under the ISO rules, its national standards bodies are free to develop national variations of ISO 26000 for the sole purpose of offering certification – and many are. The latest example is the Danish standard DS 26001, where the title is obviously designed to link the product with ISO 26000."
This, he argues, will lead to mass confusion on the basis that:
"...they create very real confusion in the marketplace by offering certification to 26000-like standards that the uninformed will clearly confuse with ISO 26000" and that:
"...rather than creating international standards in order to avoid many different national standards, ISO 26000 is being used by national standards bodies to create many different national standards so that they can sell certifications!"
Hence the title of this blog. If Adam is right, this is extremely worrying.
More GRI-like badges for "good behaviour" loom in the global market for good corporate school reports.
How this helps actual businesses become more sustainably responsible to wider stakeholders, including the environment, is less clear.
For more many companies, when it comes to corporate responsibility, policy still matters more than challenging positive outcomes. The worry is that the ISO situation above may encourage much more of the former than the latter.
Discuss...
For more on the exciting world of codes and standards, go here.
Meet people who deal with them every day, here. And if you are in the US, here.
Eight ways to sell corporate responsibility to your board
Here's a few tips from some of the leading CR folks around on how to get your board engaged in what sustainable business can mean for your company.
Lots of it is fairly obvious, but some of it might be useful. Here's a link to the full article: "C-suite tactics: Selling sustainability".
These tips came from companies such as SAB Miller, Marks & Spencer, BAT, KPMG and Encana.
Eight tips:
1) Persuade one of the board members to be your mentor as head of CR
2) Choose one or two areas where you can identify some quick wins
3) Get different board members agreeing to take leadership on specific issues
4) Do a lot of research on your CEO's interests and motivations, tailor approaches
5) Ensure that the business case for action is more robust than you think it needs to be
6) Produce in-house measures of how the company stacks up against key competitors. Show that performance could be better
7) Make reporting an important spur by showing the board how the different businesses are performing in a transparent way
8) Prevent 'bunker mentality', find different methods of getting your board to look outside the business
More on all this, here.
Meet people you can talk to about this, here.
Lots of it is fairly obvious, but some of it might be useful. Here's a link to the full article: "C-suite tactics: Selling sustainability".
These tips came from companies such as SAB Miller, Marks & Spencer, BAT, KPMG and Encana.
Eight tips:
1) Persuade one of the board members to be your mentor as head of CR
2) Choose one or two areas where you can identify some quick wins
3) Get different board members agreeing to take leadership on specific issues
4) Do a lot of research on your CEO's interests and motivations, tailor approaches
5) Ensure that the business case for action is more robust than you think it needs to be
6) Produce in-house measures of how the company stacks up against key competitors. Show that performance could be better
7) Make reporting an important spur by showing the board how the different businesses are performing in a transparent way
8) Prevent 'bunker mentality', find different methods of getting your board to look outside the business
More on all this, here.
Meet people you can talk to about this, here.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Oil, gas, mining, heavy industry and community consent
For oil, gas and mining companies and the banks that finance some of their projects, community consent is becoming ever more important.
You only have to look at what happened to Asia Energy in Bangladesh, Vedanta Mining in Orissa, India, or Newmont mining in Peru, not to mention Bechtel in Bolivia, for evidence.
With India looking at some kind of 'CSR tax' on some areas of heavy industry and rising nationalism there, in Brazil and all over Asia, it seems fairly obvious that engaging communities and getting their consent, over a long period, is going to be vital for 'high impact' firms in mining, heavy industry and other extractive-related companies.
Ethical Corporation published a report late last year related to the topic which a lot of oil, gas and mining firms, among others, have bought.
And our briefing on heavy industry, published a year ago, may make interesting reading for some readers. It's free for blog readers. Just click here.
