Sustainability in Context

Pursuing nirvana: what's integral to integrated reporting

2012-01-26T16:29:00.002Z

Aviva (insurance), Coca-Cola, HSBC (banking) and Volvo are among the 30 or so companies that are piloting integrated reporting. This is where social and environmental performance is included in the annual reporting – a state of nirvana for those campaigning for what used to be called the triple bottom line.

The debate surrounding integrated reporting will be boosted by the subject’s inclusion in discussions about the green economy at Rio+20 in June.

As part of our contribution to the debate we have joined with the World Resources Institute (WRI) and Bloomberg to discuss the issue at a lunch in New York in February. Stimulating our discussions will be Janet Ranganathan, VP Science and Research at the WRI, and Curtis Ravenel, Global Head of Sustainability Initiatives at Bloomberg.

Janet is a member of the working group of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) and has been following the initiative since its inception. Curtis will look at the potential benefits of integrated reporting from the point of view of an information provider. Bloomberg offers environmental, social and governance (ESG) information on its ubiquitous Terminal.

One of the key discussion points will be about materiality and how to decide what ESG information is integral to an integrated report. We will report back.

How to be straight about strategy

2012-01-05T16:55:00.002Z

Strategy’s a bit like love, the word that is. Its use and abuse leaves audiences easily confused.

This is especially pertinent in the sustainability arena where there are at least four common uses.

A Sustainability Strategy could be:

An operational strategy that ensures your business contributes to sustainable development.
A marketing strategy to communicate your sustainability efforts to a mass audiences.
A stakeholder communications strategy – a plan to ensure influencers (e.g. NGOs, investors, raters/rankers, policy makers) are well informed about your sustainability efforts.
A sustainability reporting strategy – a plan that defines how, and how thoroughly, you report on your sustainability performance.

When talking strategy, it’s good to be clear about exactly what strategy you’re talking about.

Read our thoughts on what makes a good operational strategy here.

Peter Knight's Letter from America: America goes micro

2011-12-13T21:23:00.002Z

Small is getting bigger in America.

At the New York cupcake chain called Melissa you won’t find any of the monster cakes popularized in Sex and the City. Melissa makes colorful cakes no larger than a chocolate truffle – perfectly-formed micro-cakes that sell for a dollar each and can be consumed in one, swift, guilt-free mouthful.

Melissa is not alone, merely ahead of the culinary fashion curve which started with things called “small plates”. Conventional American restaurants used to pride themselves on serving jumbo portions. A chef’s salad, for example, contained so much finely chopped iceberg lettuce that even a hungry goat would demand a doggy bag.

High-end chefs came up with the wheeze of small plates, a sort of tapas arrangement that forced you to buy lots of small plates to have a moderate meal. The practice - excellent for the waistline but terrible for the wallet - is firmly embedded in U.S. cities.

But the question is how will small plates play in Peoria? This saying – the equivalent of the Man on the Clapham Omnibus – emerged during the variety era when troupes would travel from New York to Chicago, stopping to test their acts in this Illinois manufacturing town situated in the agricultural heartland of the mid West.

On a recent visit to Peoria I asked about the fortunes of a newish locavore restaurant that had been favorably reviewed in the Wall Street Journal. Apparently it is doing very well, but diners do note that the delicious portions are disturbingly small.

Cars are shrinking too. Detroit used to hate small cars, much preferring the thirsty more profitable monsters that epitomized the American dream. This attitude changed dramatically following the General Motors and Chrysler bail outs. Ford survived without government money, largely because it was better connected to its markets and had smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles to offer a cash-strapped nation facing ever-higher gasoline prices.

One of the best-selling domestic cars is the Chevy Cruze, a sort of Vauxhall Cavalier that appeals to commuting drivers who have to cover considerable distances. The recently launched Chevy Sonic – an even smaller sub-compact – has received wild acclaim because it looks good, has a bit of zip and is well appointed inside. All those attributes were lacking from earlier, ghastly small-car offerings from GM.

And guess who is selling the Fiat 500 in television ads? Jennifer Lopez! In the old days, this super-star diva would not have been seen in anything smaller than a blacked-out Range Rover, the essential transport for urban pop stars. But now we can watch Jay-Lo driving her Fiat back to her old ‘hood in the Bronx where she and the itsy-bitsy 500 are adored by the street kids. A Fiat 500! In America! In the ‘hood! Truly A-mazing.

Reflecting this social acceptance of small from a totally different angle is the national icon of Coca-Cola which proudly advertises its smaller-portion drinks, or what it calls its “mini can". You can now get 7.5-ounce (220ml), 90-calorie serving of Coca-Cola, Cherry Coke, Sprite and Fanta Orange. This shift was a response to pressure from the health lobby which is concerned about the role of sugary drinks in obesity. The drive to small reverses an earlier trend to big drinks – or “gulp” sizes.

