Ioannis Ioannou, Assistant Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship at London Business School, discusses with Toby Webb his working paper “The Impact of a Corporate Culture of Sustainability on Corporate Behavior and Performance” written with Robert G. Eccles and George Serafeim
Here's the link to listen. It's about ten minutes long.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Friday, November 25, 2011
Durban climate alert: Thousands gather to protest global warming
(I've posted this before, but it always gets such a great response, I thought I'd post it again)
Sustainability Olympics? What medal would you win?
In a guest post, soon to be published on Ethicalcorp.com, Paul Hohnen wonders which part of the podium your company might be on.
With the London Olympic Games and the 3rd UN Conference on Sustainable Development both being held next year, perhaps it is time to use Olympic standards to rate corporate sustainability performance?
Based on private sector performance since the 1992 Rio de Janeiro ‘Earth Summit’, here’s my take on how the 2012 Sustainability Olympic medals might be awarded.
Bronze Medalists
Companies in this group have not necessarily changed the products and services they offer, but have changed some of the ways they go about doing business.
Internally, these changes have included staff consultations on how energy and resource costs can be cut, and how the company can improve customer service in building healthy communities.
Externally, there have been more focused efforts to understand customer, supplier and community interests.
Typical reported benefits have included operating cost reductions (e.g. energy), improved staff engagement, a better understanding of the sustainability dimensions of the business, and more community trust.
As a result, they are better run and ready to move to the next level.
Silver Medalists
Companies in this category have typically engaged with stakeholders and mapped their sustainability issues.
Internally, they have improved both existing product line and introduced new management systems.
Management structures, reporting systems and incentives schemes have been put in place that embed sustainability issues in strategy and governance.
They communicate their sustainability policies, practices and dilemmas, and invite continuous stakeholder feedback and ideas.
In a performance distinguishing move, the business plan is often explicitly oriented to meeting the challenges of the future (e.g. GE’s Ecomagination, Siemens’ focus on low carbon cities).
Long term aspirational resource efficiency targets have been set (e.g. Unilever), while new manufacturing technologies reduce the environmental footprint of key products (e.g. recyclability, energy efficiency).
Company sustainability policies and expectations are communicated along the supply chain (e.g. Wal-Mart).
CEOs engage in public policy advocacy (e.g. on climate change).
Reported benefits include lower operating costs, increased profitability (and business share) of sustainable product lines, improved stakeholder relations, and recognition on green indexes.
Gold Medalists
Companies in this category are winners because they have embraced sustainability principles and integrated these into a commercially successful business model.
Some (Interface, Desso) have done so by using ‘cradle to cradle’ design and technology to deliver existing products and services with a radically lower footprint.
Others have targeted new technologies and products such as wind power (e.g. Vestas) or solar PV (e.g. SunTech), which directly challenge the traditional ‘brown industry’ model.
Interestingly, in their sharp focus on winning still fragile sustainability markets, some of these might give lesser attention to CSR principles and approaches.
However, they win gold because their sustainability impacts are measurable (e.g. less carbon) and their financial performance has been respectable.
Conclusions
There will be readers who point out that none of the companies in the groups above are actually yet 100% ‘sustainable’.
There will be also those who note that the majority of the world’s companies don’t qualify for any medal.
Both are right. However, this should not detract from the efforts made. Surely it has been better for a minority to act than none at all.
The challenge now is – and the economic context makes it tougher than ever – how to incentivize all companies to become medalists.
In the absence of better regulations, at the end of the day it may be superior and sustainable financial performance that continues to drive most change.
Paul Hohnen, former Director of Greenpeace International, and Strategic Director of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is now an independent consultant, his clients include governments, intergovernmental agencies, business and non-profit organisations. http://www.hohnen.net
With the London Olympic Games and the 3rd UN Conference on Sustainable Development both being held next year, perhaps it is time to use Olympic standards to rate corporate sustainability performance?
Based on private sector performance since the 1992 Rio de Janeiro ‘Earth Summit’, here’s my take on how the 2012 Sustainability Olympic medals might be awarded.
Bronze Medalists
Companies in this group have not necessarily changed the products and services they offer, but have changed some of the ways they go about doing business.
Internally, these changes have included staff consultations on how energy and resource costs can be cut, and how the company can improve customer service in building healthy communities.
Externally, there have been more focused efforts to understand customer, supplier and community interests.
Typical reported benefits have included operating cost reductions (e.g. energy), improved staff engagement, a better understanding of the sustainability dimensions of the business, and more community trust.
As a result, they are better run and ready to move to the next level.
Silver Medalists
Companies in this category have typically engaged with stakeholders and mapped their sustainability issues.
Internally, they have improved both existing product line and introduced new management systems.
Management structures, reporting systems and incentives schemes have been put in place that embed sustainability issues in strategy and governance.
They communicate their sustainability policies, practices and dilemmas, and invite continuous stakeholder feedback and ideas.
In a performance distinguishing move, the business plan is often explicitly oriented to meeting the challenges of the future (e.g. GE’s Ecomagination, Siemens’ focus on low carbon cities).
Long term aspirational resource efficiency targets have been set (e.g. Unilever), while new manufacturing technologies reduce the environmental footprint of key products (e.g. recyclability, energy efficiency).
Company sustainability policies and expectations are communicated along the supply chain (e.g. Wal-Mart).
CEOs engage in public policy advocacy (e.g. on climate change).
Reported benefits include lower operating costs, increased profitability (and business share) of sustainable product lines, improved stakeholder relations, and recognition on green indexes.
Gold Medalists
Companies in this category are winners because they have embraced sustainability principles and integrated these into a commercially successful business model.
Some (Interface, Desso) have done so by using ‘cradle to cradle’ design and technology to deliver existing products and services with a radically lower footprint.
Others have targeted new technologies and products such as wind power (e.g. Vestas) or solar PV (e.g. SunTech), which directly challenge the traditional ‘brown industry’ model.
Interestingly, in their sharp focus on winning still fragile sustainability markets, some of these might give lesser attention to CSR principles and approaches.
However, they win gold because their sustainability impacts are measurable (e.g. less carbon) and their financial performance has been respectable.
Conclusions
There will be readers who point out that none of the companies in the groups above are actually yet 100% ‘sustainable’.
There will be also those who note that the majority of the world’s companies don’t qualify for any medal.
Both are right. However, this should not detract from the efforts made. Surely it has been better for a minority to act than none at all.
The challenge now is – and the economic context makes it tougher than ever – how to incentivize all companies to become medalists.
In the absence of better regulations, at the end of the day it may be superior and sustainable financial performance that continues to drive most change.
Paul Hohnen, former Director of Greenpeace International, and Strategic Director of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is now an independent consultant, his clients include governments, intergovernmental agencies, business and non-profit organisations. http://www.hohnen.net
When consumer 'behaviour change' goes wrong
Perhaps a PR nightmare for Wal-Mart: "competitive shopping":
Customers hit by pepper spray at Wal-Mart describe scene of chaos
"Screams erupted after about 100 people waiting in line to snag Xbox gaming consoles and Wii video games got into a shoving match.
Alejandra Seminario, 24, said she was waiting in line to grab some toys at the store around 9:55 p.m. when people the next aisle over started shouting and ripping at the plastic wrap encasing gaming consoles, which was supposed to be opened at 10 p.m.
"People started screaming, pulling and pushing each other, and then the whole area filled up with pepper spray," the Sylmar resident said. "I guess what triggered it was people started pulling the plastic off the pallets and then shoving and bombarding the display of games. It started with people pushing and screaming because they were getting shoved onto the boxes."
Back to basics with a particular customer demographic perhaps.
Customers hit by pepper spray at Wal-Mart describe scene of chaos
"Screams erupted after about 100 people waiting in line to snag Xbox gaming consoles and Wii video games got into a shoving match.
Alejandra Seminario, 24, said she was waiting in line to grab some toys at the store around 9:55 p.m. when people the next aisle over started shouting and ripping at the plastic wrap encasing gaming consoles, which was supposed to be opened at 10 p.m.
"People started screaming, pulling and pushing each other, and then the whole area filled up with pepper spray," the Sylmar resident said. "I guess what triggered it was people started pulling the plastic off the pallets and then shoving and bombarding the display of games. It started with people pushing and screaming because they were getting shoved onto the boxes."
Back to basics with a particular customer demographic perhaps.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Corporate responsibility and "attention blindness"
One of the reasons mistakes are made by airline pilots in simulator training is that they are so focused on a particular task, they miss a giant blockage on the runway and theoretically slam right into it.
Business is incredible at focus, at achieving single-minded objectives.
That's where profits come from.
All obvious stuff.
But as Cathy Davidson, Duke University professor, points out in this podcast, if you focus too hard for too long, you miss important factors, like a plane blocking your runway.
We're wired this way, at least to a degree, she posits.
(There's also a lot else about how the brain is wired in the podcast, it's fascinating)
Collaboration and stepping back now and again to think and look around, are how to solve this 'attention blindness' problem.
If I'm not mistaken this is science proving the business case for stakeholder engagement and deeper consideration of other factors by business.
Good to know the pointy heads in science have 'proven' us all right eh?
Without wanting to get too smug: The challenge is communications, getting the message across.
We may know we are right: But who else does?
How do you get this information in front of them?
That's the hard part.
Business is incredible at focus, at achieving single-minded objectives.
That's where profits come from.
All obvious stuff.
But as Cathy Davidson, Duke University professor, points out in this podcast, if you focus too hard for too long, you miss important factors, like a plane blocking your runway.
We're wired this way, at least to a degree, she posits.
(There's also a lot else about how the brain is wired in the podcast, it's fascinating)
Collaboration and stepping back now and again to think and look around, are how to solve this 'attention blindness' problem.
If I'm not mistaken this is science proving the business case for stakeholder engagement and deeper consideration of other factors by business.