There are some great stats on the benefits of good community relations in this 2008 Policy Innovations article, which also looks at the risks to companies in getting it wrong. It's well worth a read. I'd like to see more stats out there for companies to draw on, (if they can be verified) like those in this quote:
"...a recent study by the World Resources Institute found that by working to obtain community consent at a project in the Philippines, Shell may have saved as much as $72 million in project delays, which amounted to a 1,200 percent return on its community consent efforts."
For any readers interested in face-to-face discussions on these topics, particularly for oil, gas, mining and heavy industry firms, we have a couple of meetings coming up that may be useful.
One is in London, the other in Houston. Here's more info:
Social & Environmental Risk Management and Implementation (London, 5-6 April 2011)
Social & Environmental Risk Management Summit USA in the mining, oil & gas, steel and other heavy industries
(Houston, 21-22 June)
You only have to look at what happened to Asia Energy in Bangladesh, Vedanta Mining in Orissa, India, or Newmont mining in Peru, not to mention Bechtel in Bolivia, for evidence.
With India looking at some kind of 'CSR tax' on some areas of heavy industry and rising nationalism there, in Brazil and all over Asia, it seems fairly obvious that engaging communities and getting their consent, over a long period, is going to be vital for 'high impact' firms in mining, heavy industry and other extractive-related companies.
Ethical Corporation published a report late last year related to the topic which a lot of oil, gas and mining firms, among others, have bought.
And our briefing on heavy industry, published a year ago, may make interesting reading for some readers. It's free for blog readers. Just click here.
There are some great stats on the benefits of good community relations in this 2008 Policy Innovations article, which also looks at the risks to companies in getting it wrong. It's well worth a read. I'd like to see more stats out there for companies to draw on, (if they can be verified) like those in this quote:
"...a recent study by the World Resources Institute found that by working to obtain community consent at a project in the Philippines, Shell may have saved as much as $72 million in project delays, which amounted to a 1,200 percent return on its community consent efforts."
For any readers interested in face-to-face discussions on these topics, particularly for oil, gas, mining and heavy industry firms, we have a couple of meetings coming up that may be useful.
One is in London, the other in Houston. Here's more info:
Social & Environmental Risk Management and Implementation (London, 5-6 April 2011)
Social & Environmental Risk Management Summit USA in the mining, oil & gas, steel and other heavy industries
(Houston, 21-22 June)
Thursday, March 10, 2011
California, ethics and business purpose
For more than 90 years the mythical notion of shareholder primacy in US corporate purpose has dominated debate about why companies exist.
In the case of Dodge vs. Ford in 1919: "the Michigan Supreme Court held that Henry Ford owed a duty to the shareholders of the Ford Motor Company to operate his business to profit his shareholders, rather than the community as a whole or employees".
This was taken up by many, to demonstrate that the duty of corporate management is to provide profits to shareholders. This paradigm, encouraged the "Chicago school" of Economists (such as Milton Friedman) has dominated MBA and business education programmes ever since.
Yet Dodge vs. Ford has never been the final word on the topic.
Here's a well-written and compelling academic article on why teaching Dodge vs. Ford is so misleading when it comes to corporate purpose.
For example in another 'test' case, Shlensky v. Wrigley in 1968, Shlensky, "a shareholder in The Chicago National League Ball Club, brought a derivative suit against the company's directors and majority shareholder and President, Phillip K. Wrigley, charging that Wrigley did not exercise reasonable care in his failure to schedule night games, which, according to the plaintiff, resulted in the company suffering economic losses. The plaintiffs suit was dismissed".
The court ruling was that: "Courts will not step in and interfere with honest business judgment of the directors unless there is a showing of fraud, illegality or conflict of interest."
And according to Lynn Stout in the Virginia Law & Business Review: "Judges routinely refuse to impose any legal obligation on corporate directors to maximize shareholder wealth."
Despite this, the primacy of shareholder value has persisted. No doubt it has done some good in keeping managers focused and companies on the ball. But it has had serious side effects, as any reader of this blog (particularly if you have got this far in the post!), will know.
Now though, the debate about corporate purpose may get a further airing due to a proposed bill in California's State Senate.
