This video is fascinating, if the claims made within it are correct:
Watching this, it really made me think about how whilst systems are important, how they are managed is equally so, particularly in the arena of public governance.
How businesses help here will be vital in the coming years. Think about it: You either help Governments and important public institutions work better, or risk the responsibility of some aspects of them, being 'outsourced' to your company by Governments. It does happen.
The former is infinitely preferable in most cases.
Here's a report I wrote on how companies can contribute to improving the governance and capacity of public institutions.
It's also embedded below:
Thursday, May 31, 2012
UK readers: A short video on an essential charity that needs your support
I've blogged before on this very innovative charity in London, set up by Simon Marcus back in 2006.
As a trustee I know just how much good it does in taking potential gang members off the streets and helping them get their lives - and education - back on track.
Sainsbury's have been an important supporter, as have other organisations including the Guardian newspaper. But we need more corporate financial support.
If you'd like to know more or donate, go here.
Here's a video made by some of the kids at the Academy, about what it does for their lives:
The Boxing Academy has an amazing record of changing the lives of young adults.
The model is unique, and needs your support. So if you are wondering where your company should donate to in 2012/13, and you want to really make a difference in deprived communities such as Tottenham and Hackney, this is the charity to support.
As a trustee I know just how much good it does in taking potential gang members off the streets and helping them get their lives - and education - back on track.
Sainsbury's have been an important supporter, as have other organisations including the Guardian newspaper. But we need more corporate financial support.
If you'd like to know more or donate, go here.
Here's a video made by some of the kids at the Academy, about what it does for their lives:
The Boxing Academy has an amazing record of changing the lives of young adults.
The model is unique, and needs your support. So if you are wondering where your company should donate to in 2012/13, and you want to really make a difference in deprived communities such as Tottenham and Hackney, this is the charity to support.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Six ways to find NGOs to engage (when no-one is paying attention)
This is a question I've been asked quite a few times by companies to whom no-one pays much attention to on CSR issues.
I suggest to them in training sessions and workshops that they seek out local NGOs when choosing factories, plantations, local/national companies or even areas to source from.
The idea behind it is basic risk management: Local NGOs could tell you which factory or farm owners are known for treating workers badly, or well.
They can help with monitoring of specific working conditions, improving worker health, helping contract factory workers speak up or gain access to their rights, proper documentation etc.
But where, asked several CSR supply chain managers, am I supposed to find them when I go to visit suppliers and contractors?
India has over a million NGOs, so an executive from Tata told me back in 2005. One source told me recently it's many more than that.
How then, should a supply chain CSR manager from a sourcing company that no-one has really heard much about (ie not Nike, or Gap or one of the big buyers) find NGOs to engage?
Here's a few ways I thought of, I'm sure there are others readers could suggest:
1) Visit the offices of the big international NGOs in-country and ask their local officers who is active around certain factories.
2) Get in touch with community healthcare clinics, or local hospitals, find an experienced doctor to ask.
3) Ask some workers if you are doing interviews out of sight of factory management.
4) Speak to shift, farm and factory managers, ask which organisations can help the workers gain access to their rights.
5) 'Encourage' your audit firm to actually include an NGO mapping element in their reports back to you, and to do some of the above, if they can.
6) Ask your relevant CSR membership organisation to build a database of NGOs on a country by country basis, share information with other companies as to who is who, and their capabilities.
Much of this is all very simple stuff. But the question has come up enough times that I figured it might be worth a blog post on the topic. Look forward to comments.
I suggest to them in training sessions and workshops that they seek out local NGOs when choosing factories, plantations, local/national companies or even areas to source from.
The idea behind it is basic risk management: Local NGOs could tell you which factory or farm owners are known for treating workers badly, or well.
They can help with monitoring of specific working conditions, improving worker health, helping contract factory workers speak up or gain access to their rights, proper documentation etc.
But where, asked several CSR supply chain managers, am I supposed to find them when I go to visit suppliers and contractors?
India has over a million NGOs, so an executive from Tata told me back in 2005. One source told me recently it's many more than that.
How then, should a supply chain CSR manager from a sourcing company that no-one has really heard much about (ie not Nike, or Gap or one of the big buyers) find NGOs to engage?
Here's a few ways I thought of, I'm sure there are others readers could suggest:
1) Visit the offices of the big international NGOs in-country and ask their local officers who is active around certain factories.
2) Get in touch with community healthcare clinics, or local hospitals, find an experienced doctor to ask.
3) Ask some workers if you are doing interviews out of sight of factory management.
4) Speak to shift, farm and factory managers, ask which organisations can help the workers gain access to their rights.
5) 'Encourage' your audit firm to actually include an NGO mapping element in their reports back to you, and to do some of the above, if they can.
6) Ask your relevant CSR membership organisation to build a database of NGOs on a country by country basis, share information with other companies as to who is who, and their capabilities.
Much of this is all very simple stuff. But the question has come up enough times that I figured it might be worth a blog post on the topic. Look forward to comments.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Ten simple steps to supply chain CSR engagement beyond audits
I do quite a bit of training work with small and medium sized companies from across the EU on CSR.
Last week I was in Brussels with 15 retail supply chain and CSR executives from Germany, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and the UK, for example.
The training I lead (workshop facilitation is perhaps a better description) is on a variety of issues.
For example, how CSR managers can engage boards, managers, business unit heads, NGOs, media and suppliers, on CSR and sustainability.
These firms are anywhere from 30 to 5,000, 10,000 or even 20,000 employees in size. It really varies. The word medium depends on how you define large of course.
Not all of these firms have NGO campaigners or the media chasing them on corporate responsibility issues. Many, particularly the smaller firms, are only familiar with a compliance agenda, for example on supply chain issues.
Some companies do have issues that need managing, of course.
Last week during one training session we used the collective knowledge of a group of managers to try and come up with some ideas as to how to tackle a particular challenge one company is dealing with. We didn't solve their ongoing issues, but we certainly helped define some ways in which they could work on them.
But many participants in the workshops I lead, from smaller/small-medium companies, in particular, often ask how they should build interest and awareness in corporate responsibility issues when there is little pressure on them to do so.
This is particularly true in supply chain engagement, where company management doesn't see a need to go beyond basic audits.
So, how do you build CSR awareness, policy, action and follow up when there is campaigner pressure, no direct industry pressure and no real board interest beyond compliance in your business?
(I refer to CSR here because that is still a far more common job title than 'sustainability', in small/medium/large businesses across the EU, in my experience)
Here are some tips that I've used and refined over quite a few training sessions, and tested against some sceptical managers who often have bosses that just don't think the agenda matters.
They are very supply-chain specific, and are not guaranteed always to work, but are among the best I've found so far:
1) Take ALL the jargon out, immediately. Talk about the business case instead: Hiring and motivation, sourcing risk management, business partner demands, early warning systems for incidents (factories being burnt down by workers or shut down by Governments), saving money in production and distribution costs, becoming a preferred supplier to bigger companies, etc.
2) Start with something simple: Can a waste audit or removing waste bins in the office in favour of centralised recycling bins lead to a start of an efficiency business case? Start a small internal pilot with employee-led champions and expand it. Plant the seed of money saving alongside any 'greener' benefits.
3) Map the issues in your suppliers that lead to non-compliance. Make the links clear between badly-run factories and failures to pass ethical audits.
4) Base your supplier approach on a four tier strategy: Firstly, legal compliance, secondly, saving money, thirdly making more, fourthly, leading the industry and becoming recognised for it.
5) Select a pilot factory or two, and help them improve their business operations. In return, ask them to track progress and report the numbers to your quarterly.
Track these savings over a year, and show how better management = greater productivity = less forced overtime/safety incidents = saves money = leads to happier, retained workers = money generated by savings, which can be used to offset less working hours for workers = supplier pride in implementing the four tier strategy above.
6) Tell stories of competitors and others getting it wrong: Use examples of better risk management around reputation preservation and the impact on employees. (outside experts, like me, can help)
7) Don't neglect the higher level business opportunities for your board and senior managers: Better relationships with factories who made have increased domestic demand (China), and being seen to lead the industry (earning bragging rights, which really matters)
8) Go find NGOs who can help you manage risk. Don't wait for them to come to you. At a local level in the countries of supplier factories, ask the local offices of bigger NGOs who you should speak to locally, then get to know some key people who can tell you which local factory owners have a good reputation, and which don't.
9) Understand the political risk in sourcing countries. Which have a particularly febrile atmosphere, and may change the way you buy at short notice, or who you can buy from. Could a Trade Union partnership help you manage risk? (Here's another example, with some results)
10) When visiting suppliers, meet your national chamber of commerce in-country. What can they, or should they, do to help you? What about other organisations which you might be part of, consider the resources they may help that can help you understand risk, and solutions to it.
There's no magic bullet to tackling CSR apathy in any company. A good CSR manager uses a whole variety of the above methods and many others to build awareness, policy and action.
The key message here is that it must be linked to improving business operations and areas that other managers and particularly bosses, respond to.
Telling your head of supply chain that you can help them and their team get a bigger bonus because of shared efficiency savings and fewer ethical breaches in the supply base will go a long way in getting, and sustaining, their attention.
These are not all the methods I'd suggesting using, but some of the most effective ones. There are others out there of course.