Good to know the pointy heads in science have 'proven' us all right eh?
Without wanting to get too smug: The challenge is communications, getting the message across.
We may know we are right: But who else does?
How do you get this information in front of them?
That's the hard part.
Most read articles on Ethicalcorp.com recently
Here's eight of the most popular articles published on Ethicalcorp.com recently.
I thought you might like to know what's popular with others. This is a self-selecting group of course, given that much of the ethicalcorp.com content is subscriber-only and these are have been free-to-all.
Nevertheless, it's always interesting to know what others are reading, it's in our DNA to want to know:
Top three articles past two months:
Letter from America: Let’s call a sale a sale
Are investors really interested in CR data?
Eco marketing: What price green consumerism?
Top five this past month:
Sustainability news roundup - November 2011
Responsible investment: Praise the performance not the process
Supply chains: Forging stronger links
NGOs and big business: Too close for comfort?
Analysis: Consumer Futures 2020 - 2020 visions
I thought you might like to know what's popular with others. This is a self-selecting group of course, given that much of the ethicalcorp.com content is subscriber-only and these are have been free-to-all.
Nevertheless, it's always interesting to know what others are reading, it's in our DNA to want to know:
Top three articles past two months:
Letter from America: Let’s call a sale a sale
Are investors really interested in CR data?
Eco marketing: What price green consumerism?
Top five this past month:
Sustainability news roundup - November 2011
Responsible investment: Praise the performance not the process
Supply chains: Forging stronger links
NGOs and big business: Too close for comfort?
Analysis: Consumer Futures 2020 - 2020 visions
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
A simple lesson in stakeholder engagement
So today another call comes in from a research company wanting to know what I think of the communications I recieve from a large corporate client once well known for CSR but that I haven't heard from for years.
(Their communications have been non-existant since they sacked lots of people, including in CSR, a while back, in this case)
I declined to speak with them.
Not just because I don't like outsourced stakeholder engagement.
It was because the research company took the wrong appoach.
"Would you have ten minutes to speak with us?", they asked me.
"No", I said. I was busy.
Not too busy to blog. But too busy to speak with somone filling in a survey form.
If they had just said, straight out: "We represent company XX. How well do they communicate with you?" then I would have told them what I thought, and they would have got their ten minutes (which in reality would probably have been 15-20).
Not that I would have been able to tell them much, mind you. But that's not the point: I might have been someone who could have been helpful to them.
This point about the wrong question, and the ramifications for research, only ocurred to me after I had hung up feeling busy and a bit impolite.
Ask the wrong question, you'll get an unhelpful answer. At best. At worse, you'll go down the wrong path. That might be costly.
When it comes to understanding your environment, Drucker, as with most things, had it right.
(Their communications have been non-existant since they sacked lots of people, including in CSR, a while back, in this case)
I declined to speak with them.
Not just because I don't like outsourced stakeholder engagement.
It was because the research company took the wrong appoach.
"Would you have ten minutes to speak with us?", they asked me.
"No", I said. I was busy.
Not too busy to blog. But too busy to speak with somone filling in a survey form.
If they had just said, straight out: "We represent company XX. How well do they communicate with you?" then I would have told them what I thought, and they would have got their ten minutes (which in reality would probably have been 15-20).
Not that I would have been able to tell them much, mind you. But that's not the point: I might have been someone who could have been helpful to them.
This point about the wrong question, and the ramifications for research, only ocurred to me after I had hung up feeling busy and a bit impolite.
Ask the wrong question, you'll get an unhelpful answer. At best. At worse, you'll go down the wrong path. That might be costly.
When it comes to understanding your environment, Drucker, as with most things, had it right.
Five lessons from our reporting and comms conference 2011
Here's five simple lessons I learned from our 2011 reporting and comms conference, held last week in London:
1) The debate about integrated reporting has still only just begun
Companies are confused: What's integrated, what's combined? Some investors are interested, others couldn't care less. Does integration mean less helpful sustainability information?
There are a lot more questions than answers.
I presented some stats and a brief look forward to 2012. Next year's event will be interested in terms of how far integrated reporting has come.
2) Assurance is something big companies are very keen to defend
I did my best to have a decent pop at the idea of report assurance. Volkswagen and Nestle defended the idea robustly. The audience agreed with them. I'm still dubious but I suppose in the absence of proper internal management controls (in the same way normal business is conducted) then I guess it may be perhaps better than nothing for a really huge company.
3) Emerging markets, with less pressure, need a really solid business case
I met some executives from the Middle East and Asia who were keen to show off their work. It's early days in emerging markets, and its clear that bosses don't yet understand the need for non-mandated transparency. Very understandable considering the cultural differences and operating environments. We get upset about phone hacking in the UK: In China it's just standard practice!
4) Communications efforts, based on reports, are a long way from mainstream
I was very impressed with the International Post Corporation's efforts on target setting, initiative-taking, public ambition, reporting and media and communications efforts. There's much to learn from them for many a company. Other firms, BAA aside, seemed still incredibly nervous about communications. There are many good reasons for that of course. But that doesn't mean a little more sensible boldness would not be in order.
5) Old conference formats are dead: We need to end PowerPoint today
This is an old adage, but the best sessions were the ones were we had little, or NO PowerPoint. We need to ban it completely in my view. I'm working on my colleagues on that one. Next year's events will be a little different...
1) The debate about integrated reporting has still only just begun
Companies are confused: What's integrated, what's combined? Some investors are interested, others couldn't care less. Does integration mean less helpful sustainability information?
There are a lot more questions than answers.
I presented some stats and a brief look forward to 2012. Next year's event will be interested in terms of how far integrated reporting has come.
2) Assurance is something big companies are very keen to defend
I did my best to have a decent pop at the idea of report assurance. Volkswagen and Nestle defended the idea robustly. The audience agreed with them. I'm still dubious but I suppose in the absence of proper internal management controls (in the same way normal business is conducted) then I guess it may be perhaps better than nothing for a really huge company.
3) Emerging markets, with less pressure, need a really solid business case
I met some executives from the Middle East and Asia who were keen to show off their work. It's early days in emerging markets, and its clear that bosses don't yet understand the need for non-mandated transparency. Very understandable considering the cultural differences and operating environments. We get upset about phone hacking in the UK: In China it's just standard practice!
4) Communications efforts, based on reports, are a long way from mainstream
I was very impressed with the International Post Corporation's efforts on target setting, initiative-taking, public ambition, reporting and media and communications efforts. There's much to learn from them for many a company. Other firms, BAA aside, seemed still incredibly nervous about communications. There are many good reasons for that of course. But that doesn't mean a little more sensible boldness would not be in order.
5) Old conference formats are dead: We need to end PowerPoint today
This is an old adage, but the best sessions were the ones were we had little, or NO PowerPoint. We need to ban it completely in my view. I'm working on my colleagues on that one. Next year's events will be a little different...
Monday, November 21, 2011
Ethical Corporation 2012 Awards: Categories and questions
Here's our latest thinking, soon to be set in stone, on our Awards Categories for our 2012 Awards Dinner.
The 2012 Ethical Corporation Awards will be in May or June 2012 in Central London.
We're separating them fron the Responsible Business Summit Conference in 2012, mainly so we can hold them more centrally, in less of a rush, with more time to celebrate corporate responsibility excellence, at a nicer location in London.
Here's our thinking as of today on categories. Love to know what you think.
Best Private Company
This award will go the privately-held unlisted company which has best demonstrated their commitment to embedding sustainable business across their operations.
Judges will be looking for a comprehensive approach, targets across the board and a clear demonstration of top level leadership from the board and owners of the business
Most Innovative Company
The winner of this award will have clearly demonstrated to the judges how they have used sustainability thinking to fuel innovation in their business.
The company will show how responsible business innovation in product design, manufacturing or service offering has delivered a positive outcome both for the bottom line and against social/environmental goals the firm has set.
Supply Chain Excellence
The company which wins this award will have demonstrated how they are clearly managing more socially and environmentally supply chain than in the recent past.
The award will go to the company that shows clear engagement, both bottom up and top down, with suppliers, and is helping suppliers deliver on sustainability goals proactively, and against firm and clear targets.
Best Employee Engagement
Employee engagement is vitally important in embedding CSR into a business. This award will go the company that has shown how they communicate their policies on sustainability with colleagues.
More importantly, the winning company will demonstrate how they engage with and listen to employees, and take those ideas on board to refine their sustainability plans and targets.
Best Sustainability Software
Technology is increasingly used to drive improved corporate sustainability performance. This award will be given to the software product most clearly enabling companies to improve their sustainability management processes and results.
Applications are open to companies providing software across different areas of sustainability and corporate responsibility, from carbon to water to social or governance issues.
Sustainability Commercialised
This award goes to the company that most clearly demonstrates how they have incorporated responsible business and sustainability thinking into commercial objectives.
The winner will show how they have created a definitive new product or service from sustainability/CR thinking and will be able to show how it has been incorporated into mainstream business thinking across the company.
Authentic Stakeholder Outreach
Communications remains a complex area for companies. This award will go to the firm demonstrating how, beyond reporting their progress, the company is engaging key stakeholders in sustainability messaging.
Typical entries may include a think piece, event, study or another example of outreach that clearly shows the company is listening to influential stakeholder voices.
Best Consumer engagement
Communications remains a complex area for companies. This award will go to the firm demonstrating how, beyond reporting their progress, the company is engaging consumers in sustainability messaging.
Typical entries may include an advertisement or media output that demonstrates engaged and creative thinking in communicating sustainability.
Best Sustainability Report
Our innovative reporting award will go the company that shows how they have delivered corporate responsibility/sustainability transparency to stakeholders in an honest, humble and clearly consistent way.