The Corporate Flexibility Act of 2011 would mean that:
“Any company establishing in California will be permitted to negotiate to include a social and environmental mission that is given equal weight, perhaps even greater weight, than profits,”
This bill, should it pass (and it well might) will be no panacea for the problem of corporate bottom line focus.
Large companies will struggle re-enact themselves under its breadth. I'd guess that most will just ignore it. Systems long since set up cannot change fast, as we know.
But at least the bill may help defuse the myth that the purpose of a corporation, particularly a big firm, is only to make short term returns for shareholders.
The Japanese have long understood this, as have companies such as Unilever in Europe.
(See Akio Toyoda's recent comments and shake-up of how Toyota looks at growth for details)
Chinese, Indian and Brazilian firms also get this, indeed most of them always did.
Breaking the tautology of Dodge vs. Ford is still a taboo in large American companies, (Coke's European head re-enforced that in a recent London interview) but perhaps shifts like those underway in Californian corporate law, and perceptions of it, may help persuade more and more US companies that next quarter's shareholder returns are no longer what it is all about.
In the case of Dodge vs. Ford in 1919: "the Michigan Supreme Court held that Henry Ford owed a duty to the shareholders of the Ford Motor Company to operate his business to profit his shareholders, rather than the community as a whole or employees".
This was taken up by many, to demonstrate that the duty of corporate management is to provide profits to shareholders. This paradigm, encouraged the "Chicago school" of Economists (such as Milton Friedman) has dominated MBA and business education programmes ever since.
Yet Dodge vs. Ford has never been the final word on the topic.
Here's a well-written and compelling academic article on why teaching Dodge vs. Ford is so misleading when it comes to corporate purpose.
For example in another 'test' case, Shlensky v. Wrigley in 1968, Shlensky, "a shareholder in The Chicago National League Ball Club, brought a derivative suit against the company's directors and majority shareholder and President, Phillip K. Wrigley, charging that Wrigley did not exercise reasonable care in his failure to schedule night games, which, according to the plaintiff, resulted in the company suffering economic losses. The plaintiffs suit was dismissed".
The court ruling was that: "Courts will not step in and interfere with honest business judgment of the directors unless there is a showing of fraud, illegality or conflict of interest."
And according to Lynn Stout in the Virginia Law & Business Review: "Judges routinely refuse to impose any legal obligation on corporate directors to maximize shareholder wealth."
Despite this, the primacy of shareholder value has persisted. No doubt it has done some good in keeping managers focused and companies on the ball. But it has had serious side effects, as any reader of this blog (particularly if you have got this far in the post!), will know.
Now though, the debate about corporate purpose may get a further airing due to a proposed bill in California's State Senate.
The Corporate Flexibility Act of 2011 would mean that:
“Any company establishing in California will be permitted to negotiate to include a social and environmental mission that is given equal weight, perhaps even greater weight, than profits,”
This bill, should it pass (and it well might) will be no panacea for the problem of corporate bottom line focus.
Large companies will struggle re-enact themselves under its breadth. I'd guess that most will just ignore it. Systems long since set up cannot change fast, as we know.
But at least the bill may help defuse the myth that the purpose of a corporation, particularly a big firm, is only to make short term returns for shareholders.
The Japanese have long understood this, as have companies such as Unilever in Europe.
(See Akio Toyoda's recent comments and shake-up of how Toyota looks at growth for details)
Chinese, Indian and Brazilian firms also get this, indeed most of them always did.
Breaking the tautology of Dodge vs. Ford is still a taboo in large American companies, (Coke's European head re-enforced that in a recent London interview) but perhaps shifts like those underway in Californian corporate law, and perceptions of it, may help persuade more and more US companies that next quarter's shareholder returns are no longer what it is all about.
Carbon emissions: It's target time, kind of
Both the UK and EU are coming out with carbon plans and targets at the moment.