Readers who'd like to discuss CSR training/workshop facilitation for their business can contact me at toby.webb@stakeholderintel.com
Last week I was in Brussels with 15 retail supply chain and CSR executives from Germany, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and the UK, for example.
The training I lead (workshop facilitation is perhaps a better description) is on a variety of issues.
For example, how CSR managers can engage boards, managers, business unit heads, NGOs, media and suppliers, on CSR and sustainability.
These firms are anywhere from 30 to 5,000, 10,000 or even 20,000 employees in size. It really varies. The word medium depends on how you define large of course.
Not all of these firms have NGO campaigners or the media chasing them on corporate responsibility issues. Many, particularly the smaller firms, are only familiar with a compliance agenda, for example on supply chain issues.
Some companies do have issues that need managing, of course.
Last week during one training session we used the collective knowledge of a group of managers to try and come up with some ideas as to how to tackle a particular challenge one company is dealing with. We didn't solve their ongoing issues, but we certainly helped define some ways in which they could work on them.
But many participants in the workshops I lead, from smaller/small-medium companies, in particular, often ask how they should build interest and awareness in corporate responsibility issues when there is little pressure on them to do so.
This is particularly true in supply chain engagement, where company management doesn't see a need to go beyond basic audits.
So, how do you build CSR awareness, policy, action and follow up when there is campaigner pressure, no direct industry pressure and no real board interest beyond compliance in your business?
(I refer to CSR here because that is still a far more common job title than 'sustainability', in small/medium/large businesses across the EU, in my experience)
Here are some tips that I've used and refined over quite a few training sessions, and tested against some sceptical managers who often have bosses that just don't think the agenda matters.
They are very supply-chain specific, and are not guaranteed always to work, but are among the best I've found so far:
1) Take ALL the jargon out, immediately. Talk about the business case instead: Hiring and motivation, sourcing risk management, business partner demands, early warning systems for incidents (factories being burnt down by workers or shut down by Governments), saving money in production and distribution costs, becoming a preferred supplier to bigger companies, etc.
2) Start with something simple: Can a waste audit or removing waste bins in the office in favour of centralised recycling bins lead to a start of an efficiency business case? Start a small internal pilot with employee-led champions and expand it. Plant the seed of money saving alongside any 'greener' benefits.
3) Map the issues in your suppliers that lead to non-compliance. Make the links clear between badly-run factories and failures to pass ethical audits.
4) Base your supplier approach on a four tier strategy: Firstly, legal compliance, secondly, saving money, thirdly making more, fourthly, leading the industry and becoming recognised for it.
5) Select a pilot factory or two, and help them improve their business operations. In return, ask them to track progress and report the numbers to your quarterly.
Track these savings over a year, and show how better management = greater productivity = less forced overtime/safety incidents = saves money = leads to happier, retained workers = money generated by savings, which can be used to offset less working hours for workers = supplier pride in implementing the four tier strategy above.
6) Tell stories of competitors and others getting it wrong: Use examples of better risk management around reputation preservation and the impact on employees. (outside experts, like me, can help)
7) Don't neglect the higher level business opportunities for your board and senior managers: Better relationships with factories who made have increased domestic demand (China), and being seen to lead the industry (earning bragging rights, which really matters)
8) Go find NGOs who can help you manage risk. Don't wait for them to come to you. At a local level in the countries of supplier factories, ask the local offices of bigger NGOs who you should speak to locally, then get to know some key people who can tell you which local factory owners have a good reputation, and which don't.
9) Understand the political risk in sourcing countries. Which have a particularly febrile atmosphere, and may change the way you buy at short notice, or who you can buy from. Could a Trade Union partnership help you manage risk? (Here's another example, with some results)
10) When visiting suppliers, meet your national chamber of commerce in-country. What can they, or should they, do to help you? What about other organisations which you might be part of, consider the resources they may help that can help you understand risk, and solutions to it.
There's no magic bullet to tackling CSR apathy in any company. A good CSR manager uses a whole variety of the above methods and many others to build awareness, policy and action.
The key message here is that it must be linked to improving business operations and areas that other managers and particularly bosses, respond to.
Telling your head of supply chain that you can help them and their team get a bigger bonus because of shared efficiency savings and fewer ethical breaches in the supply base will go a long way in getting, and sustaining, their attention.
These are not all the methods I'd suggesting using, but some of the most effective ones. There are others out there of course.
Readers who'd like to discuss CSR training/workshop facilitation for their business can contact me at toby.webb@stakeholderintel.com
Friday, May 25, 2012
Weekend reading
Here's something for the weekend you might find of interest:
Green Industry Platform - Sustainable innovation springboard
A new UN public/private partnership hopes to deliver sustainable development by greening manufacturing industry
View from the Middle: Markets can work for development gain
Howard Sharman explains how markets define value can save millions of lives, and at lower economic cost
How to support a low carbon economy
Better emissions measurement is a first step to supporting a green economy
Green Industry Platform - Sustainable innovation springboard
A new UN public/private partnership hopes to deliver sustainable development by greening manufacturing industry
View from the Middle: Markets can work for development gain
Howard Sharman explains how markets define value can save millions of lives, and at lower economic cost
How to support a low carbon economy
Better emissions measurement is a first step to supporting a green economy
Responsible Business Summit 2012 video
Here's some video and interviews from Ethical Corporation's conference, the Responsible Business Summit, held recently in London. It features short interviews with the Kingfisher CEO, the Diageo CEO, Coca-Cola Enterprises CEO and various others.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Greenpeace goes after the Colonel: Will KFC be a tough nut to crack?
The parent company of KFC, Yum! Brands, is not known as a particularly tree-hugging company.
You can take that literally, according to Greenpeace's new campaign, which does not present the Colonel in the most flattering light. It is quite funny though.
The ultimute target here, in the usual way, is actually Asia Pulp & Paper, supplier of rainforest trees to KFC for packaging, according to Greenpeace. No doubt that, or the percentages involved, are disputed on all sides.
None the less, when attacked by Greenpeace, you need to respond substantively.
Yum! Brands media statement in response to the campaign (presumably) is amusing in its brevity if not demonstrative of a committment to dialogue and transparency.
It simply says:
"Yum Sustainability Media Statement: 60% of paper products we purchase are sourced from sustainable forests, and suppliers are moving toward 100%."
Well, that's OK then. Except that's not really good enough. It certainly isn't for Greenpeace. Here's their new animated video piece.
Greenpeace may find KFC/Yum! a tougher nut to crack than the usual targets though.
The company has serious 'form' when it comes to campaigners. Back in 2004, in the midst of the major PETA campaign, KFC called the group "corporate terrorists" and lobbied for their non-profit status to be revoked.
This will be an interesting campaign to watch, the cliched term "unstoppable force vs. immovable object" springs to mind.
But KFC's brand is as vulnerable as the next big company's, so my money is on Greenpeace. It may take a while though.
You can take that literally, according to Greenpeace's new campaign, which does not present the Colonel in the most flattering light. It is quite funny though.
The ultimute target here, in the usual way, is actually Asia Pulp & Paper, supplier of rainforest trees to KFC for packaging, according to Greenpeace. No doubt that, or the percentages involved, are disputed on all sides.
None the less, when attacked by Greenpeace, you need to respond substantively.
Yum! Brands media statement in response to the campaign (presumably) is amusing in its brevity if not demonstrative of a committment to dialogue and transparency.
It simply says:
"Yum Sustainability Media Statement: 60% of paper products we purchase are sourced from sustainable forests, and suppliers are moving toward 100%."
Well, that's OK then. Except that's not really good enough. It certainly isn't for Greenpeace. Here's their new animated video piece.
Greenpeace may find KFC/Yum! a tougher nut to crack than the usual targets though.
The company has serious 'form' when it comes to campaigners. Back in 2004, in the midst of the major PETA campaign, KFC called the group "corporate terrorists" and lobbied for their non-profit status to be revoked.
This will be an interesting campaign to watch, the cliched term "unstoppable force vs. immovable object" springs to mind.
But KFC's brand is as vulnerable as the next big company's, so my money is on Greenpeace. It may take a while though.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Candidates sought for corporate sustainability / CSR case studies
If there are companies out there that might like some free masters-level or MBA-level research done on their company around sustainability, please do let me know.
Through my work at Birkbeck College, University of London, I am supervising dissertations on the MSc Corporate Governance and Ethics and the International Business MSc.
These are 15,000 word pieces of original research that students must complete by the end of each September.
From the next academic year I'll be supervising perhaps up to 20 students on research. Many of them will be looking for companies and topics to work on.
I also may have the opportunity to connect companies with students at Harvard looking to research sustainability in business.
The students tend to be smart, driven and enthusiastic. As post-graduates many have work experience, some have plenty.
Any company taking part in research of course has sign-off on whatever is used. Research also does not have to be published, most is not, merely used for academic assessment.
The value for participating companies is to have one or more smart students looking at their business. Essentially a free research resource for opportunities. If steered in the right direction, this work could be very mutually beneficial to companies and students alike.
Anyone who can suggest case studies or would like to discuss this, just let me know on tobiaswebb@gmail.com. Thanks!
Through my work at Birkbeck College, University of London, I am supervising dissertations on the MSc Corporate Governance and Ethics and the International Business MSc.
These are 15,000 word pieces of original research that students must complete by the end of each September.