The winner will have shown judges how they are communicating progress whilst being honest about the challenges they face and clear about the business wins their report has achieved for the company
Best B2B Sustainability Collaboration
This award goes to the best sustainability/corporate responsibility partnership between two companies. The companies could be competitors, business partners or in different industries/sectors.
The winner will have shown clear commitment to a long-term, mutually beneficial collaboration that can demonstrate real commercial benefits and social/environmental/governance gains for society.
Best Corporate/NGO Partnership
This award goes to the best sustainability/corporate responsibility partnership between a company and an NGO.
The winner will have shown clear commitment to a long-term, mutually beneficial partnership that can demonstrate real social/environmental/governance gains for society.
Sustainability Consultancy of the year
This award will go to the advisory/consultancy firm that, in the view of the judges, has delivered both for clients and society with their work.
The winning company, which could be either a few consultants or hundreds within a larger firm, will clearly show how their work has influenced and helped a client deliver business results - and positive change for society/the environment.
Sustainability Executive of the year
Managers are often the unsung heroes of corporate sustainability/responsibility. CEOs take the credit when things go well, managers often take the blame when it does not.
This award, effectively our ‘manager of the year’ award, will go to the executive our judges feel has made a substantive difference in their company in the field of corporate responsibility and sustainability.
The award will recognise the key work the winning manager has done in driving sustainable change across their business. Entries will describe their influence and effectiveness for the judges.
Business Leader of the year 2012
This award is for the CEO of the year. Our judges will be looking for the business leader who has clearly shown they have lead their company effectively in the period March 2011-2012 on sustainability/CSR issues.
Our winner will have demonstrated a clear grasp of both the issues and the need to commit to managing the unknown towards real targets that demonstrates both sector and individual leadership.
Send your comments, queries, ideas on the above to: Toby.Webb@ethicalcorp.com
The entry form will be live on the web soon.
To register your interest now, email: emmeline.rajasingam@ethicalcorp.com
The 2012 Ethical Corporation Awards will be in May or June 2012 in Central London.
We're separating them fron the Responsible Business Summit Conference in 2012, mainly so we can hold them more centrally, in less of a rush, with more time to celebrate corporate responsibility excellence, at a nicer location in London.
Here's our thinking as of today on categories. Love to know what you think.
Best Private Company
This award will go the privately-held unlisted company which has best demonstrated their commitment to embedding sustainable business across their operations.
Judges will be looking for a comprehensive approach, targets across the board and a clear demonstration of top level leadership from the board and owners of the business
Most Innovative Company
The winner of this award will have clearly demonstrated to the judges how they have used sustainability thinking to fuel innovation in their business.
The company will show how responsible business innovation in product design, manufacturing or service offering has delivered a positive outcome both for the bottom line and against social/environmental goals the firm has set.
Supply Chain Excellence
The company which wins this award will have demonstrated how they are clearly managing more socially and environmentally supply chain than in the recent past.
The award will go to the company that shows clear engagement, both bottom up and top down, with suppliers, and is helping suppliers deliver on sustainability goals proactively, and against firm and clear targets.
Best Employee Engagement
Employee engagement is vitally important in embedding CSR into a business. This award will go the company that has shown how they communicate their policies on sustainability with colleagues.
More importantly, the winning company will demonstrate how they engage with and listen to employees, and take those ideas on board to refine their sustainability plans and targets.
Best Sustainability Software
Technology is increasingly used to drive improved corporate sustainability performance. This award will be given to the software product most clearly enabling companies to improve their sustainability management processes and results.
Applications are open to companies providing software across different areas of sustainability and corporate responsibility, from carbon to water to social or governance issues.
Sustainability Commercialised
This award goes to the company that most clearly demonstrates how they have incorporated responsible business and sustainability thinking into commercial objectives.
The winner will show how they have created a definitive new product or service from sustainability/CR thinking and will be able to show how it has been incorporated into mainstream business thinking across the company.
Authentic Stakeholder Outreach
Communications remains a complex area for companies. This award will go to the firm demonstrating how, beyond reporting their progress, the company is engaging key stakeholders in sustainability messaging.
Typical entries may include a think piece, event, study or another example of outreach that clearly shows the company is listening to influential stakeholder voices.
Best Consumer engagement
Communications remains a complex area for companies. This award will go to the firm demonstrating how, beyond reporting their progress, the company is engaging consumers in sustainability messaging.
Typical entries may include an advertisement or media output that demonstrates engaged and creative thinking in communicating sustainability.
Best Sustainability Report
Our innovative reporting award will go the company that shows how they have delivered corporate responsibility/sustainability transparency to stakeholders in an honest, humble and clearly consistent way.
The winner will have shown judges how they are communicating progress whilst being honest about the challenges they face and clear about the business wins their report has achieved for the company
Best B2B Sustainability Collaboration
This award goes to the best sustainability/corporate responsibility partnership between two companies. The companies could be competitors, business partners or in different industries/sectors.
The winner will have shown clear commitment to a long-term, mutually beneficial collaboration that can demonstrate real commercial benefits and social/environmental/governance gains for society.
Best Corporate/NGO Partnership
This award goes to the best sustainability/corporate responsibility partnership between a company and an NGO.
The winner will have shown clear commitment to a long-term, mutually beneficial partnership that can demonstrate real social/environmental/governance gains for society.
Sustainability Consultancy of the year
This award will go to the advisory/consultancy firm that, in the view of the judges, has delivered both for clients and society with their work.
The winning company, which could be either a few consultants or hundreds within a larger firm, will clearly show how their work has influenced and helped a client deliver business results - and positive change for society/the environment.
Sustainability Executive of the year
Managers are often the unsung heroes of corporate sustainability/responsibility. CEOs take the credit when things go well, managers often take the blame when it does not.
This award, effectively our ‘manager of the year’ award, will go to the executive our judges feel has made a substantive difference in their company in the field of corporate responsibility and sustainability.
The award will recognise the key work the winning manager has done in driving sustainable change across their business. Entries will describe their influence and effectiveness for the judges.
Business Leader of the year 2012
This award is for the CEO of the year. Our judges will be looking for the business leader who has clearly shown they have lead their company effectively in the period March 2011-2012 on sustainability/CSR issues.
Our winner will have demonstrated a clear grasp of both the issues and the need to commit to managing the unknown towards real targets that demonstrates both sector and individual leadership.
Send your comments, queries, ideas on the above to: Toby.Webb@ethicalcorp.com
The entry form will be live on the web soon.
To register your interest now, email: emmeline.rajasingam@ethicalcorp.com
Confidence about the unknown is the new CEO leadership trait
What do companies REALLY pay CEOs for?
For predicting the future? No.
For keeping the ship steady? Sometimes.
For managing the forthcoming unknown? Always.
Just not overtly, until now that is.
The CEO trait that boards will start to look for in the next five years will be that confidence to talk about managing the unknown.
Paul Polman at Unilever has been doing it for a while.
John Brock at Coca-Cola Enterprises has just started doing it.
Both talk about it with reference to sustainability targets and risks.
Others are catching on.
A few years ago a CEO couldn't say he/she didn't know how the company would manage issues the company was facing. That would be tantamount to admitting incompetence. No longer.
Now it's becoming a badge of honour among a select few bosses. More will catch on.
Managing unknowns with holistic risk management approaches is what sustainability strategy for big business is now all about.
That and taking hold of the opportunities to save money, invent new products and build trust.
For predicting the future? No.
For keeping the ship steady? Sometimes.
For managing the forthcoming unknown? Always.
Just not overtly, until now that is.
The CEO trait that boards will start to look for in the next five years will be that confidence to talk about managing the unknown.
Paul Polman at Unilever has been doing it for a while.
John Brock at Coca-Cola Enterprises has just started doing it.
Both talk about it with reference to sustainability targets and risks.
Others are catching on.
A few years ago a CEO couldn't say he/she didn't know how the company would manage issues the company was facing. That would be tantamount to admitting incompetence. No longer.
Now it's becoming a badge of honour among a select few bosses. More will catch on.
Managing unknowns with holistic risk management approaches is what sustainability strategy for big business is now all about.
That and taking hold of the opportunities to save money, invent new products and build trust.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Business and government: Four simple lessons for executives
I blogged recently on business and helping/pushing/assisting government with regard to sustainability.
A good friend of mine, who will remain anonymous but is of the large-brained variety, offered this response as to further elements to consider for executives:
"Four critical aspects / actions for business to consider when engaging government/policy agendas:
(a) Spend time learning about the full policy development process
This especially important at EU level given that 60-70% of new legislation emanates from Brussels.
(b) Identify engagement points and seek to get involved early in the process
For European Union work, it generally starts with a joint proposal / idea from two or thre member states to develop an area of policy action (such as anti-bribery in the UK being used as a template for EU policy directives).
At the early stage, they are usually open to dialogue and capturing of ideas.
Don't wait for policy to get to Brussels then act surprised.
If a company is properly committed to better outcomes around sustainability / CR challenges, it will be develop the capacity to map new developments and engage at an appropriate stage.
(c) Get your internal position on lobbying clear
Many big companies known for sustainability leadership still employ lobbying firms in Brussels, DC, London and elsewhere to hinder / block the type of regulation and legislation that might actually drive progress.
Firms rarely connect the two (government affairs and CR / SD) internally, so shoot themselves in the foot on a continuous basis.
(d) If governments are not doing enough, then partner with your biggest rivals / peers to drive change
This can be done through industry associations and standard setters. If a CEO really has balls, (s)he can lead a fight against the status quo from within, drive for higher sector standards, and force everyone playing the game to adapt to better rules."
Wise words. Much to consider here.
A good friend of mine, who will remain anonymous but is of the large-brained variety, offered this response as to further elements to consider for executives:
"Four critical aspects / actions for business to consider when engaging government/policy agendas:
(a) Spend time learning about the full policy development process
This especially important at EU level given that 60-70% of new legislation emanates from Brussels.