The Huffington Post reports that:
"The European Union needs to double its efforts to boost energy efficiency in order to cut greenhouse gases, partly by producing better household appliances, renovating public buildings and private homes, and driving improved cars".
The EU wants to cut emissions, as many of you will know, 80% by the year 2050.
The new EU plan, "Roadmap 2050" says cuts should be 40% by 2030 and 60% by 2040.
Now the EU Parliament must vote on it, and member states need to be persuaded to make plans for it to actually happen.
Roadmap 2050 says and investment of 270 billion Euros a year, around 1.5% of EU annual economic output, will need to be spent. This is in line, proportionally, with the revised Stern Review expectations and that of the UNEP report which came out just last month on the monies need to tackle climate change.
The EU plan is to recover all cost through lower oil and gas import costs, which look unsustainable, particularly at current pricing levels.
To put all this in context, even spending 270 billion Euros a year will mean the EU will be BEHIND China, India and Korea in green investments, according the new EU report. If this is true, it's a significant fact. I guess it depends on how you work it out.
On current form, the US will lag further and further behind. My guess is that commercial pressures will force its companies to eventually lobby harder and louder than the recalcitrant energy sector and so adapt policy by financial rationale. The question of course, is when will that happen?.
Meanwhile, the UK coalition government has come out with a "carbon plan" of its own.
Green-minded Brits will no doubt argue it's not as ambitious as it should be.
The Guardian argues that it simply shows that the Liberal Democrat led Department of Energy and Climate Change is relatively ambitious, but has not yet got the Tory-led parts of the Government on board, and is now streaking ahead of them with promises that may not be met.
Judge for yourself. One thing is certain though: Despite US environmental action stasis, the rest of the world is slowly moving ahead, step by stumbling step, towards a lower-carbon future. Whether that's quick enough to keep us within 4 degrees of climate change by 2100 is another matter.
Here's a two minute National Geographic video on what that might mean.
(Kind of related, here's a new Siemen's sponsored report on the state of green cities)
The Huffington Post reports that:
"The European Union needs to double its efforts to boost energy efficiency in order to cut greenhouse gases, partly by producing better household appliances, renovating public buildings and private homes, and driving improved cars".
The EU wants to cut emissions, as many of you will know, 80% by the year 2050.
The new EU plan, "Roadmap 2050" says cuts should be 40% by 2030 and 60% by 2040.
Now the EU Parliament must vote on it, and member states need to be persuaded to make plans for it to actually happen.
Roadmap 2050 says and investment of 270 billion Euros a year, around 1.5% of EU annual economic output, will need to be spent. This is in line, proportionally, with the revised Stern Review expectations and that of the UNEP report which came out just last month on the monies need to tackle climate change.
The EU plan is to recover all cost through lower oil and gas import costs, which look unsustainable, particularly at current pricing levels.
To put all this in context, even spending 270 billion Euros a year will mean the EU will be BEHIND China, India and Korea in green investments, according the new EU report. If this is true, it's a significant fact. I guess it depends on how you work it out.
On current form, the US will lag further and further behind. My guess is that commercial pressures will force its companies to eventually lobby harder and louder than the recalcitrant energy sector and so adapt policy by financial rationale. The question of course, is when will that happen?.
Meanwhile, the UK coalition government has come out with a "carbon plan" of its own.
Green-minded Brits will no doubt argue it's not as ambitious as it should be.
The Guardian argues that it simply shows that the Liberal Democrat led Department of Energy and Climate Change is relatively ambitious, but has not yet got the Tory-led parts of the Government on board, and is now streaking ahead of them with promises that may not be met.
Judge for yourself. One thing is certain though: Despite US environmental action stasis, the rest of the world is slowly moving ahead, step by stumbling step, towards a lower-carbon future. Whether that's quick enough to keep us within 4 degrees of climate change by 2100 is another matter.
Here's a two minute National Geographic video on what that might mean.