From the next academic year I'll be supervising perhaps up to 20 students on research. Many of them will be looking for companies and topics to work on.
I also may have the opportunity to connect companies with students at Harvard looking to research sustainability in business.
The students tend to be smart, driven and enthusiastic. As post-graduates many have work experience, some have plenty.
Any company taking part in research of course has sign-off on whatever is used. Research also does not have to be published, most is not, merely used for academic assessment.
The value for participating companies is to have one or more smart students looking at their business. Essentially a free research resource for opportunities. If steered in the right direction, this work could be very mutually beneficial to companies and students alike.
Anyone who can suggest case studies or would like to discuss this, just let me know on tobiaswebb@gmail.com. Thanks!
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
A new resource on sustainability innovation is on the way
Bob Eccles and Georgios Serafeim are two academics to watch.
Along with Yiannis Iannou, they seem like the most productive pair of academics working in modern sustainability.
(Cue howls of complaint from academic readers, apologies to them!)
Bob, Georgios and Yiannis have authored between them, many of the most interesting studies in the field, from a mainstream business school perspective, in recent years.
Frankly, talent and knowledge/understanding of sustainable business at the level of detail they delve into, was until recently in short supply at Harvard (outside the Kennedy School) and at London Business School (since the excellent Craig Smith moved to INSEAD).
Bold words, perhaps, and I await commentary pointing out my errors in the usual immediate fashion.
Such things aside for a moment, Bob and Georgios have set up an Innovating For Sustainability Facebook page.
"And?" I hear you ask. Well readers, if they deliver on this as they do on their myriad other projects, it should end up being a very useful resource, that's my point here.
Bob asked me to pass on the following message:
"Please respond to our first survey question and check out our exciting announcement about provocative data on the decoupling of revenue growth and resource use we'll release only to our Facebook community. George and I will also be tweeting about this starting today." You can follow Bob on Twitter here.
Bob and George have already posted some interesting data on the page, a list of 50 leading companies that have over time reduced their scope 1 & 2 CO2 emissions relative to their economic activity (e.g. sales), between 2005 and 2010.
No doubt there will be more to come.
And in case you missed it, here's a link to an earlier post I wrote this week on sustainability innovation in companies world-wide.
Along with Yiannis Iannou, they seem like the most productive pair of academics working in modern sustainability.
(Cue howls of complaint from academic readers, apologies to them!)
Bob, Georgios and Yiannis have authored between them, many of the most interesting studies in the field, from a mainstream business school perspective, in recent years.
Frankly, talent and knowledge/understanding of sustainable business at the level of detail they delve into, was until recently in short supply at Harvard (outside the Kennedy School) and at London Business School (since the excellent Craig Smith moved to INSEAD).
Bold words, perhaps, and I await commentary pointing out my errors in the usual immediate fashion.
Such things aside for a moment, Bob and Georgios have set up an Innovating For Sustainability Facebook page.
"And?" I hear you ask. Well readers, if they deliver on this as they do on their myriad other projects, it should end up being a very useful resource, that's my point here.
Bob asked me to pass on the following message:
"Please respond to our first survey question and check out our exciting announcement about provocative data on the decoupling of revenue growth and resource use we'll release only to our Facebook community. George and I will also be tweeting about this starting today." You can follow Bob on Twitter here.
Bob and George have already posted some interesting data on the page, a list of 50 leading companies that have over time reduced their scope 1 & 2 CO2 emissions relative to their economic activity (e.g. sales), between 2005 and 2010.
No doubt there will be more to come.
And in case you missed it, here's a link to an earlier post I wrote this week on sustainability innovation in companies world-wide.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Where is sustainable innovation coming from? Some new entrants...
Three moments in the last few weeks spurred me to think about this topic:
- Some of the short listed companies we looked at for the upcoming Ethical Corporation awards
- A couple of recent programmes on 'frugal innovation' on BBC radio.
- A dinner on the topic I organised and moderated together with Abbott, a healthcare firm on the topic, which had some superb examples highlighted.
Here are some of the better known examples out there today:
General Electric and their work on portable ECG monitors and healthcare products.
Safaricom / Barclays / Vodafone et. al. and mobile banking.
Grameen / Danone Bangladesh and micro-finance and nutrition-enhanced products.
Unilever, their India Shakti network and various other initiatives.
Marks & Spencer & their support of Sri-Lankan eco-factories, recycled clothing partnership with Oxfam, and many other areas.
Nike, sustainable manufacturing, supplier engagement, and returning products to be re-made and sent back to you
Interface and other companies who lead the way on re-inventing manufacturing.
GlaxoSmithKline and access to medicines.
Skanska and rethinking building refurbishment for greener outcomes (Empire State)
That's just some of them. I won't pretend that this is an exhaustive list.
Here are some other organisations below who I think have potential to join this list, all being well in the next few years.
Many of them were awards entrants this year, and the judges and I read them with great interest, looking some of them up for further detail.
These companies are not yet 100% holistic in their overall sustainability approach, (as one might say Unilever, M&S and Nike etc are now heading towards), but are definitely interesting from a commercial sustainability point of view, and are often emerging-markets based:
(In no particular order: This is not another spurious ranking!)
1) Vodafone Turkey
2) Telenor Group Pakistan
3) Vestergaard Frandsen (Africa)
4) Telecom Development Company Afghanistan
5) Compartamos Bancos (Mexico)
6) Tata Global Beverages (India, elsewhere)
7) Danone Poland
8) Anvil Knitwear (USA)
9) Bama (Norway)
10) Itau (Brazil)
11) Marshalls (UK)
12) Desso (Netherlands)
13) Genpact (India, former GE business unit)
14) Natura (Brazil)
15) Woolworths (South Arica)
16) Abbott* (USA and world-wide)
17) Endesa (World-wide but particularly Brazil)
18) Golden Agri Resources (Indonesia)
19) HP Kenya (East African Computer Recycling Company)
20) East Africa Energy (Kenya)
I'll leave it to interested readers to look up what they are doing.
The smaller firms in the list often publish less. So I'll aim to make sure that you'll see these companies covered in Ethical Corporation later in 2012 and 2013.
I'll be adding to this list and re-blogging it as I find more examples.
You can meet and hear about some of the above examples/companies at the Ethical Corporation awards on June 25 in London.
If readers know of other companies who should be on such a list, or written about in more detail, just let me know.
There are other interesting candidates listed in this report from the World Economic Forum in 2011.
*Disclosure: I worked with Abbott on the abovementioned dinner on a paid basis. But that's not why I mentioned them in this post
- Some of the short listed companies we looked at for the upcoming Ethical Corporation awards
- A couple of recent programmes on 'frugal innovation' on BBC radio.
- A dinner on the topic I organised and moderated together with Abbott, a healthcare firm on the topic, which had some superb examples highlighted.
Here are some of the better known examples out there today:
General Electric and their work on portable ECG monitors and healthcare products.
Safaricom / Barclays / Vodafone et. al. and mobile banking.
Grameen / Danone Bangladesh and micro-finance and nutrition-enhanced products.
Unilever, their India Shakti network and various other initiatives.
Marks & Spencer & their support of Sri-Lankan eco-factories, recycled clothing partnership with Oxfam, and many other areas.
Nike, sustainable manufacturing, supplier engagement, and returning products to be re-made and sent back to you
Interface and other companies who lead the way on re-inventing manufacturing.
GlaxoSmithKline and access to medicines.
Skanska and rethinking building refurbishment for greener outcomes (Empire State)
That's just some of them. I won't pretend that this is an exhaustive list.
Here are some other organisations below who I think have potential to join this list, all being well in the next few years.
Many of them were awards entrants this year, and the judges and I read them with great interest, looking some of them up for further detail.
These companies are not yet 100% holistic in their overall sustainability approach, (as one might say Unilever, M&S and Nike etc are now heading towards), but are definitely interesting from a commercial sustainability point of view, and are often emerging-markets based:
(In no particular order: This is not another spurious ranking!)
1) Vodafone Turkey
2) Telenor Group Pakistan
3) Vestergaard Frandsen (Africa)
4) Telecom Development Company Afghanistan
5) Compartamos Bancos (Mexico)
6) Tata Global Beverages (India, elsewhere)
7) Danone Poland
8) Anvil Knitwear (USA)
9) Bama (Norway)
10) Itau (Brazil)
11) Marshalls (UK)
12) Desso (Netherlands)
13) Genpact (India, former GE business unit)
14) Natura (Brazil)
15) Woolworths (South Arica)
16) Abbott* (USA and world-wide)
17) Endesa (World-wide but particularly Brazil)
18) Golden Agri Resources (Indonesia)
19) HP Kenya (East African Computer Recycling Company)
20) East Africa Energy (Kenya)
I'll leave it to interested readers to look up what they are doing.
The smaller firms in the list often publish less. So I'll aim to make sure that you'll see these companies covered in Ethical Corporation later in 2012 and 2013.
I'll be adding to this list and re-blogging it as I find more examples.
You can meet and hear about some of the above examples/companies at the Ethical Corporation awards on June 25 in London.
If readers know of other companies who should be on such a list, or written about in more detail, just let me know.
There are other interesting candidates listed in this report from the World Economic Forum in 2011.
*Disclosure: I worked with Abbott on the abovementioned dinner on a paid basis. But that's not why I mentioned them in this post
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Might a Chief Sustainability Officer become a CEO?