(b) Identify engagement points and seek to get involved early in the process
For European Union work, it generally starts with a joint proposal / idea from two or thre member states to develop an area of policy action (such as anti-bribery in the UK being used as a template for EU policy directives).
At the early stage, they are usually open to dialogue and capturing of ideas.
Don't wait for policy to get to Brussels then act surprised.
If a company is properly committed to better outcomes around sustainability / CR challenges, it will be develop the capacity to map new developments and engage at an appropriate stage.
(c) Get your internal position on lobbying clear
Many big companies known for sustainability leadership still employ lobbying firms in Brussels, DC, London and elsewhere to hinder / block the type of regulation and legislation that might actually drive progress.
Firms rarely connect the two (government affairs and CR / SD) internally, so shoot themselves in the foot on a continuous basis.
(d) If governments are not doing enough, then partner with your biggest rivals / peers to drive change
This can be done through industry associations and standard setters. If a CEO really has balls, (s)he can lead a fight against the status quo from within, drive for higher sector standards, and force everyone playing the game to adapt to better rules."
Wise words. Much to consider here.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Ethical Corporation Awards categories 2012
Here are the draft awards categories for the Ethical Corporation awards 2012, which will take place in May 2012 in London.
I'm pretty sure this is the final list. But I'm putting it on here so you can tell me if I've missed anything.
Best Private Company
Most Innovative Company
Supply Chain Excellence
Best Employee Engagement
Best Sustainability Software
Sustainability Commercialised
Best Corporate Sustainability Communications
Best Sustainability Report
Best Sustainability Collaboration
Sustainability Consultancy of the year
Sustainability Executive of the year
Business Leader of the year 2012
The awards website will be open for business in a few weeks.
I'm pretty sure this is the final list. But I'm putting it on here so you can tell me if I've missed anything.
Best Private Company
Most Innovative Company
Supply Chain Excellence
Best Employee Engagement
Best Sustainability Software
Sustainability Commercialised
Best Corporate Sustainability Communications
Best Sustainability Report
Best Sustainability Collaboration
Sustainability Consultancy of the year
Sustainability Executive of the year
Business Leader of the year 2012
The awards website will be open for business in a few weeks.
Tips on engaging journalists
This article has some useful and highly relevant tips on how corporate communicators can engage journalists.
They include:
1. Do not always give the journalist the story on a plate
2. Make company information easy to find and clear
3. Put a selection of company images on your site or on Flickr, assigning creative commons licences
4. Send media releases in the body of an email
5. Learn how to monitor Twitter
Read more on this, here.
They include:
1. Do not always give the journalist the story on a plate
2. Make company information easy to find and clear
3. Put a selection of company images on your site or on Flickr, assigning creative commons licences
4. Send media releases in the body of an email
5. Learn how to monitor Twitter
Read more on this, here.
Global CR trends 2011 and some predictions for 2012
I was asked to put some thoughts together for a webinar yesterday with members of Canadian Business for Social Responsibility (CBSR) on this year and next.
So here they are. Some come from our editorial advisory board, some from my own observations.
I've definitely missed something I'm sure. If you can think of it, please post a comment and let me know.
Here's the presentation I gave:
If you'd like this kind of presentation given internally for your company, or something more detailed and tailored that is more like training, let me know at: toby.webb AT stakeholderintel.com.
So here they are. Some come from our editorial advisory board, some from my own observations.
I've definitely missed something I'm sure. If you can think of it, please post a comment and let me know.
Here's the presentation I gave:
Cbsr webinar presentation final
View more presentations from Toby Webb.
If you'd like this kind of presentation given internally for your company, or something more detailed and tailored that is more like training, let me know at: toby.webb AT stakeholderintel.com.
China charity tales: Where philanthropy meets corruption
Paul French in Shanghai, reports on China's high profile charity corruption.
In my China Column for Ethical Corporation I've written repeatedly about the slightly shambolic emergence of charity and philanthropy in China.
For every good news story about the public reacting generously to a tragedy such as the 2008 Sichuan earthquake another story appears about malfeasance or graft in the charity game.
These stories now segue with an outpouring of stories about callousness in Chinese society (witness the outpouring of hand wringing over the little girl knocked over and left in the street in the southern city of Foshan). The Communist Party appears worried about these trends.
As they control the charity sector through their GONGO system and one-Party state ultimately all these problems fall at their door (see previous podcast on GONGOs).
It does seem that there are still systemic problems in China's charity sector. Chinese financial professionals in Henan Province have called for an investigation into one of China's most high profile charities, the Henan branch of the Soong Ching Ling Foundation (Soong Ching Ling was the wife of the founder of the Republic of China in 1911, Sun Yat-sen and so is a revered national figure).
The accusation is that the charity has been 'abusing and profiteering from donation money' including investing in a US$6.2mn land project in Zhengzhou, Henan's capital.
The allegation is a serious one as this is not just anonymous donations going astray - this money is from poor farmers who have invested in the Foundation's "public welfare medical insurance" scheme, run by the Foundation, and supposedly offering better interest rates than the local banks.
The financial experts argue the land deal makes the fund fragile and any collapse would mean huge losses for very poor farmers.
Xinhua has investigated and found the Foundation to have established numerous commercial speculation companies and that shares in many projects were held not by the Foundation but personally by its secretary Zhang Handong.
No official inquiry has been announced yet but the mere fact that this has been reported, that Xinhua has been allowed to dig around ands that the financial professionals who reported it have suffered no known persecution as yet indicates that things were really bad and something may be done…then again…..
In my China Column for Ethical Corporation I've written repeatedly about the slightly shambolic emergence of charity and philanthropy in China.
For every good news story about the public reacting generously to a tragedy such as the 2008 Sichuan earthquake another story appears about malfeasance or graft in the charity game.
These stories now segue with an outpouring of stories about callousness in Chinese society (witness the outpouring of hand wringing over the little girl knocked over and left in the street in the southern city of Foshan). The Communist Party appears worried about these trends.
As they control the charity sector through their GONGO system and one-Party state ultimately all these problems fall at their door (see previous podcast on GONGOs).
It does seem that there are still systemic problems in China's charity sector. Chinese financial professionals in Henan Province have called for an investigation into one of China's most high profile charities, the Henan branch of the Soong Ching Ling Foundation (Soong Ching Ling was the wife of the founder of the Republic of China in 1911, Sun Yat-sen and so is a revered national figure).
The accusation is that the charity has been 'abusing and profiteering from donation money' including investing in a US$6.2mn land project in Zhengzhou, Henan's capital.
The allegation is a serious one as this is not just anonymous donations going astray - this money is from poor farmers who have invested in the Foundation's "public welfare medical insurance" scheme, run by the Foundation, and supposedly offering better interest rates than the local banks.
The financial experts argue the land deal makes the fund fragile and any collapse would mean huge losses for very poor farmers.
Xinhua has investigated and found the Foundation to have established numerous commercial speculation companies and that shares in many projects were held not by the Foundation but personally by its secretary Zhang Handong.
No official inquiry has been announced yet but the mere fact that this has been reported, that Xinhua has been allowed to dig around ands that the financial professionals who reported it have suffered no known persecution as yet indicates that things were really bad and something may be done…then again…..
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Why we must trash the business case for sustainability
It's the only way to save the US economy and way of life, argues Peter Knight, tongue firmly in cheek, in a guest post taken from his recent column in Ethical Corporation.
American captains of industry are being driven to despair by the weak yuan and tough Chinese competition. But they can relax because I have found the solution to their problem.
Actually, that’s not quite true. Republican political strategists preparing for the next presidential election have pinpointed the problem: America’s social and environmental standards are far too high.
It’s quite simple, really. The causes of America’s decline are far too much environmental regulation; misplaced concerns about human rights; unnecessary worry about so-called socially responsible investors; and pandering to the views of those anti-business folks they call stakeholders.
In short, the quickest way to create US growth and prosperity is to trash this thing called the sustainability business case, which advocates a pursuit of quality, fairness and long-term thinking. We have no option but to pollute and pillage our way to prosperity.
It’s good to note that a star-spangled race to the bottom has begun in earnest. In the first nine months of this year the House of Representatives – Republican controlled – voted 168 times to dilute water and clean air legislation. At the same time it blocked proposals to protect public lands, provide protection against oil spills and do something about that taboo subject, climate change.
This is terrific news. Most US environmental laws – which many deluded foreigners mistook for leadership when they were passed in the 1960s and 1970s – have done nothing but hobble America’s industry.
How can you possibly compete with the Chinese when you have to treat your wastewater and send your hazardous leftovers to expensive specialists? A hole in the ground is all you need – it’s cheap and it creates jobs for the unskilled.
As for climate change, well, that pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo has been seen off, and not before time. It’s inspiring that only one (loser) candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, John Huntsman, pays any credence to the idea and is supported by a maximum of 2% of Republican voters.
Pleasing too is Barack Obama’s silence. When elected he promised a “new chapter in American leadership on climate change” but now assiduously avoids any mention of the subject – he is an astute politician and knows the climate holds little interest for voters.
Say no to carbon tax!
But America must keep on its guard. Just look how the silly Australians have passed a carbon tax and the bankrupt Europeans are trying to lay carbon charges on American aeroplanes that are foolish enough to land in Europe.
It’s true that energy prices continue to rocket and it makes sense to use those new-fangled light bulbs and maybe a fewer cylinders under the bonnet. But those nice Canadians have got lots of oil. True, it’s a bit tarry and mixed with sand, but it’s simple to pipe the gunk from the frozen north to Texas where America has the expertise to separate and refine it.
All that lefty moaning about the resultant carbon emissions means nothing because, as you know, carbon dioxide makes trees grow faster, greening the environment.