(Kind of related, here's a new Siemen's sponsored report on the state of green cities)
Electric vehicles: The cars of the future
I was lucky enough to wander into the Geneva motor show last Friday. Here's a few images below of the electric cars on show.
The theory seems to be that hybrids will go mainstream first, but by 2020 or so, we'll have to have switched to cars like these, full electric ones, and found a sustainable way to charge them, to combat climate change.
No doubt the cars of 2020 won't look like these. But here's a look into the near future, at least in the case of the Nissan Leaf:
The theory seems to be that hybrids will go mainstream first, but by 2020 or so, we'll have to have switched to cars like these, full electric ones, and found a sustainable way to charge them, to combat climate change.
No doubt the cars of 2020 won't look like these. But here's a look into the near future, at least in the case of the Nissan Leaf:
Skyscaper harvests energy from lightning
Now there's a headline you had to click on.
The story, from a website called Inhabitat, shows a futuristic design for capturing the power of lightening and using it to make hydrogen.
Here's the science: "When lightning strikes, the spire’s super-conductive graphene skin channels electricity into a massive array of batteries in the tower’s base. This energy is then used to split water into hydrogen gas through electrolysis."
A power source of the future? Not for baseload power, unless you happen to live in the middle of an electrical storm.
But these kinds of potential innovations provide some uplift in the midst of all the stories about coal expansion.
The story, from a website called Inhabitat, shows a futuristic design for capturing the power of lightening and using it to make hydrogen.
Here's the science: "When lightning strikes, the spire’s super-conductive graphene skin channels electricity into a massive array of batteries in the tower’s base. This energy is then used to split water into hydrogen gas through electrolysis."
A power source of the future? Not for baseload power, unless you happen to live in the middle of an electrical storm.
But these kinds of potential innovations provide some uplift in the midst of all the stories about coal expansion.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Human resource practices to avoid?
Here's one approach to bonus season. Not sure how sustainable it is:
And, motivational speeches to avoid:
And, motivational speeches to avoid:
Advice for PR firms on how to be a good consultant
This unintentionally hilarious blog post by someone senior in PR who really ought to know better might brighten up your day. It certainly did mine.
Entitled: "A musing on what it takes to be a really good public affairs consultant" it shows quite how cut off from reality the senior executives in PR firms often are.
Note that clients come in at number eight on the list.
Entitled: "A musing on what it takes to be a really good public affairs consultant" it shows quite how cut off from reality the senior executives in PR firms often are.
Note that clients come in at number eight on the list.
Big society and UK CSR: New on the management blog
Oliver Balch, on our new CR management blog, writes that:
"Governing in times of austerity is an unenviable task. To try and take the edge of unpopular but inevitable spending cuts, UK premier David Cameron came up with an idea. He called it the ‘Big Society’. So what is it exactly? Well, according to the Prime Minister, it’s more than just a mask for government scrimping. It's an invitation to promote ‘community engagement’ and ‘social action’ by community and voluntary groups."
For the rest of the blog post, go here.
"Governing in times of austerity is an unenviable task. To try and take the edge of unpopular but inevitable spending cuts, UK premier David Cameron came up with an idea. He called it the ‘Big Society’. So what is it exactly? Well, according to the Prime Minister, it’s more than just a mask for government scrimping. It's an invitation to promote ‘community engagement’ and ‘social action’ by community and voluntary groups."
For the rest of the blog post, go here.
Have campaigning NGOs lost the plot?
There's deepening concern in the environmental and sustainable business movement about NGOs.
In particular, campaign groups.
Friends of the Earth UK appears to have stopped doing any meaningful campaigning.
WWF has become a corporate partner, toning down its comments, particularly around business, to dangerously anodyne levels of expressing concern.
Greenpeace is way out in front, leading and driving change. That's not to say GP is perfect by any means, but they do seem to be making a significant difference.
WWF in particular seems to be focusing more and more on corporate cash. Rumours reach me that levels of participation in corporate press conferences and so on depend on the monies paid.