Will we one day see a senior sustainability executive, or 'Chief Sustainability Officer', become CEO of a large company?
I would doubt it, at least things currently stand.
I'm not sure a senior sustainability executive, as they currently exist, would make a good CEO in today's world.
Here's why:
1) In laggard companies there would not be the support for them.
2) In middle-of-the-road companies they wouldn't have the business experience to be a good CEO and drive sustainability.
3) In leadership companies they wouldn't have the political nous, experience and connections to succeed in the way current CEOs in leading companies do.
That's not to say this can't change at some point. But I can't see a senior sustainability executive becoming CEO just yet.
It's most likely to happen in a company such as Unilever, where senior managers are moved around once they know key areas of the business very well.
In such circumstances, it's possible a country head or 'traditional' executive might do a stint in sustainability (as now in that firm), not see it as a career dead-end, and end up as overall CEO.
But Paul Polman told me recently that he has no plans to step down any time soon, thankfully.
It will be quite a while before a senior sustainability executive becomes CEO of a major company. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Those who are good at their jobs may realise they are better placed inspiring traditional executives rather than being the boss themselves.
(This post earlier today may also be of interest to readers: "Should Chief Sustainability Officers sit on the company board?")
I would doubt it, at least things currently stand.
I'm not sure a senior sustainability executive, as they currently exist, would make a good CEO in today's world.
Here's why:
1) In laggard companies there would not be the support for them.
2) In middle-of-the-road companies they wouldn't have the business experience to be a good CEO and drive sustainability.
3) In leadership companies they wouldn't have the political nous, experience and connections to succeed in the way current CEOs in leading companies do.
That's not to say this can't change at some point. But I can't see a senior sustainability executive becoming CEO just yet.
It's most likely to happen in a company such as Unilever, where senior managers are moved around once they know key areas of the business very well.
In such circumstances, it's possible a country head or 'traditional' executive might do a stint in sustainability (as now in that firm), not see it as a career dead-end, and end up as overall CEO.
But Paul Polman told me recently that he has no plans to step down any time soon, thankfully.
It will be quite a while before a senior sustainability executive becomes CEO of a major company. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Those who are good at their jobs may realise they are better placed inspiring traditional executives rather than being the boss themselves.
(This post earlier today may also be of interest to readers: "Should Chief Sustainability Officers sit on the company board?")
Should Chief Sustainability Officers sit on the company board?
Amongst the conversations and meetings I had last week this question came up in discussion with some experienced folks in the field of CR.
So here's my take below, on the pros and cons of having a CSO.
Arguments for:
A) Companies having a CSO on the board (note some are currently not, despite the title) can be seen by employees and others, to take sustainability seriously at a very senior level.
B) The CSO can input regularly to strategic business decisions, helping integrate sustainability into every-day business.
C) Other board members will become educated by the CSO on why sustainability is so critical to the business, and take that with them elsewhere, and into their daily work.
Arguments against:
A) It's just not needed. The CSO, or equivalent (why be a CSO if you are NOT a board level executive? It may devalue C-suite titles in the business) should simply report directly to the CEO and relevant executives. That way, the CEO and other executives have regular access to direct thinking, challenges, and information, and can lead more effectively.
B) The CSO becomes the focal point of sustainability thinking. This is unhelpful A) if they leave and B) because other board directors will feel less pressure to know about sustainability issues and be less able to spot risks and opportunities.
C) It just sounds a bit too woolly as a really senior business job title, today. Anyone with that title could be easily subject to internal and external ridicule, particularly if their role and responsibilities are not very clearly understood.
On balance, I'd suggest companies should not have a CSO job title in the business.
If sustainability is integrated into strategy, business unit heads should report to relevant board directors, senior execs, and the CEO on progress, not just to one person.
Head, or director of sustainability will do the job just fine. But they should have a reporting line and regular access to the CEO, AND other board directors / senior managers (if in the US, where of course senior managers aside from the CEO do not sit on boards)
Rather than have a CSO, why not instead have distinct and bespoke roles for board members / senior managers in the business, in integrating sustainability beyond their business line responsibilities?
So have the CFO spend time on collaborative groups that work on putting numbers against sustainability issues.
Have the head of supply chain / procurement take part in industry groups that focus on how to teach suppliers to run smarter businesses and thereby improve social and environmental performance.
Have your chief legal officer spend a week a year on cutting-edge anti-corruption or fraud prevention work, looking at causes as well as reactive solutions.
I spend a few days month with very senior execs, on average, I would guess.
None of them have ever asked me if they should create a CSO position in their business
If asked, on consideration, my response would be this:
"No, instead empower your sustainability director to speak to your board/senior managers regularly.
Then support him or her in giving other executives and non-executives direct tasks, next to their standard sustainability targets/expectations.
Finally, have those other executives and non-executives, report back on progress related to these tasks, and review them annually. This will drive both the embedding of sustainability, and innovation in the business".
I'd be interested to hear what readers think about this.
So here's my take below, on the pros and cons of having a CSO.
Arguments for:
A) Companies having a CSO on the board (note some are currently not, despite the title) can be seen by employees and others, to take sustainability seriously at a very senior level.
B) The CSO can input regularly to strategic business decisions, helping integrate sustainability into every-day business.
C) Other board members will become educated by the CSO on why sustainability is so critical to the business, and take that with them elsewhere, and into their daily work.
Arguments against:
A) It's just not needed. The CSO, or equivalent (why be a CSO if you are NOT a board level executive? It may devalue C-suite titles in the business) should simply report directly to the CEO and relevant executives. That way, the CEO and other executives have regular access to direct thinking, challenges, and information, and can lead more effectively.
B) The CSO becomes the focal point of sustainability thinking. This is unhelpful A) if they leave and B) because other board directors will feel less pressure to know about sustainability issues and be less able to spot risks and opportunities.
C) It just sounds a bit too woolly as a really senior business job title, today. Anyone with that title could be easily subject to internal and external ridicule, particularly if their role and responsibilities are not very clearly understood.
On balance, I'd suggest companies should not have a CSO job title in the business.
If sustainability is integrated into strategy, business unit heads should report to relevant board directors, senior execs, and the CEO on progress, not just to one person.
Head, or director of sustainability will do the job just fine. But they should have a reporting line and regular access to the CEO, AND other board directors / senior managers (if in the US, where of course senior managers aside from the CEO do not sit on boards)
Rather than have a CSO, why not instead have distinct and bespoke roles for board members / senior managers in the business, in integrating sustainability beyond their business line responsibilities?
So have the CFO spend time on collaborative groups that work on putting numbers against sustainability issues.
Have the head of supply chain / procurement take part in industry groups that focus on how to teach suppliers to run smarter businesses and thereby improve social and environmental performance.
Have your chief legal officer spend a week a year on cutting-edge anti-corruption or fraud prevention work, looking at causes as well as reactive solutions.
I spend a few days month with very senior execs, on average, I would guess.
None of them have ever asked me if they should create a CSO position in their business
If asked, on consideration, my response would be this:
"No, instead empower your sustainability director to speak to your board/senior managers regularly.
Then support him or her in giving other executives and non-executives direct tasks, next to their standard sustainability targets/expectations.
Finally, have those other executives and non-executives, report back on progress related to these tasks, and review them annually. This will drive both the embedding of sustainability, and innovation in the business".
I'd be interested to hear what readers think about this.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Royal Mail and doing dumb things for money
UK postal service Royal Mail is an organisation, like many, who purport to take sustainability seriously. No doubt that's true, kind of.
The global post sector, via a joint body, the International Post Corporation (IPC) has made great progress on sustainability in recent years if their presentations at Ethical Corporation's conferences are anything to go by.
The carbon reduction achievements are impressive, if improved by industry consolidation and shrinkage.
(Note to IPC: Separating out those numbers clearly may be a good idea)
Why then, one wonders does it make any kind of long term sense for Royal Mail to insist that the company is obligated to yesterday fill my mailbox with no less than 15 junk mailers all in one afternoon delivery?
My building is placing a recycling facility next to the mailboxes as a result, as of today, so all residents on my building can throw all junk mailers away responsibly as they come in.
A ridiculous state of affairs. Surely not a sustainable strategy in either the classic or green sense, given rising paper, energy and mailing costs.
I wrote to Royal Mail to ask why they do this. A reply told me, yes: "we are obligated" to do this.
And they told me, amusingly to mail an opt out letter, freepost, to an address to ask for the practice to cease with regard to my address. Email is not accepted. I enquired as to whether I had got the date wrong and we are back in 1973, to no reply.
This is a crazy state of affairs. Pure short termism combined woth desperation (to keep union jobs alive) by the Royal Mail.
The result: annoyed customers, wasted trees, massive carbon dioxide releases and in all likelihood, direct mail customers who don't get the results they paid for due to the volume all delivered at once. (although I appreciate that one could argue delivering junk mail all at once is more fuel efficient!)
There's got to be a smarter way to do business than this.
Even though B2B direct mail is less regulated than consumer (or used to be) direct mail across the board is a rapidly declining industry.
It never worked very well anyhow. I recall that 12 years ago response rates for B2B mailers were around 0.2 of a single percent.
That's why I started magazine publishing, initially to support a conference business. Back in 2000 I mailed more than 75,000 brochures to secure $500,000 in conference income for one event.