In government, both state and federal, small is definitely trending big. Under relentless pressure from fiscal conservatives, libertarians and the far-right Tea Party, legislators are trying to cut the size of government, and in so doing, shrink the deficit. Small government is hot at the moment and calls for it to get much, much smaller play very well in Peoria. Presidential contender Rick Perry’s now famous brain freeze during a TV debate was triggered by his inability to remember the three departments of federal government that he was promising to cut.

A nation eating smaller portions from smaller plates, driving smaller cars while drinking smaller Cokes, and being ruled by a smaller government sounds rather sustainable. But unfortunately the slimming of America has got nothing to do with the realization that the world’s dominant economy should really reduce the size of its bloated environmental footprint for the greater good of the planet. That could be the consequence but it’s not the impetus.

Small is big in America because past excesses have battered the economy and Americans are shrinking their consumption simply to get by. The good news is that this will benefit the environment while helping the nation adapt psychologically to playing a smaller role in the world.

Make mine a single.

This article first appeared in Ethical Corporation.

Peter Knight on saving bacon

2011-11-03T18:08:00.001Z

A dispute about pig welfare has underlined the need to ensure that sustainability claims are spin free.

After Smithfield Foods, a U.S. meat producer, published a video about pig breeding on YouTube this week, the Humane Society made a formal complaint to the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission saying Smithfield had made false claims in the video about the welfare of its animals.

Federal securities law prohibits the making of any false statement of a material fact, or the omission of a material fact that would prevent a statement from being misleading.

The Humane Society has taken issue with Smithfield’s assertion that “every need is met” of the pigs in its care. The Society argues that Smithfield “is making false and misleading claims to shareholders and consumers about its corporate responsibility practices in violation of federal securities law”.

Setting aside the deep emotions that imbue any discussion on animal welfare, this case echoes similar accusations made against Nike in 1998 about human rights, and which led all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Smithfield case should stand as a fresh warning to all those communicating about corporate sustainability. As companies quite rightly look to maximize the publicity they can get from social and environmental efforts, they should be acutely aware that others may not share their enthusiasm. And the doubters have the tools to embarrass the companies – as the Humane Society is clearly attempting to do with Smithfield.

Corporate messaging can have its downside. Our motto is: keep it simple, straight and spin free. And make sure you can support all claims.

See the Smithfield video here: http://www.youtube.com/user/SmithfieldFoods#p/a/u/2/BK9tUYkRh2Q

Read the Humane Society complaint here: http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2011/11/complaint_filed_11022011_1.html

Sustainability strategies: how to avoid bad liquor

2011-10-12T16:21:00.006+01:00

Strategy has ruined more investors than bad liquor.

While this statement may be true for many corporate strategies, the reverse should apply to good sustainability strategies, which could save many businesses by providing a clear path to long-term success.

Well-crafted sustainability strategies help companies navigate through ever-shifting social and environmental challenges, the very complexity of which might drive managers to hard drink.

Context’s autumn 2011 bulletin examines sustainability strategies, and provides hints on how to devise, write and communicate them. We highlight some good examples and list six CEOs who have identified sustainability as integral to their business. Our analysis will help you avoid bad liquor.

Join the discussion here!

Peter Knight's Letter from America: Social Media - old news rehashed?

2011-09-08T17:27:00.003+01:00

So, they organised the Arab Spring on Twitter, or was it Groupon? Just think of how much earlier Nelson Mandela could have been released if only he had a ready tweet or two. “@RobbenIsland. Gearing up for another weekend of heavy rock crushing…”

Despite the great excitement about the civic promise of social media – the greatest social advance America has brought to the world since it abandoned slavery – it looks unlikely that Facebook et al will do much to promote sustainability.

There seems to be little social purpose to the social media industry other than to sell more conventional stuff.

Boosting consumerism may indeed be what’s needed right now, as we drag ourselves from the recessionary mess we created by believing that we could use our homes as ATMs. But as Twitter reaches a value of $8bn, we are looking four square at the lie that social media are somehow more socially wholesome than old-fashioned media.

Convenient truth?

This belief is predicated on the idea that social media provide opportunities for individuals and underserved groups to propagate and spread their messages, enhancing democracy and increasing opportunity.

This is partly true, as it is with conventional media. But when it comes to the commercial entities we call the social media (Twitter, Facebook and their progeny), not only are social media no different from newspapers, magazines and television, but their technical superiority also enables them to further their own commercial agendas by undermining our abilities to differentiate fact from fantasy.

In the old days you could easily distinguish a sales pitch from objective reporting – it had “advertisement” written on it. No matter what your views were on inherent biases of the media, at least there was some way of knowing what you were being offered: objectivity or blatant bias.

And you could teach your children how to distinguish between the two. Even in the good old days when they used the medical profession to sell cigarettes, you at least knew that it was the men from Camel who were telling you about how the doctors found cigarette smoke soothing on the throat.

Not any more. The stratospheric valuations on social media businesses are based on the promise that the social and gaming media will once again enable doctors to tell us how good their throats feel after a Camel.

Ironically, doctors themselves are targeted by a free iPhone app called Epocrates (geddit?) that enables searches for suitable drugs to prescribe. More than half the doctors in the US are reported to use the app.