It’s clear the rot started in American industry when employers were hoodwinked into allowing unions to operate and they began to make all sorts of economically debilitating demands about human rights.
The sustainability people have perpetuated this: just look at the Global Compact, that daft set of “principles” (more standards!) that the United Nations keeps foisting on business. The Chinese workers are glad to have a job and really don’t mind being locked in factories for long hours or going back to the village if they get pregnant.
The quicker American workers get real about the sad state of the economy, the better. Just look at how much money is wasted on safety training and all that unnecessary equipment like fire extinguishers and hard hats.
Much of this nonsense is pressed on business by these so-called socially responsible investors, Swiss teenagers who go around ranking companies on their level of responsibility. Responsible to whom? They say “stakeholders”, but who are these mysterious people that industry must appease?
They are supposed to be big-wig academics, policymakers, and other impressive types who influence consumers and investors. The only stakeholders the Chinese worry about are the numbers around the roulette tables in Macau.
The best way out of America’s troubles is to beat China at its own game. That means trashing the sustainability business case and dismantling restrictive environmental and social standards. And fast. We have to go down before we can go up. It’s simply good science.
Peter Knight is president of Context America
Originally published on Ethicalcorp.com. (c) Find more like this, here.
American captains of industry are being driven to despair by the weak yuan and tough Chinese competition. But they can relax because I have found the solution to their problem.
Actually, that’s not quite true. Republican political strategists preparing for the next presidential election have pinpointed the problem: America’s social and environmental standards are far too high.
It’s quite simple, really. The causes of America’s decline are far too much environmental regulation; misplaced concerns about human rights; unnecessary worry about so-called socially responsible investors; and pandering to the views of those anti-business folks they call stakeholders.
In short, the quickest way to create US growth and prosperity is to trash this thing called the sustainability business case, which advocates a pursuit of quality, fairness and long-term thinking. We have no option but to pollute and pillage our way to prosperity.
It’s good to note that a star-spangled race to the bottom has begun in earnest. In the first nine months of this year the House of Representatives – Republican controlled – voted 168 times to dilute water and clean air legislation. At the same time it blocked proposals to protect public lands, provide protection against oil spills and do something about that taboo subject, climate change.
This is terrific news. Most US environmental laws – which many deluded foreigners mistook for leadership when they were passed in the 1960s and 1970s – have done nothing but hobble America’s industry.
How can you possibly compete with the Chinese when you have to treat your wastewater and send your hazardous leftovers to expensive specialists? A hole in the ground is all you need – it’s cheap and it creates jobs for the unskilled.
As for climate change, well, that pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo has been seen off, and not before time. It’s inspiring that only one (loser) candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, John Huntsman, pays any credence to the idea and is supported by a maximum of 2% of Republican voters.
Pleasing too is Barack Obama’s silence. When elected he promised a “new chapter in American leadership on climate change” but now assiduously avoids any mention of the subject – he is an astute politician and knows the climate holds little interest for voters.
Say no to carbon tax!
But America must keep on its guard. Just look how the silly Australians have passed a carbon tax and the bankrupt Europeans are trying to lay carbon charges on American aeroplanes that are foolish enough to land in Europe.
It’s true that energy prices continue to rocket and it makes sense to use those new-fangled light bulbs and maybe a fewer cylinders under the bonnet. But those nice Canadians have got lots of oil. True, it’s a bit tarry and mixed with sand, but it’s simple to pipe the gunk from the frozen north to Texas where America has the expertise to separate and refine it.
All that lefty moaning about the resultant carbon emissions means nothing because, as you know, carbon dioxide makes trees grow faster, greening the environment.
It’s clear the rot started in American industry when employers were hoodwinked into allowing unions to operate and they began to make all sorts of economically debilitating demands about human rights.
The sustainability people have perpetuated this: just look at the Global Compact, that daft set of “principles” (more standards!) that the United Nations keeps foisting on business. The Chinese workers are glad to have a job and really don’t mind being locked in factories for long hours or going back to the village if they get pregnant.
The quicker American workers get real about the sad state of the economy, the better. Just look at how much money is wasted on safety training and all that unnecessary equipment like fire extinguishers and hard hats.
Much of this nonsense is pressed on business by these so-called socially responsible investors, Swiss teenagers who go around ranking companies on their level of responsibility. Responsible to whom? They say “stakeholders”, but who are these mysterious people that industry must appease?
They are supposed to be big-wig academics, policymakers, and other impressive types who influence consumers and investors. The only stakeholders the Chinese worry about are the numbers around the roulette tables in Macau.
The best way out of America’s troubles is to beat China at its own game. That means trashing the sustainability business case and dismantling restrictive environmental and social standards. And fast. We have to go down before we can go up. It’s simply good science.
Peter Knight is president of Context America
Originally published on Ethicalcorp.com. (c) Find more like this, here.
More on assurance
As part of our conference yesterday on reporting, we hosted a session on assurance and auditing.
Entitled, "Is it a waste of money?" we had plenty of robust debate. I chaired the session.
I aired my views, mentioned in a post yesterday/monday.
I was firmly 'put in my place' by at least three large companies, Nestle and Volkswagen amongst them.
Their view is that for the money, it keeps people on their toes internally, helps integrate CR/SD thinking, and provides management with re-assurance that they are on the right track.
The report they receive, which is different from what is put out in public, is apparently very useful.
I take their points, but I'm still not convinced it's the best use of 50-100K a year. It still feels like outsourcing management controls when they should be managed internally.
I know that figure is a drop in the ocean for a big company, I just can't help thinking that money could be put to better use on genuine stakeholder engagement and demonstrating that.
The companies said they do that anyway and assurance is on top, and that investors say they like it.
Also that assurance only looks at what is said, and not at what is not said. I take that point. That is also perhaps the fundamental problem with the very idea itself.
They may be right about investors, but for me, the biggest problem that reports have is that almost all fail to give constructively critical, representative stakeholders a proper, authentic voice.
That's a lot harder to do and sell internally than spending money on assurance, but from an external point of view, it's a million time more convincing.
"But that's a different issue from assurance", I hear you say.
OK, well if so, spend time and money on that, rather than outsourcing management controls to a very random audit. I suppose it doesn't matter that much: Do both if you must.
But the stakeholder engagement question is so much more important, yet so overlooked by comparison.
Entitled, "Is it a waste of money?" we had plenty of robust debate. I chaired the session.
I aired my views, mentioned in a post yesterday/monday.
I was firmly 'put in my place' by at least three large companies, Nestle and Volkswagen amongst them.
Their view is that for the money, it keeps people on their toes internally, helps integrate CR/SD thinking, and provides management with re-assurance that they are on the right track.
The report they receive, which is different from what is put out in public, is apparently very useful.
I take their points, but I'm still not convinced it's the best use of 50-100K a year. It still feels like outsourcing management controls when they should be managed internally.
I know that figure is a drop in the ocean for a big company, I just can't help thinking that money could be put to better use on genuine stakeholder engagement and demonstrating that.
The companies said they do that anyway and assurance is on top, and that investors say they like it.
Also that assurance only looks at what is said, and not at what is not said. I take that point. That is also perhaps the fundamental problem with the very idea itself.
They may be right about investors, but for me, the biggest problem that reports have is that almost all fail to give constructively critical, representative stakeholders a proper, authentic voice.
That's a lot harder to do and sell internally than spending money on assurance, but from an external point of view, it's a million time more convincing.
"But that's a different issue from assurance", I hear you say.
OK, well if so, spend time and money on that, rather than outsourcing management controls to a very random audit. I suppose it doesn't matter that much: Do both if you must.
But the stakeholder engagement question is so much more important, yet so overlooked by comparison.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Is there a point to corporate responsibility report assurance?
I've been reviewing a few CR/SD reports in light of Ethical Corporation's conference tomorrow on CR reporting and communications.
Can anyone tell me the point of assurance? I have never understood it.
As an external stakeholder, I don't expect the company to lie. They might make a mistake or two in the numbers, we all make mistakes.
But a very random audit, which is what assurance seems to be, is probably not going to pick that up anyhow.
And the assuring companies are not firms I trust to provide a challenging opinion to management.
There is too much money at stake for them to do that.
Is it then, to help management feel sure they are doing their jobs? I thought that's what internal controls and performance reviews were for.
Surely the views of challenging stakeholders would provide a much better impetus for improvement.
So what is the point of corporate sustainability report assurance?
Did I miss a meeting? Or a decade of them? I guess I did.
Can anyone tell me the point of assurance? I have never understood it.
As an external stakeholder, I don't expect the company to lie. They might make a mistake or two in the numbers, we all make mistakes.
But a very random audit, which is what assurance seems to be, is probably not going to pick that up anyhow.
And the assuring companies are not firms I trust to provide a challenging opinion to management.
There is too much money at stake for them to do that.
Is it then, to help management feel sure they are doing their jobs? I thought that's what internal controls and performance reviews were for.
Surely the views of challenging stakeholders would provide a much better impetus for improvement.
So what is the point of corporate sustainability report assurance?
Did I miss a meeting? Or a decade of them? I guess I did.
Drucker and stakeholder engagement: Fact and opinion
 |
| Drucker, engagement expert |
What some might want to call a science, suggests the author, begins (and likely ends) with an art.
Consider these two quotes from Drucker, via the blog post linked above:
"Big decisions may require new criteria. Whenever one analyzes the way a truly great, a truly right, decision has been reached, one finds that a great deal of work and thought went into finding the appropriate measurement. The effective decision-maker assumes that the traditional measurement is not the right measurement...The traditional measurement reflects yesterday's decision. That there is a need for a new one normally indicates that the measure is no longer relevant."