On a numbers basis, it worked. But what a waste of trees. It made me think. How, I wondered, might one engage an audience, build a community, sell product and be useful at the same time?
Eventually one magazine later, Ethical Corporation was born.
Now it's a profitable magazine in its own right, and has been for some years.
Such an approach of "content marketing" as opposed to straight selling, as some marketeers call it, is an evolution of Seth Godin's "Permission marketing" concept from the late 1990s, which today is reality in many senses.
The companies clogging up my mailbox ineffectually and paying Royal Mail for the privilege include Netflix and Virgin Media. These are firms that understand modern marketing.
Perhaps direct mail still works for them. Perhaps I shouldn't complain about tacitly helping maintain postal worker jobs by opening spam snail mail.
But I can't help thinking we ought be acting a little bit smarter than this by now. The Royal Mail should think again about the wisdom and logic of delivering bulk junk mail that no-one opted in for.
The global post sector, via a joint body, the International Post Corporation (IPC) has made great progress on sustainability in recent years if their presentations at Ethical Corporation's conferences are anything to go by.
The carbon reduction achievements are impressive, if improved by industry consolidation and shrinkage.
(Note to IPC: Separating out those numbers clearly may be a good idea)
Why then, one wonders does it make any kind of long term sense for Royal Mail to insist that the company is obligated to yesterday fill my mailbox with no less than 15 junk mailers all in one afternoon delivery?
My building is placing a recycling facility next to the mailboxes as a result, as of today, so all residents on my building can throw all junk mailers away responsibly as they come in.
A ridiculous state of affairs. Surely not a sustainable strategy in either the classic or green sense, given rising paper, energy and mailing costs.
I wrote to Royal Mail to ask why they do this. A reply told me, yes: "we are obligated" to do this.
And they told me, amusingly to mail an opt out letter, freepost, to an address to ask for the practice to cease with regard to my address. Email is not accepted. I enquired as to whether I had got the date wrong and we are back in 1973, to no reply.
This is a crazy state of affairs. Pure short termism combined woth desperation (to keep union jobs alive) by the Royal Mail.
The result: annoyed customers, wasted trees, massive carbon dioxide releases and in all likelihood, direct mail customers who don't get the results they paid for due to the volume all delivered at once. (although I appreciate that one could argue delivering junk mail all at once is more fuel efficient!)
There's got to be a smarter way to do business than this.
Even though B2B direct mail is less regulated than consumer (or used to be) direct mail across the board is a rapidly declining industry.
It never worked very well anyhow. I recall that 12 years ago response rates for B2B mailers were around 0.2 of a single percent.
That's why I started magazine publishing, initially to support a conference business. Back in 2000 I mailed more than 75,000 brochures to secure $500,000 in conference income for one event.
On a numbers basis, it worked. But what a waste of trees. It made me think. How, I wondered, might one engage an audience, build a community, sell product and be useful at the same time?
Eventually one magazine later, Ethical Corporation was born.
Now it's a profitable magazine in its own right, and has been for some years.
Such an approach of "content marketing" as opposed to straight selling, as some marketeers call it, is an evolution of Seth Godin's "Permission marketing" concept from the late 1990s, which today is reality in many senses.
The companies clogging up my mailbox ineffectually and paying Royal Mail for the privilege include Netflix and Virgin Media. These are firms that understand modern marketing.
Perhaps direct mail still works for them. Perhaps I shouldn't complain about tacitly helping maintain postal worker jobs by opening spam snail mail.
But I can't help thinking we ought be acting a little bit smarter than this by now. The Royal Mail should think again about the wisdom and logic of delivering bulk junk mail that no-one opted in for.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Three books to buy: BP & Deepwater Horizon, India Rising and land grabs
Here are three excellent books for summer reading. I'm trying to read all three at once, unsuccessfully.
I've read enough of each to recommend them though:
1) Run to Failure: BP and the Making of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster
Here's the marketing schtick:
"Having reported on business and the energy industry for nearly a decade, Abrahm Lustgarten uses interviews with key executives, former government investigators, and whistle-blowers along with his exclusive access to BP’s internal documents and emails to weave a spellbinding investigative narrative of hubris and greed well before the gulf oil spill."
2) The Landgrabbers (His book on water/rivers is also excellent reading)
"Fred Pearce lifts the lid on the most profound ethical, environmental, economic and social issue in the world today: How City Financiers, Chinese billionnaires, oil sheiks and agribusiness are buying up our hungry, crowded world."
3) India Rising: Tales from a Changing Nation: Travels in Modern India (Oliver writes regularly for Ethical Corporation)
"Oliver Balch takes the voices and stories of everyday Indians and presents a fresh, vivid, highly personalised account of the changes as they are unfolding. Travelling the length and breadth of the country, Balch leads readers off the tourist trail and onto the streets of modern day India."
I've read enough of each to recommend them though:
1) Run to Failure: BP and the Making of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster
Here's the marketing schtick:
"Having reported on business and the energy industry for nearly a decade, Abrahm Lustgarten uses interviews with key executives, former government investigators, and whistle-blowers along with his exclusive access to BP’s internal documents and emails to weave a spellbinding investigative narrative of hubris and greed well before the gulf oil spill."
2) The Landgrabbers (His book on water/rivers is also excellent reading)
"Fred Pearce lifts the lid on the most profound ethical, environmental, economic and social issue in the world today: How City Financiers, Chinese billionnaires, oil sheiks and agribusiness are buying up our hungry, crowded world."
3) India Rising: Tales from a Changing Nation: Travels in Modern India (Oliver writes regularly for Ethical Corporation)
"Oliver Balch takes the voices and stories of everyday Indians and presents a fresh, vivid, highly personalised account of the changes as they are unfolding. Travelling the length and breadth of the country, Balch leads readers off the tourist trail and onto the streets of modern day India."
Monday, May 14, 2012
Where do good ideas come from?
This video may help explain:
For those reading by email, click here.
"Chance favours the connected mind", argues Steven Johnson in this four minute video.
Sounds about right to me.
For those reading by email, click here.
"Chance favours the connected mind", argues Steven Johnson in this four minute video.
Sounds about right to me.
Ethical Corporation's Responsible Business Summit 2012, a few thoughts...
This year's Responsible Business Summit was for me, the first ever year where the CEOs were more impressive than our other speakers. (Ethical Corporation hosted the conference last week in London)
That's rare. And interesting.
Usually the company executives are head and shoulders above the slightly-awkward CEOs who read out speeches and then take questions only to offer fairly vague answers.
(I must say 2011's conference was not like this. But in the past many have been)
This year I was privileged to interview three CEOs in depth at the conference: John Brock from Coca-Cola, (podcast here) Ian Cheshire from Kingfisher and Stef Kranendijk from Desso, a smaller but very innovative company making carpet tiles and football pitches.
I found all of them knowledgeable, humble and eager to share.
Of course, these were three of the most engaged CEOs you can find. So one would expect them to know what they are talking about.
Our themes in 2012 were threefold: Competition, collaboration and cultural change.
Our CEOs and other speakers were strongest on competition and cultural change.
Collaboration is a weak spot, for all businesses.
It goes against the traditional grain, and outcomes are hard to attribute.
But it is the topic most-discussed right now, yet with the least tangible results.
The 'competition' theme of the conference was designed to highlight the business case, and how to make sustainability pay off across the business.
That's increasingly well known these days. Carbon, water efficiency, and engaged staff seem like the main pay-off, although there are others.
Likewise, companies 'get' that internal cultural change matters. More and more firms understand how the basics of embedding works, and that starts with cultural change.
Collaboration though, is a different kettle of fish. It's working with both customers (Desso) and suppliers (Coca-Cola Enterprises) for the leading companies.
In the case of Kingfisher, it's also about trying to make markets. (Their work on the UK Green Deal may well soon be a leading example of sustainability changing the way SME industries work)
But my take from the conference sessions is that two key sustainability / CSR areas have yet to be tackled substantively: Collaboration with competitors, and consumer engagement.
On the first point, I just didn't get the sense that's happening much, for understandable reasons. We've seen some examples in apparel, but they are very limited.
The Consumer Goods Forum is also grasping the nettle in some ways. (Deforestation is one of those)
Likewise, the work of the Sustainability Consortium looks promising. But I haven't heard much substantive detail as yet.
The overall message to me, is that it's early days for collaboration beyond common policies on areas such as climate change, water, and basic standards.
What I heard at the Responsible Business Summit seemed to reflect that.
On the second issue of consumer engagement, we're all talking about it, but even Unilever is struggling, as Paul Polman himself admits. (podcast here, article here)
This years UK drought, while it lasted, helped raise awareness probably more than any company has done.
Consultants made the case at the conference that companies have an opportunity to lead.
There is, they said, a trust gap/void that can be filled by the right business actions.
I'd agree, and have argued that on this blog.
Linking that with changed consumer behaviour and particularly increased sales is the tricky part.
Very few folks seem to know how to do that, and be able to demonstrate it.
It may not really be possible. Unilever's work will tell us whether it is possible in at least some areas.
In many though, it may just be about taking unsustainable products out of the mix.
Not as simple as it sounds, and not cheap, but possible.
Regulators may be able to help level playing fields and reward better products. Time will tell.