But as with everything free, there is a social cost because the doctors searching for information have first to pass through a wall of medical “alerts” which are advertisements dressed up as news.

What does it matter if society is devising better ways to encourage greater consumption? Let’s forget the obvious concern about how we can possibly afford to continue organising our economies in exactly the same way as we have for the past few centuries. Let’s just look at how the current internet bubble is wasting talent that could be so much better used to contribute to a more prosperous, more sustainable society.

What bright, brainy graduate would not want to be Mark Zuckerberg or any of the other badly dressed but insanely rich social media moguls?

Chasing the dollar

The sadness of the social media hype is that earlier generations looked for ways to find new worlds in space, or devise new medical cures, or develop advanced materials to make life better.

Now the world’s top brains are working on ways to make the social media make money. How to infiltrate sales messages into 140 characters. How to integrate more commercials into Facebook. These huge intellects are heading to California where dark rooms, bright screens and pots of gold await those who can find ways to sell more deodorant, rejuvenate tired shampoo brands and convince us we definitely need more blades on our razors.

As the space shuttle Challenger landed for the last time, I thought how insular America had become, how myopic. Instead of looking to the heavens and dreaming of new worlds, we turn instead to search for friends on our little screens; behind which social media barons are doing very little more than devising the modern version of the 1950s Camel advertisements. Got a match?

This article first appeared in Ethical Corporation.

Peter Knight's Letter from America: Saving the world one pee-pee at a time

2011-07-14T16:35:00.002+01:00

When a 21-year old was caught on camera peeing into a lake near Portland, Oregon, he could not have imagined the unintended consequences of his relieving actions. Because the water is so pure, the lake feeds directly into Portland’s drinking supply without need for treatment. So shocked were the city fathers by the thought of nano particles of urine passing the lips of Portlanders that they ordered the immediate flushing of the eight million gallon lake.

For some, this startling story demonstrates the power of the individual to bring about change – small actions, big consequences.

The preference for individual rather than group political action dominates what passes for environmental activism here. Environmental groups have all but abandoned a push for better policies in preference for encouraging their supporters to pursue futile personal green efforts, aided and abetted by marketers flogging supposedly green goods.

People honestly believe that we will somehow avoid climate change by using solar-powered chargers for their iPhones, or fitting LED light bulbs, or boycotting bottled water. A deep belief in the individual rather than group political action has spawned the campaigning clichés which now echo off websites, blogs and tweets: Changing the world… one lightbulb at a time, one organic lettuce at a time, one recycled loo roll at a time… You get the picture.

This country runs on political favors bought in Washington, DC. If you want to get anything done you have to spend a lot of time and money buying the favors of politicians who write the policies. Compared with the murky politics of the UK, the US political system is remarkably transparent and the deepest pockets mostly win. Industrialists spend heavily to ensure the right economic climate, like generous tax breaks and laxer environmental regulation.

The environmental movement of the Silent Spring 1960s and 1970s understood the power of group political action. Well-organized campaigners, well connected in Washington, brought about some of the most far-reaching environmental legislation ever passed, such as the Clean Air Act, which removed lead and other nasties from the air. But then the environmental lobby went to sleep, allowing subsequent regimes in Washington – mostly conservative throughout the double Bush era – to soften environmental laws at the behest of the influential industrial dinosaurs.

The backpedalling has taken on a surreal quality, where the Environmental Protection Agency – the enforcer – has been cast as a villain, restricting America’s ability to compete with China and other heavy polluters. Republicans are doing their utmost to emasculate the agency and turn back the clock. And they are succeeding. Climate change and anything vaguely environmental has been banished from political agenda.

At the same time – and probably as a consequence – we have seen the rise in the belief of the power of one. I sat through a “debate” on climate change in the Harvard Club in New York City recently where the discussion centered on how a hotel group was fighting climate change by installing highly-subsidized LED light bulbs. When asked about the need for policy changes to encourage energy efficiency, there were a lot of nervous coughs from the panel. In polite society, one does not mention environment and policy in the same breath.

The belief in the political power of individual action is built on the deluded notion that a lot of personal acts will bring about large-scale structural change. This conceit is epitomized in the notion of green consumerism. All you have to do is buy enough recycled lavatory paper or organic yoghurt and the world will turn into the Jehovah’s Witness version of heaven with gamboling lions and forever summers.

It is indisputably good that lavatory cleaners are reformulated and rubber gloves come with FSC approval, but no amount of eco-labels and fair-traders are going to bring about the fundamental changes needed to deal with loss of biodiversity and climate change.
We cannot shop our way out of trouble.

I blame those wimpy environmental groups that fail to leverage the personal commitment of their supporters into effective political action. Most environmental groups have lost their connection to their supporters after growing flabby on foundation grants, corporate sponsorship and industry “partnerships” (another name for co-option).

Dinosaur politicians love the idea of personal rather than political action because it removes opposition and acts as an opiate for the green masses. They know that personal action is as effective as pissing in the lake. Except, of course, if the lake is in Oregon.