And:
"Ironically, opinions break executives free of pre-conceptions and poor imagination. Disagreement is a safeguard against being a prisoner of the organization and seeing an issue just as underlings want. Drucker quotes the famed General Motors boss Alfred P. Sloan, who after hearing executives unanimously support a decision reportedly said, "I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give us time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about."
The Harvard blog suggests that, of course, this approach is not ideal every time:
"If a decision is an operational one much like judgments the company has made effectively many times before, and there is little change in the external environment, then there is no reason to tinker with a successful process."
BUT, when it comes to new territory, Drucker's paradigm becomes invaluable:
"However if the company is encountering rapid industry change, poorly understood competitors, or new types of customers, Drucker's view becomes invaluable. The right questions provide a clear compass heading, even if the right answers seem devilishly complex."
Does this last part sound familiar with regard to sustainable/ethical/responsible business? I think so.
Applying traditional MBA/public relations/classic management consultant techniques, to corporate responsibility has consistently failed. Our 'industry' is partly built on that failure.
I can give you a thousand examples. Here's a whole report about that.
Can art become science when it comes to stakeholder engagement? Inevitably a mix of both will be needed.
But asking those open questions and listening to myriad answers before deciding the framework you are operating within cannot be short circuited.
We're dealing with very complex people and environmental systems. Short cuts won't help. In fact, as we've seen, they can hurt, quite badly indeed.
I'd be interested to know, on this topic, what readers think of the new, independent AA1000 SES stakeholder engagement process published a few days ago. Here's a link.
Sustainability reporting in 2011: Highlights and trends
I'm chairing Ethical Corporation's annual corporate sustainability/reporting conference this week in London.
Here's the agenda for the conference.
In light of that I thought I'd summarise, very briefly, some of the latest research and trends I've seen recently on the topic.
The mini-presentation is below. I'd love to know any trends/issues or events I might have missed.
Here's the agenda for the conference.
In light of that I thought I'd summarise, very briefly, some of the latest research and trends I've seen recently on the topic.
The mini-presentation is below. I'd love to know any trends/issues or events I might have missed.
Corporate responsibility/sustainability trends and highlights 2011
View more presentations from Toby Webb
Good article on corporate sustainability integration: Campbell Soup
This article from the excellent MIT Sloan Management Review is worth checking out.
It's all about the work Dave Stangis has been doing at Campbell Soup for the last three years.
He's a member of Ethical Corporation's editorial advisory board and someone I have a lot of respect for.
It's called 'Using Creative Tension to Reach Big Goals'.
There are some very useful insights in the article for anyone in the field.
When I have time I'll try and pull some key lessons out and put them on the blog.
We analysed some of Dave's work in this report published a couple of years ago.
It's all about the work Dave Stangis has been doing at Campbell Soup for the last three years.
He's a member of Ethical Corporation's editorial advisory board and someone I have a lot of respect for.
It's called 'Using Creative Tension to Reach Big Goals'.
There are some very useful insights in the article for anyone in the field.
When I have time I'll try and pull some key lessons out and put them on the blog.
We analysed some of Dave's work in this report published a couple of years ago.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
World energy outlook, predictions and resources
 |
| Yes we can, says the IEA. But it'll be our biggest achievement |
The International Energy Agency put out its latest energy outlook thinking a few days ago.
It makes bleak reading but contains some chinks of light.
The message I take from it is: Yes we are in a right mess, but it's by no means impossible to escape from our current situation, if we can engage in the systems change and beat the short term thinking that dominates today's political culture world-wide.
That's a big if. But it's where business will play a key role.
Here's some extracts that may be of interest. There's a fair bit here, but then this is complex and very important stuff, so you should read it. And so should all your colleagues, CEO, board and everyone down to the company cat.
Overall headlines:
- "Global primary energy demand rebounded by a remarkable 5% in 2010, pushing CO2 emissions to a new high.
- Subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption of fossil fuels jumped to over $400 billion.
- The number of people without access to electricity remained unacceptably high at 1.3 billion, around 20% of the world’s population.
- Despite the priority in many countries to increase energy efficiency, global energy intensity worsened for the second straight year.
- Non-OECD countries account for 90% of population growth, 70% of the increase in economic output and 90% of energy demand growth over the period from 2010 to 2035.
- China consolidates its position as the world’s largest energy consumer: in 2035 it consumes nearly 70% more energy than the United States, the second-largest consumer, even though, by then, per-capita energy consumption in China is still less than half the level in the United States.
- The rates of growth in energy consumption in India, Indonesia, Brazil and the Middle East are even faster than in China.
Fossil fuels, power and six degrees of climate change
- The age of fossil fuels is far from over, but their dominance declines. Demand for all fuels rises, but the share of fossil fuels in global primary energy consumption falls slightly from 81% in 2010 to 75% in 2035.
- Natural gas is the only fossil fuel to increase its share in the global mix over the period to 2035.
- In the power sector, renewable energy technologies, led by hydropower and wind, account for half of the new capacity installed to meet growing demand.
- In the New Policies Scenario (one of the IEA's scenarios for energy), the world is on a trajectory that results in a level of emissions consistent with a long-term average temperature increase of more than 3.5°C.
- Without these new policies, we are on an even more dangerous track, for a temperature increase of 6°C or more.
- Four-fifths of the total energy-related CO2 emissions permissible by 2035 in the 450 Scenario are already “locked-in” by our existing capital stock (power plants, buildings, factories, etc.).
- If stringent new action is not forthcoming by 2017, the energy-related infrastructure then in place will generate all the CO2 emissions allowed in the 450 Scenario up to 2035, leaving no room for additional power plants, factories and other infrastructure unless they are zero-carbon, which would be extremely costly.
- Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment avoided in the power sector before 2020 an additional $4.3 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.
- All of the net increase in oil demand comes from the transport sector in emerging economies, as economic growth pushes up demand for personal mobility and freight. Oil demand (excluding biofuels) rises from 87 million barrels per day (mb/d) in 2010 to 99 mb/d in 2035. The total number of passenger cars doubles to almost 1.7 billion in 2035.
- Natural gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuels, but increased use of gas in itself (without carbon capture and storage) will not be enough to put us on a carbon emissions path consistent with limiting the rise in average global temperatures to 2°C.
Rewewables and the importance of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
- The share of non-hydro renewables in power generation increases from 3% in 2009 to 15% in 2035, underpinned by annual subsidies to renewables that rise almost five-times to $180 billion. China and the European Union drive this expansion, providing nearly half of the growth
- The contribution of hydropower to global power generation remains at around 15%, with China, India and Brazil accounting for almost half of the 680 gigawatts of new capacity.
- Maintaining current policies would see coal use rise by a further 65% by 2035, overtaking oil as the largest fuel in the global energy mix.
- In the New Policies Scenario, global coal use rises for the next ten years, but then levels off to finish 25% above the levels of 2009.
- Realisation of the 450 Scenario requires coal consumption to peak well before 2020 and then decline.
- China’s consumption of coal is almost half of global demand and its Five-Year Plan for 2011 to 2015, which aims to reduce the energy and carbon intensity of the economy, will be a determining factor for world coal markets.
- If CCS is not widely deployed in the 2020s, an extraordinary burden would rest on other low-carbon technologies to deliver lower emissions in line with global climate objectives.
Investment headlines and the need for government action
- We estimate that, in 2009, around $9 billion was invested globally to provide first access to modern energy, but more than five-times this amount, $48 billion, needs to be invested each year if universal access is to be achieved by 2030.
- Providing energy access for all by 2030 is a key goal announced by the UN Secretary-General. Today, 1.3 billion people do not have electricity and 2.7 billion people still rely on the traditional use of biomass for cooking.
- The investment required is equivalent to around 3% of total energy investment to 2030. Without this increase, the global picture in 2030 is projected to change little from today and in sub-Saharan Africa it gets worse. Some existing policies designed to help the poorest miss their mark. Only 8% of the subsidies to fossil-fuel consumption in 2010 reached the poorest 20% of the population.
- More finance, from many sources and in many forms, is needed to provide modern energy for all, with solutions matched to the particular challenges, risks and returns of each category of project.
- Private sector investment needs to grow the most, but this will not happen unless national governments adopt strong governance and regulatory frameworks and invest in capacity building.
- The public sector, including donors, needs to use its tools to leverage greater private sector investment where the commercial case would otherwise be marginal.
- Universal access by 2030 would increase global demand for fossil fuels and related CO2 emissions by less than 1%, a trivial amount in relation to the contribution made to human development and welfare."
Further reading:
Here's a few niche energy industry websites I've had a hand in setting up in the last few years that may be of interest to you.
Each has an experienced editor and freelance writers all over the world.
They are all free to read and to sign up to.
windenergyupdate.com (Wind energy analysis and news)
csptoday.com (Concentrated solar power analysis and news)
pv-insider.com (Photovoltaic industry analysis and news)
nuclearenergyinsider.com (Nuclear industry, obviously)
tidaltoday.com (tidal, marine and wave power analysis and news)
evupdate.com (Electric vehicle industry analysis and news)
smartgridupdate.com (Smart Grids, as you'd imagine from the name)
Thursday, November 10, 2011
The role of ethical business in helping government
 |
| Our crisis, not just "theirs"... |
The Economist's recent edition on capitalism and protest makes an important point.
Namely, that whilst we can blame the banks and financial non-wizards for getting us into some of the trouble we are in, mainly it's due to governments overspending to stay in power and deliver on promises, over some 17 years of uninterrupted economic growth from 1990-2007.
The US over spent on wars and under budgeted on tax, whilst Europe simply over spent delivering services we couldn't afford in the long term.
The banks make easy whipping boys, and god knows they haven't helped themselves in terms of communication, transparency and solutions.
But governments are the far bigger problem.
If you've ever spent time with any politicians (I did some work from 2006-8 with the current UK Government when it was in opposition) you realise several things:
1) They are generally hard working, smart people who mean well.