Now the former campaigner is now charging companies and NGOs to attend drinks parties, presumably to engage in collective hand-wringing with the 'usual suspects', about the environmental challenges we face.
This is not exactly cutting-edge activism and campaigning.
Given the paucity of NGO activity around vital issues (let's not forget NGOs have played a key role, if not the key role, in pushing companies to consider sustainability issues) such as forestry, fossil fuels and challenging corporate partnerships in recent years, surely WWF should be raising its game rather than hosting paid parties with the same old speakers and business partners?
Surely the donors to WWF would not approve of their money being used this way?
And when will Friends of the Earth UK actually do some campaigning?
It's time for NGOs to raise their game and to turn their attention to companies who don't get understand what sustainability means.
Campaigners helped get the thin layer of large companies who are innovating around sustainability to where they are today.
Now they seem to have forgotten that the next, much tougher stage, is persuading, cajoling and campaigning against, those firms who have yet to grasp the importance of the issues.
In particular, campaign groups.
Friends of the Earth UK appears to have stopped doing any meaningful campaigning.
WWF has become a corporate partner, toning down its comments, particularly around business, to dangerously anodyne levels of expressing concern.
Greenpeace is way out in front, leading and driving change. That's not to say GP is perfect by any means, but they do seem to be making a significant difference.
WWF in particular seems to be focusing more and more on corporate cash. Rumours reach me that levels of participation in corporate press conferences and so on depend on the monies paid.
Now the former campaigner is now charging companies and NGOs to attend drinks parties, presumably to engage in collective hand-wringing with the 'usual suspects', about the environmental challenges we face.
This is not exactly cutting-edge activism and campaigning.
Given the paucity of NGO activity around vital issues (let's not forget NGOs have played a key role, if not the key role, in pushing companies to consider sustainability issues) such as forestry, fossil fuels and challenging corporate partnerships in recent years, surely WWF should be raising its game rather than hosting paid parties with the same old speakers and business partners?
Surely the donors to WWF would not approve of their money being used this way?
And when will Friends of the Earth UK actually do some campaigning?
It's time for NGOs to raise their game and to turn their attention to companies who don't get understand what sustainability means.
Campaigners helped get the thin layer of large companies who are innovating around sustainability to where they are today.
Now they seem to have forgotten that the next, much tougher stage, is persuading, cajoling and campaigning against, those firms who have yet to grasp the importance of the issues.
Gas fracking in Europe
Here's a good piece by a journalist I know, Ben Schiller, on the spread of gas fracking in Europe.
As many of you will know, the UK, Poland and other states are increasingly keen on the idea. France is, typically, more concerned. (our new France briefing is here)
Gas executives claim fracking cannot be proven to have contaminated groundwater. And politicans are keen to reduce their foreign gas dependency from places such as the Middle East.
But environmentalists and scientists remain concerned. (For an alternative view on the US proposals to expand fracking, take a look at this article)
Aside from the chemicals used and the risk to water supplies, here's a couple of quotes from the article that lay out some of the worries:
“There are going to be thousands of drilling towers and lots of new roads and pipelines, and that could cause social problems"
"A study by Florence Gény, a research fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, finds that Europe will not see “significant” levels of shale gas production before 2020. In other words, if shale gas is to be transitional, it will be in the next decade rather than this one."
"Experts also disagree about shale gas’s role in cutting carbon emissions. Though industry officials say that burning natural gas emits just over half the CO2 per unit of energy, compared to coal, several researchers say “fugitive” methane emissions from shale gas production offset the benefits. (Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas.) Cornell professor Robert Howarth has argued that the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of shale gas are worse than coal and fuel oil when considered over a 20-year period."
"Energy companies are rushing to develop unconventional sources of oil and gas trapped in carbon-rich shales and sands throughout the western United States and Canada. So far, government officials have shown little concern for the environmental consequences of this new fossil-fuel development boom, journalist Keith Schneider writes."