This article first appeared in Ethical Corporation

Peter Knight's Letter from America: The choo-choo blues

2011-07-07T16:46:00.003+01:00

In a country that was literally built on the benefits of the railroad, high-speed rail has become the green villain of conservative politics. The best way for macho Republicans to strut their stuff is to say NO to offers of billions of government dollars for the choo-choo.

That’s what Florida governor Rick Scott did recently, rejecting $2.4 billion for a line from Tampa to Orlando. New Jersey governor, Chris Christie, just cancelled an $8.5 billion rail tunnel from his state to Manhattan, foregoing about $3 billion in federal money. And Tea Party supported governors of Wisconsin and Ohio have manfully rejected federal dollars (and the jobs it would bring) for improvements to railroads in their states.

President Obama’s fast rail projects designed to reduce the dependence on the car and bring the U.S. up to speed with modern nations were all but beheaded in recent budget negotiations.

The irony of the negativity of fiscal conservative – natural followers of arch capitalist Ayn Rand – railing against rail has not been lost on film critics assessing the long-awaited movie of the seminal capitalist novel, Atlas Shrugged. The book centers on the struggle of Dagney Taggart to build her Taggart Transcontinental Railroad, symbolizing the modern thrust of capitalism.

Thrusting is proving extremely difficult in the U.S. today, unless you want to go backwards at speed. It is a country that appears to be in technological retreat (experience the quality of a mobile phone call) as myopic populist politicians grapple with the budget deficit. They are not the most creative of people and think only in terms of slash and burn.

Because of the huge cost of building and maintaining rail infrastructure, much of the investment has to come from tax payers. Other societies accept this and governments around the world are funding the sort of rail projects that the world’s only super power finds too costly. China plans to be running 42 high-speed lines by 2012. Europe has plans to expand its network, with connections between Portugal and Spain and better links between France and Spain. Saudi Arabia is forging ahead with its high-speed plans, as are other Gulf states. Even tiddly South Africa plans – with Chinese aid - to run a fast link between Johannesburg and the important port of Durban.

All this while the U.S. retreats into ever greater reliance on the combustion engine at a time when fuel cost are increasing and congested road systems are under severe strain.

While large amounts of U.S. freight are transported by rail, passenger services are concentrated in populous regions, such at the North East. Amtrak, the state-subsidized rail company runs a fast service between Boston, New York and Washington DC. Called the Acela, this is a junior, slower version of Europe’s high-speed rail. The service is popular but its reliability suffers from poor investment in the track. What remains of Amtrak’s regional services are under-used, unreliable and desperately in need of the very investment so happily rejected by right-wing governors.

The regional services in New Jersey and New York state – schlepping the commuters to Manhattan and back – are well used and surprisingly reliable. But their running costs are high, suffering from the same unionization issues that afflicted the old British Rail. I have been on trains where there were definitely more ticket collectors than passengers. They also use a ticketing system that Dagney Taggert must have invented: lots of pieces of paper and much clip clip clipping by the collectors.

Other than unions, possibly the biggest black mark against rail travel here – if you have a Republican world view - is its greenness. Politicians influenced by the Tea Party like to bundle rail subsidy with action on climate change, renewable energy support and the introduction of electric cars. Their ideological reasoning is that rail will increase the deficit or lead to higher taxes. That this is also true for roads, bridges, ports and huge government subsidies to the oil and agriculture industries is something they conveniently ignore.

What is so sad about the dominant anti-green political mood here is how it is aiding and abetting this great country’s technological decline. If I were a conspiracy theorist I’d say that China is funding the Tea Party and fiscal conservatives who now sing the dominant political tune in Washington.

Their support for a retreat from the future will leave the U.S. hamstrung with a crumbling infrastructure and a ruined manufacturing sector. Expect very little boo-hoo for the imminent extinction of the Chatanooga choo-choo.

This article first appeared in Ethical Corporation

Peter Knight on the hope for better ratings

2011-06-24T19:36:00.002+01:00

Will standardized sustainability ratings prevent the next BP-type blowout?

That’s what the promoters of the Global Initiative for Sustainability Ratings (GISR) are hoping for. Some hope, but certainly worth a try.

The GISR is brought to us by the same people who devised the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) – a strong pedigree. They are the Tellus Institute, a Washington think tank, and Ceres, the leader of a coalition of investors, environmental groups and other public interest organizations.

There is certainly a need for standards in sustainability ratings. All manner of organizations – some no bigger than a brainy person and a chihuahua – provide ratings for investors who are increasingly interested in companies that have got their head around sustainability. The problem is that there is very little consistency in the way raters rate, making it confusing for investors. And that’s where the value of the GISR comes in.

Ceres and Tellus argue that if all raters stuck to the same format, investors would get a better picture of company performance and potential. This would prevent the next gulf explosion, or at least identify dodgy operators.

There’s a strong element of wishful thinking here. GISR promoters ignore the competitive nature of ratings. Rating agencies are jostling for position in a small, crowded and rapidly consolidating market. They want to be known for the beauty of their algorithms. They can’t afford to commoditize their offering.