2) Ideology and ego are big problems for them. Very serious ones. They cloud judgement.
3) They are supposed to know about everything, so spend their whole time winging it (improvising).
4) They are now under pressure to make quick decisions with huge ramifications like never before.
Now I'm not defending our over-spending politicians here. But it is time to talk about solutions.
How can business help?
I wrote a report in 2006-8 on how business can help in emerging/developing countries beyond current practices. You can find it here.
And for the UK, I put together a group which suggested policy ideas in a report, later adopted by the Conservative Party in 2008 as some of what they would do when in power. That report is here.
Our Prime Minister endorsed it, but has not followed up to embed it properly into government operating systems. Being frank: Some influential NGOs have ridiculed our 'Responsibility Deals' idea as a corporate stitch-up because UK Government allowed them walk away from the process.
The world has moved on since early 2008 too, in very many ways.
On the one hand we have Western governance chaos, and on the other the rise of other economies, with their own instabilities, which have very different cultural preferences.
Here's a presentation on what that can mean for business operating in some of those nations.
What can business do to help governments make better decisions? Here's a few suggestions:
1) Group lobbying for broadly recognised positive change with real world solutions (Climate change action is one example of collective and consistent exhortation where not enough solutions/costs/benefits are outlined collaboratively. Pension fund reform is another key area. More on that here 32 minutes in)
2) Skills training for institutions, in a collaborative and multi-stakeholder fashion (See here for examples)
3) Collaboration, via industry groups AND wider society representatives, on universally agreed solutions that government might promote (or ignore) Here's an example from our original policy report, not well implemented, but the basic idea was sound.
There are others. I hope readers will post ideas and comments as to which. This is not an exhaustive list.
Of course there are huge problems with big business getting involved in helping politicians make better decisions. The most pressing of which of course is the perception of undermining the democratic process.
I'm not sure it has to be that way though. If big business works with stakeholders openly and transparently there's no reason why collaboration can't lead to solutions. Business can play that important role of funding institutions which operate independently. The role of separate foundations with no corporate influence over them to help shape the agenda should not be underestimated.
It needs a firm hand from government and stiff backbone to stand up to lobbying from differing parties, but it can be done.
The current government in the UK has not done a good job so far in taking this forward.
Ideology, resource allocation, and a lack of competence has got in the way.
Job one for business is to convince government to take the collaborative approach, and its governance, much more seriously.
Job two will be to help deliver on the outcomes from genuine collaborations. And stop unhelpful, single-issue lobbying where it interferes with recognised overall sustainability progress.
I feel hopelessly naive writing this, like some kind of undergraduate asking why we all just can't get along after one reefer too many.
But think about it: If big business doesn't help drive change in an open and collaborative way, towards solutions, then who will?
We need well-supported representative institutions to be created to help find and manage solutions.
Our governments are just not up to scratch. We tried leaving it to them. Look where it got us.
Time to get more involved. CEOs need to be educated on why this messy collaborative stuff matters.
Those that will listen, can convince others.
Despite my criticisms in the past, folks like the World Economic Forum may be our best shot.
That is, if they can open up more and demonstrate they are prepared to operate in a bigger tent.
It feels like they are making progress in that direction. But others of their ilk are seriously lagging behind.
Perhaps a bit of pressure around purpose next time membership fees are due would be a good start?
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
Sustainability trends insight: Are you overwhelmed or enthused?
I don't know about you, readers, but I'm finding almost impossible to keep up with all the new information coming out on business and sustainability.
I've got a folder called "new reports" which fills up daily with a new piece of research or policy from someone or other significant.
Perhaps I ought to start a service that summarises these and puts out a weekly digest for a fee.
Here's what's on the reading list right now:
WBCSD's A vision for sustainable consumption
I've got a folder called "new reports" which fills up daily with a new piece of research or policy from someone or other significant.
Perhaps I ought to start a service that summarises these and puts out a weekly digest for a fee.
Here's what's on the reading list right now:
WBCSD's A vision for sustainable consumption
Ethical Corporation's Smart Strategy for Sustainable Business report
McKinsey's The Business of Sustainability
KPMG's Survey of CR reporting 2011
Forum for the Future's Consumer Futures 2020
Accenture/Vodafone's Connected Agriculture report
Ethical Corporation's State of Responsible Business in Europe report
Cone/Echo's 2011 CR opportunity study
Ipsos-Mori's Reputation Council Insight and Ideas, October 2011
Ethical Corporation's November 2011 edition
Let me know if I've missed anything of significance that's out there. Busy times!
One thing that's interesting about most of the above is they are all more 'offensive' than 'defensive'.
Perhaps that's a positive sign of how the leading companies are moving from risk management to opportunity.
Or it could be we're all trying even harder to make a business case for new thinking in difficult times.
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
KPMG survey says more about commercial considerations than anything else
 |
I should say first off though, that the research is a useful contribution.
There are some important numbers in it, as I mentioned in an earlier blog post.
These numbers are helpful also because KPMG is a company all CFO's, non-executives and CEO's have heard of.
However, their conclusions as to what makes the best corporate sustainability reporters chime exactly with KPMG's commercial offerings.
One commentator suggested to me today they also chime with leading client names.
Have a look at the below extract:
"Leading the Pack
The ‘Leading the Pack’ companies and sectors have achieved top scores in terms of professionalism of their internal systems and external accountability on the one hand and the quality of their communications on the other hand.
They have implemented information systems and processes to ensure reliable information, which is further demonstrated by either few or no CR report restatements.
‘Leading the Pack’ companies have asked for external assurance and both lead in terms of the breadth or the scope of assurance and the level they have provided for part of the full CR report.
On the communications axis, they have applied the GRI Guidelines to best serve the needs of stakeholders and to gain credibility.
Also, they use multiple channels to reach their audiences and have taken (the first) steps towards integrated reporting by merging CR information with their annual report."
So, where do we start? In the first paragraph professional systems, (classic consultant fodder to peddle, though of course important) are defined partly by those whose CR reports are not restated.
But as one sustainable investing expert told me today: "there is nothing wrong with restating [e.g. better data quality, new emission factors, changes to the baseline] so long as its clear what you've done and why, and so long as you update historic data to reflect these changes...in many ways, honesty about restatements is a positive."
How else was this KPMG conclusion reached? After all, companies don't reveal the quality of their data systems via their reports. It's not clear.
Remember: This 'survey' is not a survey in the classic sense: It's all simply desk research, not interviews or actual surveys in the real sense the word brings to mind.
The most important point to make here, though, may be the implication that reporting to conventions set partly by the vendor community, means real leadership. Reporting policies and numbers is not the same as actual performance.
Leadership is not about pseudo transparency to an incestuous CSR community, but about actual results, not just reporting.
You can be a world class reporter (by the service provider criteria) but still be 4th or 5th in your sector. Look at BP. Lots of vendors crowed about their policies and intentions before their total fall from grace on a performance basis.
'Leaders of the pack' also seek external assurance, deep in breadth and broad in scope, says KPMG.
But assurance does not make a leading reporter. It is a product that KPMG sells of course. But having KPMG's name on a report as an assurer doesn't really assure anyone that I know, and I know a lot of people. It's something companies do, but no-one is really sure why.
Stakeholder commentary, good and bad, is what assures people the company takes things seriously, not random fact checking by an accountancy firm.
According to the above KPMG statement, apparently GRI guidelines (paragraph three) are the secret to serving the needs of stakeholders and adding credibility.
Again, no-one I know recognises that. And no consumer, or employee will even know that that means. Most suppliers won't either.
Certainly the good SRI analysts won't take much heed. Spanish companies, for example, love the GRI to death, but how many real Spanish corporate responsibility leaders can you name? Not many, if any.
I'm sure KPMG can help you navigate GRI though. No doubt a partner is on hand to help you tick all the boxes all the way to leadership.
Lastly, taking the first steps towards integrated reporting is apparently enough to put you in the leaders of the pack group.
But there is no evidence at all, that integrated reporting is set to be the revolution in transparency and data provision investors and stakeholders need to help companies change course.
I wrote about this last year, which sparked a good debate.
No doubt integrated reporting will be useful to some audiences, in some ways. It will be part of the broad mix of data sets that will help us price risk more effectively, which is really what is going to make the difference.
But it is no panacea for the communications problems companies continue to have around sustainability.
In conclusion, I'm arguing two things here: One, I don't recognise the above as characteristics of the companies which really lead on sustainability. This is partly on the basis that being a leading reporter, if you are not being a leading company, is pretty worthless.
Secondly, whilst there are some interesting stats here, one should bear in mind KPMG's reasons for producing this desk research: Sell more assurance, integrated reporting advice and GRI-related services.
The results must be viewed in that rather biased light. A large pinch of salt please.
Useful sustainability reporting stats
This Greenwisebusiness article has some useful reporting stats in it, for those of you who like that kind of thing.
It's based on a recent, large KPMG survey/analysis.
So as far as that is reliable, so might these numbers be.
Here's a few of them:
"The analysis of 3,400 companies across 34 countries and 15 industry sectors, concluded that nearly every Global Fortune 250 (G250) company now reports its CR activity – with nearly half securing financial value from it.
...bigger companies twice as likely to report as those with revenues under $1 billion (£620 million).
...CR reporting is now undertaken by 95 per cent of the G250, representing a 14 per cent increase on 2008...
...48 per cent of Top 100 companies saying they had achieve cost savings through CR initiatives and 47 per cent saying they had increased revenues and/or their position in the current market through such measures. Reputation and ethical considerations, meanwhile, topped the G250 list (62 per cent) of global business reporting drivers.
...best performing sectors for CR reporting were forestry, pulp and paper (84 per cent), mining (84 per cent) and automotive (78 per cent), while those that had seen the greatest improvement over the last three years were construction (65 per cent in 2011 from 32 per cent in 2008) and pharmaceuticals (64 per cent from 25 per cent)."