These 'limits to consumer engagement', and how to get past them to a more sustainable world will likely be a big theme for the conference in 2013.
I'm looking forward to that debate.
That's rare. And interesting.
Usually the company executives are head and shoulders above the slightly-awkward CEOs who read out speeches and then take questions only to offer fairly vague answers.
(I must say 2011's conference was not like this. But in the past many have been)
This year I was privileged to interview three CEOs in depth at the conference: John Brock from Coca-Cola, (podcast here) Ian Cheshire from Kingfisher and Stef Kranendijk from Desso, a smaller but very innovative company making carpet tiles and football pitches.
I found all of them knowledgeable, humble and eager to share.
Of course, these were three of the most engaged CEOs you can find. So one would expect them to know what they are talking about.
Our themes in 2012 were threefold: Competition, collaboration and cultural change.
Our CEOs and other speakers were strongest on competition and cultural change.
Collaboration is a weak spot, for all businesses.
It goes against the traditional grain, and outcomes are hard to attribute.
But it is the topic most-discussed right now, yet with the least tangible results.
The 'competition' theme of the conference was designed to highlight the business case, and how to make sustainability pay off across the business.
That's increasingly well known these days. Carbon, water efficiency, and engaged staff seem like the main pay-off, although there are others.
Likewise, companies 'get' that internal cultural change matters. More and more firms understand how the basics of embedding works, and that starts with cultural change.
Collaboration though, is a different kettle of fish. It's working with both customers (Desso) and suppliers (Coca-Cola Enterprises) for the leading companies.
In the case of Kingfisher, it's also about trying to make markets. (Their work on the UK Green Deal may well soon be a leading example of sustainability changing the way SME industries work)
But my take from the conference sessions is that two key sustainability / CSR areas have yet to be tackled substantively: Collaboration with competitors, and consumer engagement.
On the first point, I just didn't get the sense that's happening much, for understandable reasons. We've seen some examples in apparel, but they are very limited.
The Consumer Goods Forum is also grasping the nettle in some ways. (Deforestation is one of those)
Likewise, the work of the Sustainability Consortium looks promising. But I haven't heard much substantive detail as yet.
The overall message to me, is that it's early days for collaboration beyond common policies on areas such as climate change, water, and basic standards.
What I heard at the Responsible Business Summit seemed to reflect that.
On the second issue of consumer engagement, we're all talking about it, but even Unilever is struggling, as Paul Polman himself admits. (podcast here, article here)
This years UK drought, while it lasted, helped raise awareness probably more than any company has done.
Consultants made the case at the conference that companies have an opportunity to lead.
There is, they said, a trust gap/void that can be filled by the right business actions.
I'd agree, and have argued that on this blog.
Linking that with changed consumer behaviour and particularly increased sales is the tricky part.
Very few folks seem to know how to do that, and be able to demonstrate it.
It may not really be possible. Unilever's work will tell us whether it is possible in at least some areas.
In many though, it may just be about taking unsustainable products out of the mix.
Not as simple as it sounds, and not cheap, but possible.
Regulators may be able to help level playing fields and reward better products. Time will tell.
These 'limits to consumer engagement', and how to get past them to a more sustainable world will likely be a big theme for the conference in 2013.
I'm looking forward to that debate.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Asia Pulp & Paper update: Scaling up the lobbying efforts
It shows how little the media cares for the environment that even a newspaper such as the Guardian rarely puts green stories on the cover/homepage.
Today all UK media is obsessed with the News International story, Ad Nauseam, as usual.
Yes, it is/was a big story, but all the lessons have been learned now. We need to move on, and focus on more important things, like er, having a planet left to live on in 20-30 years time.
Meanwhile, buried away in the Guardian's website is a story about how one of Europe's most well-known politicians is now in the pay of a company rapidly being dropped by all major brands as a supplier, our old friend Asia Pulp & Paper (APP).
This should be a big story in UK media. The politician is Lord Mandelson, a deeply controversial and once-powerful figure. He is being paid to lobby for the company in the EU, where companies are fleeing assocation with APP rapidly.
APP is also a client of WPP, the advertising conglomerate that profresses green-ness.
Now APP (note the date of this release) has hired Mandelson to help it pretend it is going greener.
(It's not, and it won't have until APP can demonstrate that international NGOs such as Greenpeace are on board with a plan, no matter which paid flunky says otherwise)
It should be a big story, but it's been ignored in the UK media, largely.
This is a real shame. But at least you know about it now.
Scaling up lobbying without scaling real solutions to the problem has never worked in the past.
There is no reason to think it will now.
Martin Sorrell and Peter Mandelson ought to know that too, and be advising their client such, or walking away from them.
If senior figures don't show backbone, eventually no-one will.
P.S. / Update: 12/05/12: Sorrell has equity in Mandelson's consultancy and it has office space in JWT's Knightsbridge mansion. A cosy little club of dodgy practice.
Today all UK media is obsessed with the News International story, Ad Nauseam, as usual.
Yes, it is/was a big story, but all the lessons have been learned now. We need to move on, and focus on more important things, like er, having a planet left to live on in 20-30 years time.
Meanwhile, buried away in the Guardian's website is a story about how one of Europe's most well-known politicians is now in the pay of a company rapidly being dropped by all major brands as a supplier, our old friend Asia Pulp & Paper (APP).
This should be a big story in UK media. The politician is Lord Mandelson, a deeply controversial and once-powerful figure. He is being paid to lobby for the company in the EU, where companies are fleeing assocation with APP rapidly.
APP is also a client of WPP, the advertising conglomerate that profresses green-ness.
Now APP (note the date of this release) has hired Mandelson to help it pretend it is going greener.
(It's not, and it won't have until APP can demonstrate that international NGOs such as Greenpeace are on board with a plan, no matter which paid flunky says otherwise)
It should be a big story, but it's been ignored in the UK media, largely.
This is a real shame. But at least you know about it now.
Scaling up lobbying without scaling real solutions to the problem has never worked in the past.
There is no reason to think it will now.
Martin Sorrell and Peter Mandelson ought to know that too, and be advising their client such, or walking away from them.
If senior figures don't show backbone, eventually no-one will.
P.S. / Update: 12/05/12: Sorrell has equity in Mandelson's consultancy and it has office space in JWT's Knightsbridge mansion. A cosy little club of dodgy practice.
Climate solutions: Your budget needed
Here's what's proposed by NASA's James Hansen to tackle runaway climate change:
"We need to start reducing emissions significantly, not create new ways to increase them. We should impose a gradually rising carbon fee, collected from fossil fuel companies, then distribute 100 percent of the collections to all Americans on a per-capita basis every month. The government would not get a penny.
This market-based approach would stimulate innovation, jobs and economic growth, avoid enlarging government or having it pick winners or losers.
Most Americans, except the heaviest energy users, would get more back than they paid in increased prices.
Not only that, the reduction in oil use resulting from the carbon price would be nearly six times as great as the oil supply from the proposed pipeline from Canada, rendering the pipeline superfluous, according to economic models driven by a slowly rising carbon price."
More here.
It's of course a little more complex than this (just a bit).
But it is clear now, after a decade or more of debate, that we now know that emissions trading simply will not work. Technology will help, but it won't save us.
A GHG tax/fee is the only way to go. Now we know this, and all (sane people) seem to agree on it we need to begin exploring just how this will work, whom it will affect and how technology can help us overcome the hurdles.
I know work has been done on this, plenty of it. But we need more. Smart companies should support some serious research into consequences of carbon taxation.
BP always used to want to be seen to be progressive. Why not support further, well-publicised research into this? If Harvard are working on this, then why not help them financially? (BP has gone quiet on all this recently, if you search their website for "carbon tax" there are no statements to be found post 2008 at a senior level)
Exxon were saying upstream carbon taxes were they way to go back in 2007. Here's a quote from a piece I wrote on this five years ago:
"Exxon is in favour of what it calls “upstream cap and trade” of carbon emissions, where the “cost” of carbon-rich fuel sources would be paid at the point of its extraction, before the carbon was released into the atmosphere.
This might be when coal is mined or sold, or when petrol is refined from crude oil. Governments would have to think about a “price cap” to protect the industry, and allow businesses to pass on the costs to consumers, Exxon says.
Exxon’s proposed solution, when compared with the EU’s “downstream” cap and trade system - where companies pay to emit carbon dioxide as they emit it - would operate more genuinely “like a carbon tax” and fix the price of carbon, says the company. According to Exxon, this avoids the problems of working out emissions caps sector by sector as in the EU’s downstream system."
Of course Exxon and Hansen will no doubt disagree on who pays: the company or the consumer. How that plays out remains to be seen.
Better to start having that debate than continue kidding ourselves with emissions trading nonsense.
"We need to start reducing emissions significantly, not create new ways to increase them. We should impose a gradually rising carbon fee, collected from fossil fuel companies, then distribute 100 percent of the collections to all Americans on a per-capita basis every month. The government would not get a penny.
This market-based approach would stimulate innovation, jobs and economic growth, avoid enlarging government or having it pick winners or losers.
Most Americans, except the heaviest energy users, would get more back than they paid in increased prices.
Not only that, the reduction in oil use resulting from the carbon price would be nearly six times as great as the oil supply from the proposed pipeline from Canada, rendering the pipeline superfluous, according to economic models driven by a slowly rising carbon price."