The battle for acceptance of the GISR has begun. Given Ceres’ record, and backers like Bloomberg, we would give them good odds on winning if they can maintain their stamina over the long haul.

More from Ceres: www.ceres.org/press/press-releases/a-single-measure-unbiased-results-ceres-tellus-unveil-global-initiative-for-a-standardized-comprehensive-corporate-sustainability-rating

See also Tellus: www.tellus.org

Bloomberg: www.bloomberg.com/about/sustainability/

How to be Loved

2011-05-10T16:59:00.010+01:00

At the last count, Microsoft, one of the world’s biggest companies, had 80,000 followers on Twitter. Charlie Sheen, the actor, had 3.7 million. Walmart, the world’s biggest retailer, had a paltry 38,000 followers. Tiger Woods had 810,000. Marks & Spencer, the leading U.K. retailer, had 22,000 followers. Russell Brand, the comedian, had two million.

In our highly connected world, where you can so easily befriend and be friended, why are companies so socially isolated? So unloved? Our spring issue deals with stakeholder engagement – or how to make friends and influence people.

We consider what it is, and what it is not. And we delve into our deep experience of helping companies engage to offer top tips on how to be loved.

Context's spring 2011 bulletin is a stakeholder engagement tour de force. We present our strategy for how to get the most out of your stakeholders, and offer case studies of our clients that are pushing the envelope of stakeholder engagement.

Give us your feedback, examples of your own, or even criticism! We look forward to hearing from you.

Peter Knight on why luddites are the bane of the environment

2011-03-15T14:15:00.002Z

You’re perfect: no allergies, good weight, balanced disposition. You feel neither over-served nor under-served.

Perhaps this leaves you feeling disadvantaged for having no disadvantages? If so, we have just the right affliction for you – technology-based and impossible to prove. It’s called electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS).

This condition has no scientific basis but afflicts many who are convinced that the signals from mobile phones and other radio communications devices, including smart electricity meters, make them dizzy. It’s an iAffliction.

EHS joins the long list of subjective, phantom health conditions that people use to fight change in personal behaviour. This is bad news because it gives people excuses – despite scientific evidence to the contrary – to maintain lifestyles that damage the environment.

Luddite behaviour is not new, but what makes this rejection of science so frightening is the fact that it is taking place in a country that put a man on the moon and an iPod in your ear.

Read this article in full at Ethical Corporation

Wipe away greenwash with full product transparency

2011-02-16T14:54:00.004Z

DEFRA has just published Green Claims Guidance to combat greenwash by advising companies to make sure claims are clear, accurate and relevant. But how far can any claims really help us compare products’ environmental impacts?

Picture this. You’re in a supermarket buying your weekly groceries. You pick up two tins of tuna. You want the cheapest, check the price tag. The healthiest, the nutrition label. Least environmental impacts? Hmmm.

Do you go with the one that is dolphin friendly, the one certified by the Marine Stewardship Council or the one that’s locally sourced? All valid claims... Maybe this just requires too much thought for the tinned food aisle.

Consumers and corporate buyers are faced with an ever growing number and variety of green claims as businesses seek to tap into the market for more environmental products.

We’re used to seeing energy efficiency ratings on lightbulbs, white goods – even planes. Tesco’s orange juice will tell you its carbon footprint. And there are a whole host of other ecolabels out there, from carbon neutral and chlorine free to LEAF, LEED and Leaping Bunny.

With all these different claims and labels, how do you see the wood for the FSC-certified trees?

A lifecycle assessment (LCA) is the best way to get a full picture of a product’s environmental impacts. But not many people have the time, the inclination or the information they need to do this every time they buy something new.

This is where an environmental product declaration (EPD) comes in. EPDs are designed to cut through green claims by offering credible environmental credentials for a product, based on a third-party verified LCA.

Context client InterfaceFLOR believes EPDs will become the standard in future and has already begun to publish EPDs for many carpet tile lines.

Perhaps a while before we see this in the supermarket, but could EPDs get us a step closer to full product transparency for B2Bs at least?

Enter the debate on Full Product Transparency.

Peter Knight on why business shouldn't have to give back

2011-01-28T17:53:00.002Z

With great precision, the boy set about beheading every rose in the bed. His stick flicked and flayed as he systematically destroyed beautiful public property. When asked to stop, he said: “They’re not yours, so eff off!”

It happened in London where part of the political debate is about the “big society”. In the big society, government takes a much smaller role in local life and citizens are encouraged to provide services by volunteering their time and talents for the benefit of their communities.

London’s community open spaces (as opposed to the formal parks) are tended by local government. In New York City there is a strong chance that residents will gather on a spring morning to tend the flower beds that huddle under trees on the sidewalk. The city looks after bigger spaces, helped by local volunteers.