"The Tyndall Centre, meanwhile, says there is a little evidence from the U.S. that shale gas has been used as a substitute for coal. Instead, it has been burned in addition to it. The same thing is likely to happen in Europe, according to Tyndall."
"Kevin Anderson, who leads the Tyndall Centre’s research on energy and carbon emissions, also is worried about the effect on renewable energy development. “Shale gas might help with energy security and help meet climate change targets in the short-term,” he says. “But then we have the problem that we haven’t developed the renewables which we have plenty of potential for in the UK.”"
So is gas fracking, at least in the UK, simply another short term energy solution that is not, in fact, that short term?
It may not be as 'sustainable' as claimed.
I would expect more studies to reveal that the carbon gains are not as significant as the industry may once have claimed.
Most worryingly, as the article notes, gas fracking may provide a substantive distraction from renewable energy, or even nuclear, when we can least avoid to waste time.
If the industry grows as expected, companies involved can expect major protests and social unrest.
Look at the opposition to onshore wind turbines from NIMBY types in the UK (Not In My Back Yard).
With gas fracking you can imagine the public debate becoming that much more heightened, more quickly, than with wind.
As many of you will know, the UK, Poland and other states are increasingly keen on the idea. France is, typically, more concerned. (our new France briefing is here)
Gas executives claim fracking cannot be proven to have contaminated groundwater. And politicans are keen to reduce their foreign gas dependency from places such as the Middle East.
But environmentalists and scientists remain concerned. (For an alternative view on the US proposals to expand fracking, take a look at this article)
Aside from the chemicals used and the risk to water supplies, here's a couple of quotes from the article that lay out some of the worries:
“There are going to be thousands of drilling towers and lots of new roads and pipelines, and that could cause social problems"
"A study by Florence Gény, a research fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, finds that Europe will not see “significant” levels of shale gas production before 2020. In other words, if shale gas is to be transitional, it will be in the next decade rather than this one."
"Experts also disagree about shale gas’s role in cutting carbon emissions. Though industry officials say that burning natural gas emits just over half the CO2 per unit of energy, compared to coal, several researchers say “fugitive” methane emissions from shale gas production offset the benefits. (Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas.) Cornell professor Robert Howarth has argued that the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of shale gas are worse than coal and fuel oil when considered over a 20-year period."
"Energy companies are rushing to develop unconventional sources of oil and gas trapped in carbon-rich shales and sands throughout the western United States and Canada. So far, government officials have shown little concern for the environmental consequences of this new fossil-fuel development boom, journalist Keith Schneider writes."
"The Tyndall Centre, meanwhile, says there is a little evidence from the U.S. that shale gas has been used as a substitute for coal. Instead, it has been burned in addition to it. The same thing is likely to happen in Europe, according to Tyndall."
"Kevin Anderson, who leads the Tyndall Centre’s research on energy and carbon emissions, also is worried about the effect on renewable energy development. “Shale gas might help with energy security and help meet climate change targets in the short-term,” he says. “But then we have the problem that we haven’t developed the renewables which we have plenty of potential for in the UK.”"
So is gas fracking, at least in the UK, simply another short term energy solution that is not, in fact, that short term?
It may not be as 'sustainable' as claimed.
I would expect more studies to reveal that the carbon gains are not as significant as the industry may once have claimed.
Most worryingly, as the article notes, gas fracking may provide a substantive distraction from renewable energy, or even nuclear, when we can least avoid to waste time.
If the industry grows as expected, companies involved can expect major protests and social unrest.
Look at the opposition to onshore wind turbines from NIMBY types in the UK (Not In My Back Yard).
With gas fracking you can imagine the public debate becoming that much more heightened, more quickly, than with wind.
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
Recycled cardboard and safety: A potential corporate scandal?
Does this story mean we shouldn't use recycled cardboard in food, due to health concerns?
In brief: The story is that the inks 'mineral oils', used in recycled cardboard for, say, cereal boxes, may be leaking into the food within en masse, creating health risks.