None of this is really surprising. We still haven't worked out how to turn reporting into something beyond a valuable internal measurement tool. But perhaps that's really all it is, and will ever be.
It's not to be confused with accountability, or even transparency in almost all cases.
That's shown by action (usually after a specific event) and non-selective releases of consistently collected data. Not the same thing at all.
Were we naive in expecting anything else? I think so.
But it's good to know more big companies are trying to manage sustainability risk.
Now, for all those under a billion in revenue...
This is now the hard part. Big companies have shown the way and made the case.
Now more of them need to lead in the real sense of the word.
Leadership is not just about being ahead, more, its about taking others with you.
Monday, November 07, 2011
Two cokes and a sustainability plan please
Ever wondered exactly what the difference is between the Coca-Cola Company and Coca-Cola Enterprises?
I wasn't clear, so I asked Joe Franses. Oh, and we talked about some greener related stuff too:
Coca-Cola Enterprises and sustainability strategy and implementation
Joe Franses, head of corporate responsibility and sustainability at Coca-Cola Enterprises, discusses the company’s new sustainability plan with Toby Webb
Listen to the podcast here
I wasn't clear, so I asked Joe Franses. Oh, and we talked about some greener related stuff too:
Coca-Cola Enterprises and sustainability strategy and implementation
Joe Franses, head of corporate responsibility and sustainability at Coca-Cola Enterprises, discusses the company’s new sustainability plan with Toby Webb
Listen to the podcast here
Saturday, November 05, 2011
Stakeholder engagement: Learning to listen (And comms lessons from Sainsbury's and Coca-Cola)
 |
| Hi, I'm the group director of corporate affairs |
Last week I had another large, weighty, dull corporate sustainability report from a large company. (Actually three copies, and I have to pay to recycle all of them)
I won't say who it was, but the firm is one of the largest UK consumer brands. Not FMCG.
Why then, did the company send me a very boring report with no reason clearly indicated for opening it?
Why did they send me a letter from the group corporate affairs director, with no reply email address?
It's 'push' communication. And not very good push communication at that. No 'pull' involved.
That practice says a number of things:
1) We're lazy
2) We are not really that interested in what you think
3) We lack imagination as to how to engage you
4) We don't know how to communicate with you properly
5) The last thing we want you to do is actually reply to our group corporate affairs director.
Not good enough. Stop sending out your sustainability report with a letter written in corporate speak.
That is not engagement, or communications. I've blogged about this recently in a popular post.
That's demonstrating compliance (producing an annual review of sustainability performance) which is anyhow expected. If we want to read your report, we'll Google it.
If you don't know, or are unwilling to learn, how to communicate properly, it's best to keep quiet and save your shareholders the money.
(I'm not saying reporting is not valuable as an internal exercise, we know it is, but sending a report out does not count as communications)
Here's a couple of ways to communicate below.
Taken alone, they are not two-way, but in the absence of that they at least capture the attention.
If you can't show you are also genuinely listening, at least communicate in a readable and semi-engaging way.
(Don't misunderstand me here either: I'm not saying Coke and Sainsbury's don't understand two way engagement, they undoubtedly do, just that their sustainability comms work below is quite engaging)
http://www.ccesustainabilityplan.com/_assets/downloads/cce_crs_booklet.pdf
http://www.j-sainsbury.co.uk/media/373272/sainsbury_s_20_by_20_sustainability_plan.pdf
Why mail out reports when you can engage people online in easy to read formats such as these?
It's not enough on its own, of course, but it beats the hell out of 60 page paper report packed with self-selected PR guff and some interesting numbers hidden away in corporate speak.
Say it in fewer words and you'll only have space for the important stuff.
Less is more.
The web is where your report sits.
I'll be ranting about this in public in a couple of weeks at our annual conference on the topic:
http://events.ethicalcorp.com/reporting
Mallen Baker's recent post on the limits and problems of integrated reporting is also worth a read.
Friday, November 04, 2011
Sustainable science and cocoa
Yes this is blatant PR for IBM.
But the idea of technology and open source sustainability science is wider than that. I hope it works.
Carbon chart: Total emissions and highest emitters
"The world pumped about 564 million more tons (512 million metric tons) of carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009. That's an increase of 6 percent. That amount of extra pollution eclipses the individual emissions of all but three countries — China, the United States and India, the world's top producers of greenhouse gases."
More on all this, here.
Thursday, November 03, 2011
10 Lessons for corporate sustainability groups from the Eurozone crisis
Here's a few*:
1) Don't start talking to potential members unless they are genuinely, institutionally ready to reform.
2) When negotiating membership, include detailed stipulations on what must change for entry.
3) Set clear boundaries for measured progress once basic criteria has been met for entry.
4) Make sure entry stipulations are actually met before members join. (see all examples above)
5) Resource properly a monitoring center to make sure members don't drag their feet.
6) If a member crosses a line: enforce the boundaries, kick them out if you have to. That stick must be available. Your group needs teeth, the remit for which are agreed well in advance.
7) Make the group a club of aspirants rather than a club of bad boys. (EU got this right, EITI got it wrong)
8) Don't grow too quickly. Organic beats scale if you want to maintain steady progress.
9) Reward those who join and make changes: And show the world why membership makes sense.
10) Don't make it too easy to stay in: Keep the pressure up on a regular basis.
*This is possibly the most contrived link between topical news and sustainable business I've ever attempted. I'm looking forward to comments/being slammed for inappropriate opportunism
1) Don't start talking to potential members unless they are genuinely, institutionally ready to reform.
2) When negotiating membership, include detailed stipulations on what must change for entry.
3) Set clear boundaries for measured progress once basic criteria has been met for entry.
4) Make sure entry stipulations are actually met before members join. (see all examples above)
5) Resource properly a monitoring center to make sure members don't drag their feet.
6) If a member crosses a line: enforce the boundaries, kick them out if you have to. That stick must be available. Your group needs teeth, the remit for which are agreed well in advance.
7) Make the group a club of aspirants rather than a club of bad boys. (EU got this right, EITI got it wrong)
8) Don't grow too quickly. Organic beats scale if you want to maintain steady progress.
9) Reward those who join and make changes: And show the world why membership makes sense.
10) Don't make it too easy to stay in: Keep the pressure up on a regular basis.
*This is possibly the most contrived link between topical news and sustainable business I've ever attempted. I'm looking forward to comments/being slammed for inappropriate opportunism
Social performance, FMCG firms and consumers, and SRI investors
Here's three new podcasts I've taped in the last week. One of them at least, may be of interest.
Social performance in supply chains: A podcast on the state of play
Craig Moss, director of corporate programs and training at Social Accountability International, speaks with Toby Webb about how social supply chain engagement is evolving in 2011, and why he thinks Timberland, Disney and Gap are leading the fieldBig brands and consumers: PepsiCo on how FMCG brands can take product sustainability to the next level
Robert ter Kuile, senior director environmental sustainability and global public policy at PepsiCo previews a new report on how brands can and will respond to the sustainable consumption agendaInvestors and reporting: Why your shareholders care, and what they want to hear
Mike Tyrell, editor of SRI-Connect, tells Toby Webb that big shareholders want sustainability information, just in a different wayWednesday, November 02, 2011
Jim Collins on employee engagement that works
Here's some great advice from Jim Collins on how not to demotivate employees. Worth three minutes.
The best leaders, says Collins, don’t worry about motivating people. They hire passionate employees and don’t extinguish their passion. There's a big difference.
Jim Collins: How to manage through chaos
The best leaders, says Collins, don’t worry about motivating people. They hire passionate employees and don’t extinguish their passion. There's a big difference.
1) Hype: a failure to acknowledge the real difficulties the organization faces
2) Futurism: Always “pointing down the road” at distant goals and not at the tangible results of employees’ recent efforts
Further reading from Collins recently:3) False democracy: Inviting people’s input when you’ve already made up your mind
Jim Collins: How to manage through chaos
What’s Luck Got to Do With It?
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
The economics of protest; Income inequality, some stats from the US
 |
| Income inequality as protest (taken on Sunday in NY by the author) |
• The destruction of wealth that resulted from the Great Recession was widespread but not uniform. From 2007 to 2009, average annualized household declines in wealth were 16% for the richest fifth of Americans and 25% for the remaining four-fifths.
• The divvying up of the total wealth pie, even as the pie shrank, was made more uneven due to larger drops in wealth for those at the bottom. The share of wealth held by the richest fifth of American households increased by 2.2 percentage points to 87.2%, while the remaining four-fifths gave up those 2.2 percentage points and held onto just 12.8% of all wealth.
• The wealthiest 1% of U.S. households had net worth that was 225 times greater than the median or typical household’s net worth in 2009. This is the highest ratio on record.
• In 2009, approximately one in four U.S. households had zero or negative net worth, up from 18.6% in 2007. For black households the figure was about 40%.
• The median net worth of black households was $2,200 in 2009, the lowest ever recorded; the median among white households was $97,900.
• Even at the 2007 economic peak, half of all U.S. households owned no stocks at all—either directly or indirectly through mutual or retirement funds.
• Homeownership rates fell from a peak of 69.0% in 2004 to 67.2% in 2009, and house prices fell 32% from 2006 through the first quarter of 2009. Prices have since rebounded slightly but were at mid-2003 levels in the third quarter of 2010.
• Because of the housing bust, home equity as a percent of home value fell from 59.5% in the first quarter of 2006 to 36.2% in the fourth quarter of 2009. For the first time on record, the percent of home value that homeowners own outright dropped below 50%—meaning that banks now own more of the nation’s housing stock than people do.
More, here.
And here's Paul Collier on what to do with the bottom billion:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Sign up to my feed here
Posts
All Comments