Read this article in full at Ethical Corporation

Peter Knight on what we could learn from The Tea Party

2010-12-09T18:45:00.001Z

Swallow this: the Tea Party is giving environmentalists lessons on how to communicate about intergenerational equity. Or put it another way, why the survival of pretty pandas, ugly warthogs and tuna fish sandwiches really matters.

Intergenerational equity – allowing future generations the same survival chances as us – is fundamental to the idea of sustainable development. Why bother having children if you’re going to give them and their progeny a parched patch of earth to scratch on?

Our societies will not sustain themselves, the argument goes, unless we protect the environment that provides us with the ability to feed and water ourselves.

Furthermore, those pandas, warthogs and crawly critters that hide under stones are all part of a complicated ecosystem where the individual components are interdependent – remove one from the mix by eating too many of them and whoosh, the system starts misfiring.

Read this article in full at Ethical Corporation

Employee engagement makes an impact

2010-11-11T22:18:00.002Z

Your goal is to reduce waste by 30% by 2015. The CEO’s on board, stakeholders are impressed, and your personal sense of achievement is running high. How do you hit the target? This is where your 10,000 employees come in. Without their collaboration, you’re lost.

CONTEXT has outlined our approach to get employees singing from your song sheet in our latest In Context Bulletin. Internal communications is the new sustainability frontier. The challenges were underlined at the Net Impact Conference, hosted by the Ross Business School at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and at the annual BSR conference in New York City in early November.

Net Impact, a global network of MBA students and young professionals looking to change the world through business, brought 2,500 people together for its biggest ever conference. It explored sustainability through the lens of a younger generation anxious to instill behavioral change.

Rose Kirk, Vice President – Public Affairs, Policy and Communications at Verizon Wireless, and one of three opening keynote speakers, said: “I can’t stress enough the importance of employee engagement.”

The theme continued in at least two breakout sessions. We argued the only way to get employees – from the CEO to workers on the shop floor – on board is by convincing them of the business case for sustainability. The better integrated sustainability in the business, the more employees will take note.

Delegates at Business for Social Responsibility’s conference in New York were similarly enthused. Discussions ranged from the effectiveness of compostable cups to the challenges of bridging the gap between the CEO and factory workers.

Tell us what you think, and keep a close eye out here for more.

Peter Knight on how clever Smarter Planet is

2010-11-11T18:34:00.001Z

Whiter teeth, sweeter breath, enhanced body parts, curlier eye lashes, slimmer waistlines – Madison Ave knows how to sell us these aspirations. But what about sustainability? Will this join the list of emotional triggers and desires that get us to open our wallets?

IBM thinks so, or rather its advertising gurus who have devised the Smarter Planet campaign do. More than a simple one-off campaign to flog a few services, Smarter Planet is a deep branding and communications exercise that appears to be designed to change fundamentally our view of the giant brand we used to call Big Blue.

Communications people like to talk about the benefits of “owning” things in the public domain – things that can’t really be owned. Dove lays claim to the real beauty space, Heineken to the “refresh” space. Marlboro used to have the great-outdoors space.

IBM, it seems, wants to own the “planet” space. No one has ever accused it of lacking ambition and by the sheer size, breadth and depth of its advertising-cum-rebranding effort based on sustainability, it’s not passing unnoticed.

Read this article in full at Ethical Corporation

How to get Jack and Jill to turn off the lights

2010-11-02T22:19:00.004Z

Why should employees want to turn off YOUR lights? Or put that costly compostable cup in the right bin? Or suggest a more energy efficient way to make YOUR products?

There is no obvious reason for employees to help you meet your sustainability goals. What’s in it for them?

Herein lie both challenge and opportunity: You are almost entirely dependent on your employees to do the sensible things that will help the company cut its costs and meet its sustainability goals.

You need their cooperation. You need their ideas. You need their enthusiasm. And you need them to keep doing the smart thing, over and over and over again. How do you get their support? How do you turn the challenge into opportunity?

Enter internal communications, probably the least glamorous, least appreciated of corporate functions. It is the internal communicators – those fine people battered by corporate correctness and bent double from kowtowing to the vanities of executives – whom you have to rely on to motivate the masses.

CONTEXT's winter 2010 bulletin gives readers a look at our simple strategy for successful internal sustainability communications. As always, we want to hear from you. Are we on the right track? Have we missed something? Is our "CONTEXT team" attractive enough? Carry on the conversation below.

CONTEXT-Bloomberg breakfast on ESGs

2010-10-26T16:04:00.001+01:00

8.00am on Monday morning can be early for many people, but a hearty breakfast and a stimulating discussion started our week perfectly.

The occasion was a breakfast briefing from CONTEXT and Bloomberg on the role of environmental, social and governance information (ESG). It was held at Bloomberg’s bustling – and very green - headquarters in midtown Manhattan.

Curtis Ravenel, Head of Sustainability Initiatives at Bloomberg, outlined the company’s approach to delivering ESG data on the Bloomberg Terminal. Bloomberg has pioneered the provision of ESG data to the investment community.