The health risks are not immediate, but perhaps cumulative, according to Swiss scientists quoted by the BBC.
Some people might argue this means recycled cardboard is dangerous and should not be used. No doubt right wing bloggers will leap on this to argue the green agenda is dangerous etc etc.
Others might argue that it simply means companies should use thicker or better protective bags inside the boxes for cereals.
Given there is not enough virgin pulp to go around, not to mention the environmental impact of pure pulp and the cost, this has to be the logical position if the reports are proven true.
Of course this will have an effect on costs and perhaps even on environmental impacts (thin plastic vs. foil bags) but it seems more of an technical problem than an issue that requires a solution that does not involve recycled cardboard.
The BBC reports that "Cereal firm Jordans has stopped using recycled cardboard".
UK listeners can hear the Today programme piece on the issue here.
This appears to be a public relations move designed to re-assure consumers. It's likely not sustainable in the long term. Better packaging, not pure virgin pulp, is clearly the solution.
Meanwhile, whether this becomes a major media story or not will depend on the results of further studies.
Millions of people in the UK will have heard about the potential risks in the media this week. Another safety and reputational risk for food brands has arisen.
(What seems a little worrying, if true, is that while the UK Food Standards Authorities are only looking at the levels of mineral oils in packaging, whilst Germany is actually studying food contamination and has told retailers/food brands to get moving on the issue)
In brief: The story is that the inks 'mineral oils', used in recycled cardboard for, say, cereal boxes, may be leaking into the food within en masse, creating health risks.
The health risks are not immediate, but perhaps cumulative, according to Swiss scientists quoted by the BBC.
Some people might argue this means recycled cardboard is dangerous and should not be used. No doubt right wing bloggers will leap on this to argue the green agenda is dangerous etc etc.
Others might argue that it simply means companies should use thicker or better protective bags inside the boxes for cereals.
Given there is not enough virgin pulp to go around, not to mention the environmental impact of pure pulp and the cost, this has to be the logical position if the reports are proven true.
Of course this will have an effect on costs and perhaps even on environmental impacts (thin plastic vs. foil bags) but it seems more of an technical problem than an issue that requires a solution that does not involve recycled cardboard.
The BBC reports that "Cereal firm Jordans has stopped using recycled cardboard".
UK listeners can hear the Today programme piece on the issue here.
This appears to be a public relations move designed to re-assure consumers. It's likely not sustainable in the long term. Better packaging, not pure virgin pulp, is clearly the solution.
Meanwhile, whether this becomes a major media story or not will depend on the results of further studies.
Millions of people in the UK will have heard about the potential risks in the media this week. Another safety and reputational risk for food brands has arisen.
(What seems a little worrying, if true, is that while the UK Food Standards Authorities are only looking at the levels of mineral oils in packaging, whilst Germany is actually studying food contamination and has told retailers/food brands to get moving on the issue)
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
BP spills coffee (redux)
I posted this video last year. But I still chuckle at the memory so often I had to post it again.
Some readers may not have seen it. I think it's the funniest corporate-related video ever posted on YouTube.
Some readers may not have seen it. I think it's the funniest corporate-related video ever posted on YouTube.
For UK readers: Want to help shape the Govt's carbon strategy?
If so, you can play a small role by filling in this survey (for corporates mainly I think). It might help our government create a better low carbon 'strategy' (read: tactic).
Worried about gas fracking?
If you are, you might want to read this article from the NY Times.
Pretty scary stuff, in some cases and in some places.
Just to balance it up, our own inimitable Jon Entine brings his viewfinder to bear on the issue in our latest edition.
Read the article here.
There are no silver bullets when it comes to energy, as we know.
Pretty scary stuff, in some cases and in some places.
Just to balance it up, our own inimitable Jon Entine brings his viewfinder to bear on the issue in our latest edition.
Read the article here.
There are no silver bullets when it comes to energy, as we know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Sign up to my feed here
Posts
All Comments