More here.
It's of course a little more complex than this (just a bit).
But it is clear now, after a decade or more of debate, that we now know that emissions trading simply will not work. Technology will help, but it won't save us.
A GHG tax/fee is the only way to go. Now we know this, and all (sane people) seem to agree on it we need to begin exploring just how this will work, whom it will affect and how technology can help us overcome the hurdles.
I know work has been done on this, plenty of it. But we need more. Smart companies should support some serious research into consequences of carbon taxation.
BP always used to want to be seen to be progressive. Why not support further, well-publicised research into this? If Harvard are working on this, then why not help them financially? (BP has gone quiet on all this recently, if you search their website for "carbon tax" there are no statements to be found post 2008 at a senior level)
Exxon were saying upstream carbon taxes were they way to go back in 2007. Here's a quote from a piece I wrote on this five years ago:
"Exxon is in favour of what it calls “upstream cap and trade” of carbon emissions, where the “cost” of carbon-rich fuel sources would be paid at the point of its extraction, before the carbon was released into the atmosphere.
This might be when coal is mined or sold, or when petrol is refined from crude oil. Governments would have to think about a “price cap” to protect the industry, and allow businesses to pass on the costs to consumers, Exxon says.
Exxon’s proposed solution, when compared with the EU’s “downstream” cap and trade system - where companies pay to emit carbon dioxide as they emit it - would operate more genuinely “like a carbon tax” and fix the price of carbon, says the company. According to Exxon, this avoids the problems of working out emissions caps sector by sector as in the EU’s downstream system."
Of course Exxon and Hansen will no doubt disagree on who pays: the company or the consumer. How that plays out remains to be seen.
Better to start having that debate than continue kidding ourselves with emissions trading nonsense.
Monday, May 07, 2012
Sustainability and suppliers, don't engage, transform...
Having spent some time writing about palm oil and interviewing the Unilever CEO recently, I'm convinced, as I have been for a while, that large companies need to go much further than many do on supplier engagement.
Consumers are very hard to engage, as we know. Supply chains, particularly Tier One suppliers, are where much more can be achieved much more quickly than with consumers.
Audits and requests for data are all every well, but as reported this month again, we know they only deliver in the short term, at best.
Further resources, supported at a higher level are needed for real, lasting results. Results that deliver for all. Coca-Cola Enterprises deserves serious praise in this area. When it is CEO-led, it matters, and can be embedded.
More on all that below.
Tomorrow I'll be speaking with the Coca-Cola Enterprises CEO John Brock, about this in more detail at the Responsible Business Summit in London.
I'll also be asking the Kingfisher and Desso CEOs about suppliers, and sustainability leadership, on Tuesday.
I'll report back on the conference later in the week on the blog.
Here's my latest column for Ethical Corporation on the subject.
It's also below.
Supplier operations: Smarter business works
Transforming supplier business models is the corporate strategy of the future, argues Toby Webb
The old cliché says that “charity begins at home”. Is that right? Well, yes and no.
Yes, because in a corporate sustainability context you have to get your house in order, that’s clear.
No, because much of your impacts are likely to be in your supply chain (although there are exceptions). So it makes sense to get into that chain as early as possible.
Today lots of large companies, perhaps 5,000 from the 100,000 or so transnational firms in the world, have sustainability targets. Many even have holistic “plans” with ambitious 2015 or 2020 targets across their business.
This is all excellent stuff. Well done us. Jolly good show. Pat on the back.
But for many businesses, making these plans happen, and making them have an impact internationally, is going to be about sustainable change in how suppliers operate.
This is now becoming patently obvious. If you want to solve supply chain sustainability challenges, you’ve got to go back to the way business used to be done, but now with technology, training and human/resource efficiency prioritised.
Longer-term contracts, financing mechanisms, technical training, less chopping and changing for a quick buck. These are all key areas to work on.
When we wanted FSC paper for Ethical Corporation ten years ago, we collaborated with our printer (the only one we’ve ever used) to buy 400 tonnes of paper, so we could get the price down. That was done on a handshake, but that commitment locked us in to working with that supplier, morally speaking, for many years, right up until today. Not that we wanted to switch, despite cheaper offers, but it meant the relationship felt solid. They invested, and we promised to buy from them. We both won. Eventually the printer switched all its printing to FSC. Win-win-win.
Companies that lead the way on sustainability have been pioneering longer-term and more in-depth supplier relationships for years. For them, this is not new. I’m talking about companies such as Nike (technical training for suppliers), Unilever (smallholder farmers) Marks & Spencer (eco-factories) and Sainsbury’s (bananas).
Cadbury, before being swallowed by Kraft, was also developing long-term supplier partnerships with cocoa-producing villages in Ghana. I know, I went there and saw them. There are other examples out there, of course.
Genuine collaboration
Now we’re seeing firms such as Nestlé take the cloying concept of “shared value” and turn it into genuine, in-depth supplier collaboration. Its work with Golden-Agri Resources on palm oil could soon become a model for supply chain transparency in Indonesia, a difficult operating environment to get good news stories from.
In the equally complicated and low-margin clothing industry, companies such as New Look have done amazing work with suppliers, helping them understand how to run better factories. What have better factory management practices got to do with sustainability? Everything. If you want to cut forced overtime for workers, increase productivity, reduce accidents, increase profits and lower environmental emissions and impacts, that’s all about smarter business.
That’s easy to say, but your average stressed shift manager or factory owner doesn’t usually know how smarter business can or should be applied to their workers or business operations. We must remember that most developing country entrepreneurs and managers didn’t go to business school. They didn’t have much, if any, real training. They saw opportunities, and they made it up as they went along.
That makes them heroes in many ways: for taking risks, creating jobs, lowering prices. But the unintended consequences of that created demand have been serious impacts on the environment and human well-being, as we all know. These managers are not bad people. They just didn’t understand how to do business any other way, and most still don’t. Big companies must help them find out, and push them to improve. Resource efficiency, environmental impacts and the need to hang on to workers have created a pressing business case.
I don’t know of a manager or business owner anywhere who would turn down practical help to become more efficient. Making sustainability stick has to be framed in those terms. Get that right, and put the resources into doing so, in a five-year timescale with annual reporting and measurement, and you’ll be amazed at the results, for both your business and the planet.
It really can be that simple. Put in a little money, and get a massive sustainability return.
Toby Webb is founder and chairman of Ethical Corporation, and chief executive of Stakeholder Intelligence, a research and training firm.
Consumers are very hard to engage, as we know. Supply chains, particularly Tier One suppliers, are where much more can be achieved much more quickly than with consumers.
Audits and requests for data are all every well, but as reported this month again, we know they only deliver in the short term, at best.
Further resources, supported at a higher level are needed for real, lasting results. Results that deliver for all. Coca-Cola Enterprises deserves serious praise in this area. When it is CEO-led, it matters, and can be embedded.
More on all that below.
Tomorrow I'll be speaking with the Coca-Cola Enterprises CEO John Brock, about this in more detail at the Responsible Business Summit in London.
I'll also be asking the Kingfisher and Desso CEOs about suppliers, and sustainability leadership, on Tuesday.
I'll report back on the conference later in the week on the blog.
Here's my latest column for Ethical Corporation on the subject.
It's also below.
Supplier operations: Smarter business works
Transforming supplier business models is the corporate strategy of the future, argues Toby Webb
The old cliché says that “charity begins at home”. Is that right? Well, yes and no.
Yes, because in a corporate sustainability context you have to get your house in order, that’s clear.
No, because much of your impacts are likely to be in your supply chain (although there are exceptions). So it makes sense to get into that chain as early as possible.
Today lots of large companies, perhaps 5,000 from the 100,000 or so transnational firms in the world, have sustainability targets. Many even have holistic “plans” with ambitious 2015 or 2020 targets across their business.
This is all excellent stuff. Well done us. Jolly good show. Pat on the back.
But for many businesses, making these plans happen, and making them have an impact internationally, is going to be about sustainable change in how suppliers operate.
This is now becoming patently obvious. If you want to solve supply chain sustainability challenges, you’ve got to go back to the way business used to be done, but now with technology, training and human/resource efficiency prioritised.
Longer-term contracts, financing mechanisms, technical training, less chopping and changing for a quick buck. These are all key areas to work on.
When we wanted FSC paper for Ethical Corporation ten years ago, we collaborated with our printer (the only one we’ve ever used) to buy 400 tonnes of paper, so we could get the price down. That was done on a handshake, but that commitment locked us in to working with that supplier, morally speaking, for many years, right up until today. Not that we wanted to switch, despite cheaper offers, but it meant the relationship felt solid. They invested, and we promised to buy from them. We both won. Eventually the printer switched all its printing to FSC. Win-win-win.
Companies that lead the way on sustainability have been pioneering longer-term and more in-depth supplier relationships for years. For them, this is not new. I’m talking about companies such as Nike (technical training for suppliers), Unilever (smallholder farmers) Marks & Spencer (eco-factories) and Sainsbury’s (bananas).
Cadbury, before being swallowed by Kraft, was also developing long-term supplier partnerships with cocoa-producing villages in Ghana. I know, I went there and saw them. There are other examples out there, of course.