CONTEXT Senior Vice President, Jaycee Pribulsky, examined the many demands on companies to provide ESG information. She urged companies to ensure that their sustainability reports (or websites) include the ESG information often requested by surveys.

Read more about best practice tips in our current In Context briefing.

Peter Knight on what to do with 3bn paper coffee cups

2010-10-07T14:38:00.003+01:00

Fashion futurologists take note. The US city that has nearly bankrupted itself in a bid to build a state-of-the-art trash incinerator and the rising tide of unrecyclable Starbucks paper cups could influence the way we dress and drink.

There are three elements that make up this story: trash, coffee cups and style. Let’s start with trash.

Harrisburg, capital of Pennsylvania, was once a proud, prosperous city that made big things out of steel. The Hershey chocolate empire grew up here, and the city brewed excellent beer. It is remembered for the nearby Three Mile Island accident in 1979, the nearest America came to a nuclear meltdown. It also has a problem with its trash incinerator.

Because this nation is so vast and has dug so many holes in the ground, there are relatively few municipal incinerators – about 90 in a country of 308 million people known for their throw-away lifestyle. Early incinerators were shut in the 1970s because they were so polluting. Harrisburg had one of the stinkers, but its city fathers saw its potential.

Read this article in full at Ethical Corporation

Context America shoots to the top

2010-09-16T19:23:00.003+01:00

It's always great when other people say how good you are.

Says Verdantix, a leading sustainability and climate change research group: "Companies looking for a fresh, uncompromising assessment of their sustainability strategy and reporting should use Context."

The firm places Context America in the top six sustainability communications agencies in the U.S. They highlight our expertise in sustainability, our ability to steer clients away from trouble, and our strong sustainable business perspective.

The Verdantix research - the Green Quadrant Sustainability Communications Analysis - assessed 18 agencies in the U.S. which provide marketing communications to Fortune 500 companies, and claim expertise in sustainability.

It found Context had leading capabilities in communicating sustainability to employees and investors/shareholders, and strong capabilities in effective sustainability communications frameworks, sustainability readiness assessments, and creating credible and effective sustainability communications.

Verdantix highlighted our work with WPP, the parent company of four other agencies featured in the report; the World Business Council for Sustainable Development; our support of integrated reporting at United Technologies Corporation; and our study, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity.

Verdantix says these projects, among others, have given Context "deeper expertise and credibility than many firms".

Simon Propper on the ten lessons from BP and the Gulf of Mexico

2010-09-02T13:46:00.003+01:00

In a previous article, I suggested that BP's series of safety and environmental crises should cause the CR profession to rethink the established approaches to managing social, ethical and environmental issues.

If a company can be judged to have achieved ‘best practice’ and still fail consistently and severely, we can hardly just carry on as before.

Several thoughtful comments in response to that article mainly agreed that CR best practice, as currently applied, is not up to the job. Since then others have gone further even making the accusation that the ‘CR community collaborated in the BP disaster’.

That is nonsense - failure does not equal collaboration - but to improve CR we need to understand the weaknesses and propose remedies. It’s easy to declare CR broken, but altogether harder to propose how it can be repaired.

Read this article in full at Ethical Corporation

Saints, sinners and the rise of the responsible investor

2010-08-06T17:20:00.004+01:00

What's quicker, circumnavigating the world or completing the questionnaire for the Carbon Disclosure Project? A jumbo jet would be back in time for supper while you were still puzzling over question 4.1, the anticipated physical impacts of climate change.

Welcome to the question-hungry world of what used to be called Socially Responsible Investing and is now referred to as Responsible Investing (RI).

Entering the mainstream
It would be easy to dismiss this often irritating niche activity of the financial community were it not so important. RI has become a force for reform in business. Originally a saintly pursuit of church groups and charities to avoid sinful stocks (alcohol, gambling, tobacco), RI has broadened its remit and now influences investments worth some $5 trillion, according to a joint study between Booz & Company, and Robeco.

In 2009, the number of RI funds grew 27% and assets under management rose 9%, according to the Financial Times.

RI's maturity has meant a rising tide of time-consuming questionnaires and demands to report detailed environmental, social and governance data. Prioritizing can be tough.

In our latest In Context bulletin, we explore these issues and more in the world of responsible investing. We want the conversation to continue here, so comment freely.

Biodiversity breaking into boardrooms

2010-07-19T17:36:00.002+01:00

Standing room only at last week’s first Global Business of Biodiversity Conference, indicating that perhaps companies are beginning to sit up and take notice of nature’s value.

No tree-huggers here. Rooms were full of suits debating why biodiversity is important, what to do about it, and how on earth to communicate this complex issue in a coherent way.

Until now – and, specifically, Pavan Sukhdev’s ground-breaking report on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) – biodiversity has lagged far behind climate change on the corporate agenda. It is, as Rio Tinto CEO Tom Albanese remarked, “the forgotten dimension of sustainability”. A recent study by PWC backs this up: just 2% of chief execs recognise it as a strategically important issue.

The main problem is a lack of understanding. Biodiversity is confusing, and its importance for business – in terms of risks and opportunities – is not always clear. What’s more, there are no quick and dirty metrics for measuring its loss or protection.