Genuine collaboration
Now we’re seeing firms such as Nestlé take the cloying concept of “shared value” and turn it into genuine, in-depth supplier collaboration. Its work with Golden-Agri Resources on palm oil could soon become a model for supply chain transparency in Indonesia, a difficult operating environment to get good news stories from.
In the equally complicated and low-margin clothing industry, companies such as New Look have done amazing work with suppliers, helping them understand how to run better factories. What have better factory management practices got to do with sustainability? Everything. If you want to cut forced overtime for workers, increase productivity, reduce accidents, increase profits and lower environmental emissions and impacts, that’s all about smarter business.
That’s easy to say, but your average stressed shift manager or factory owner doesn’t usually know how smarter business can or should be applied to their workers or business operations. We must remember that most developing country entrepreneurs and managers didn’t go to business school. They didn’t have much, if any, real training. They saw opportunities, and they made it up as they went along.
That makes them heroes in many ways: for taking risks, creating jobs, lowering prices. But the unintended consequences of that created demand have been serious impacts on the environment and human well-being, as we all know. These managers are not bad people. They just didn’t understand how to do business any other way, and most still don’t. Big companies must help them find out, and push them to improve. Resource efficiency, environmental impacts and the need to hang on to workers have created a pressing business case.
I don’t know of a manager or business owner anywhere who would turn down practical help to become more efficient. Making sustainability stick has to be framed in those terms. Get that right, and put the resources into doing so, in a five-year timescale with annual reporting and measurement, and you’ll be amazed at the results, for both your business and the planet.
It really can be that simple. Put in a little money, and get a massive sustainability return.
Toby Webb is founder and chairman of Ethical Corporation, and chief executive of Stakeholder Intelligence, a research and training firm.
Sunday, May 06, 2012
20 minutes on the future of energy
Amory Lovins makes a compelling case for decentralised US renewable energy roll-out in this video talk below.
According to Lovins, alternative energy can provide base load power if used smartly. Phew.
I'm looking forward to reading his book on all this, it's called "re-inventing fire".
Here's the video presentation: Amory Lovins: A 50-year plan for energy
According to Lovins, alternative energy can provide base load power if used smartly. Phew.
I'm looking forward to reading his book on all this, it's called "re-inventing fire".
Here's the video presentation: Amory Lovins: A 50-year plan for energy
Wednesday, May 02, 2012
Gap and Southwest Airlines on social media, crisis and reputation
Regular Ethical Corporation podcast listeners are probably used me stumbling over questions to executives and other folks in sustainability.
Here's a couple of very good, short podcasts put together by my colleague Nick Johnson, COO at Ethical Corporation and boss of UsefulSocialMedia.com, with Gap and Southwest on how they use and manage social media.
Sue Kwon, Director of Social Media at Gap Inc, speaks with Nick Johnson on how Gap Inc shares and manages the use of social media across their departments including; CSR, comms, marketing and more. Click here for the podcast. It's a good one.
Linda Rutherford, VP of PR at Southwest Airlines, speaks with Nick Johnson on how Southwest Airlines uses social media to manage their brand reputation plus gain insight into their customers and the travel business. Click here for the podcast. This was followed by a fantasic presentation, a company to watch.
More on the event, which Ethical Corporation and UsefulSocialMedia jointly hosted in March, is here.
We'll also be hosting this conference in London in the next year or so. We'll also be publishing a report on how companies use social media for crisis and risk/reputation management later in 2012.
Here's a couple of very good, short podcasts put together by my colleague Nick Johnson, COO at Ethical Corporation and boss of UsefulSocialMedia.com, with Gap and Southwest on how they use and manage social media.
Sue Kwon, Director of Social Media at Gap Inc, speaks with Nick Johnson on how Gap Inc shares and manages the use of social media across their departments including; CSR, comms, marketing and more. Click here for the podcast. It's a good one.
Linda Rutherford, VP of PR at Southwest Airlines, speaks with Nick Johnson on how Southwest Airlines uses social media to manage their brand reputation plus gain insight into their customers and the travel business. Click here for the podcast. This was followed by a fantasic presentation, a company to watch.
More on the event, which Ethical Corporation and UsefulSocialMedia jointly hosted in March, is here.
We'll also be hosting this conference in London in the next year or so. We'll also be publishing a report on how companies use social media for crisis and risk/reputation management later in 2012.
What would you like to see covered in Ethical Corporation?
Tomorrow we're deciding some of the key themes to be covered in Ethical Corporation mag/online in the second half of 2012.
Some ideas already on the table include:
- Rio+20: What happened, and what it means.
- Country briefing: Bangladesh - How leading companies are driving change, consumer attitudes, NGO actions and government policy.
- Management briefing: how to engage business partners in sustainability.
- Strategy and management focus: Ruggie proposals a year on, and how they apply to different sectors
- Country briefing: Thailand and Vietnam. How leading companies are driving change, consumer attitudes, NGO actions and government policy
- Management briefing: how to use sustainability guidelines (GRI, ISO26000, etc) for maximum benefit.
Other areas we're looking at include sustainability in the global wine industry, how to help suppliers run better businesses, how CR reporting is evolving, and how oil, gas, mining and heavy industry firms are responding to a changing operating environment in 2012.
I know not all blog readers are magazine subscribers, but we will give some content on the above away free where we can and I'll try and offer some summaries of what we have said on the blog.
If you are interested in signing up, contact Harshi.Joshi@ethicalcorp.com
And we'd value your ideas on what else we should/could cover in the magazine and on ethicalcorp.com.
Some ideas already on the table include:
- Rio+20: What happened, and what it means.
- Country briefing: Bangladesh - How leading companies are driving change, consumer attitudes, NGO actions and government policy.
- Management briefing: how to engage business partners in sustainability.
- Strategy and management focus: Ruggie proposals a year on, and how they apply to different sectors
- Country briefing: Thailand and Vietnam. How leading companies are driving change, consumer attitudes, NGO actions and government policy
- Management briefing: how to use sustainability guidelines (GRI, ISO26000, etc) for maximum benefit.
Other areas we're looking at include sustainability in the global wine industry, how to help suppliers run better businesses, how CR reporting is evolving, and how oil, gas, mining and heavy industry firms are responding to a changing operating environment in 2012.
I know not all blog readers are magazine subscribers, but we will give some content on the above away free where we can and I'll try and offer some summaries of what we have said on the blog.
If you are interested in signing up, contact Harshi.Joshi@ethicalcorp.com
And we'd value your ideas on what else we should/could cover in the magazine and on ethicalcorp.com.
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
What would you ask a CEO about sustainability?
So next week I'm going to be lucky enough to spend some time talking with CEOs about sustainability at our Responsible Business Summit in London.
(note, no link, I'm not pitching it to you :)
A few years ago that would have filled me with feelings of dread.
Because interviewing most CEOs back then was like pulling teeth (I assume, I've not pulled many teeth).
One got soundbite and CSR-report copy replies and generalisations about leadership in response to questions. Yawn, sigh.
These days though, CEOs really do get it, at least the ones who speak (makes a change!), and so one can have a really quite interesting conversation and perhaps plant a few seeds in their minds.
With that in mind, here's the bosses I am meeting below. What would you ask them?
My thoughts are in brackets after their company names below.
- John Brock, CEO, Coca-Cola Enterprises (I'm thinking suppliers)
- Paul Walsh, CEO, Diageo (David Grayson interviewing him, but can feed in ideas)
- Ian Cheshire, CEO, Kingfisher (I'm thinking collaboration vs. competition)
- Peter Rothwell, CEO, Kuoni Travel (David again, but happy to suggest)
- Stef Kranendijk, CEO, Desso (Lessons from quick progress)
- Tom Vesey, CEO, Risk 2 Reputation (Key tips on board engagement in reputation)
Now, I know there are no women here. We really tried hard to get female CEOs. We racked our brains, we researched, we just couldn't get anyone on board.
So gender diversity is perhaps one area to ask about. What else would you want to know/ask/plant in their heads?
I'll do my best to report back on what they said for those who can't make it along.
(note, no link, I'm not pitching it to you :)
A few years ago that would have filled me with feelings of dread.
Because interviewing most CEOs back then was like pulling teeth (I assume, I've not pulled many teeth).
One got soundbite and CSR-report copy replies and generalisations about leadership in response to questions. Yawn, sigh.
These days though, CEOs really do get it, at least the ones who speak (makes a change!), and so one can have a really quite interesting conversation and perhaps plant a few seeds in their minds.
With that in mind, here's the bosses I am meeting below. What would you ask them?
My thoughts are in brackets after their company names below.
- John Brock, CEO, Coca-Cola Enterprises (I'm thinking suppliers)
- Paul Walsh, CEO, Diageo (David Grayson interviewing him, but can feed in ideas)
- Ian Cheshire, CEO, Kingfisher (I'm thinking collaboration vs. competition)
- Peter Rothwell, CEO, Kuoni Travel (David again, but happy to suggest)
- Stef Kranendijk, CEO, Desso (Lessons from quick progress)
- Tom Vesey, CEO, Risk 2 Reputation (Key tips on board engagement in reputation)
Now, I know there are no women here. We really tried hard to get female CEOs. We racked our brains, we researched, we just couldn't get anyone on board.
So gender diversity is perhaps one area to ask about. What else would you want to know/ask/plant in their heads?
I'll do my best to report back on what they said for those who can't make it along.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Sign up to my feed here
Posts
All Comments