Notable exceptions include extractives companies and agribusiness, who rely heavily on Earth’s resources and at the same time have a massive impact upon nature. They know all too well what happens when they ignore biodiversity (think of Nestlé and palm oil, for instance) – and many have good programmes in place to minimise their footprint.

But all manner of companies rely and impact indirectly upon biodiversity (in ways too intricate to go into here), and this is where Sukhdev’s main challenge lies. These are the businesses that tend to ignore the issue, and the people he needs to persuade. His ‘TEEB for Business’ summary, launched at this conference, is a step in the right direction. Also useful is a new UNEP report that asks, “Are you a green leader?”.

So, what next for nature? Well, many are hopeful of markets for ecosystem services. Caroline Spelman MP, giving her maiden speech as the new UK Secretary of State for the Environment, noted that the global carbon market grew to $140 billion in six years. Could the same be true for biodiversity? If so, it won’t be long before the issue is seen on a par with CO2.

Sustainability communications: beyond reporting

2010-07-12T14:26:00.000+01:00

The artist formerly known as Corporate Social Responsibility continues to be widely rebranded as ‘sustainability’. Is this better, or just different? It seems to be a positive step because the term implies that programmes are important for long-term business success – and not just a ‘doing good’ add on. Sustainability is gradually becoming part of corporate culture, with climate change the first issue to make its way into boardrooms the world over.

The focus of communications is shifting as companies realise that sustainability is about opportunities as well as risk management. More and more people – including the (wo)man in the street – care what companies do. As audiences diversify, so communications must also. Green marketing is gaining momentum, with everything from sporting sponsorship to in-store promotions crucial for catching attention and building trust. Even during the recession, price isn’t everything – customers care about quality and reputation.

Reports will still have their place, of course, as an annual compendium of sustainability achievements and challenges. It remains to be seen whether reports’ current focus on operational sustainability will shift to a product-based lifecycle approach. It could certainly help customers choose the greenest option. InterfaceFLOR is calling for this, as in this recent article.

What is clear is that sustainability communications are getting more complex and more creative, and this trend must continue. Targeting different audiences in different ways is a sign you take their opinions – and your communications – seriously.

Peter Knight on US health and safety

2010-07-08T19:41:00.001+01:00

Watch your heads! That was the only warning for me and my fellow subway riders at 96th street on a Monday morning rush hour as construction workers used a mobile crane to hoist a very large bag of sand over us.

For the past few years the New York Metropolitan Transport Authority has been building a spanking new station literally around the thousands of men, women and schoolchildren who use the station every day.

This has involved closing off skanky but safe access points that run under busy Broadway and forcing commuters over the main road. That Monday, the suspended sand bag merely added excitement to the day as we dodged mammoth delivery trucks and badly driven taxis with tonnes of No 1 grade hanging over our heads. It’s a bit like being in the midst of a reality TV show: I’m not a construction worker, get me outta here!

In what other advanced nation would such blatant disregard for the public’s safety be tolerated? The grubbiness of the construction workers’ “safety” jackets reflects the deeply conflicted attitude the US appears to demonstrate to safety: plenty of jackets but no reflection.

The Gulf explosion and loss of 11 lives on the Transocean rig that led to the ghastly BP spill came shortly after the loss of 29 coalminers in West Virginia when safety systems clearly failed. Only in China, it seems, do these big industrial accidents happen with greater regularity.

Read this article in full at Ethical Corporation

Ignoring the potential

2010-06-11T15:46:00.002+01:00

The Guardian and Mike Berners-Lee are under the impression that people should think again before using their mobile phones. Berners-Lee’s latest article, What’s the Carbon Footprint of using... a mobile phone, uncovers some interesting facts about the amount of CO2 released by making mobile phone calls. The answer they give to lowering a mobile phone’s emissions is to use it less, or to opt for texts or landlines.

“The footprint of your mobile phone use is overwhelmingly determined by the simple question of how often you use it,” Berners-Lee writes. According to his calculation, transmitting calls releases about 47kg of CO2 per year.

His glaring omission from this piece is of course a discussion about the potential that mobile phones have to reduce other’s emissions. The carbon footprint of an individual phone call is interesting, certainly, but no discussion around it should ignore the exciting potential that the mobile industry offers.

Vodafone’s Carbon Connections report from 2009 helped quantify this potential. According to the report, in 2020 the mobile industry could reduce global CO2e by 113 Mt through machine-to-machine applications that enable smart grids, smart logistics and smart cities, among others.

The simplest and most common example currently is dematerialization, where physical products and activities are substituted for low-carbon, “virtual” alternatives. Think of the emissions saved by Cisco Systems holding 28,000 meetings virtually, with no need for employee travel, which they did in 2007.

But that’s neither here nor there for Berners-Lee, who’d prefer to worry about the impact of 47kg a year. Let’s think about the bigger picture here...

Peter Knight on forcing down dietary responsibility

2010-06-10T22:43:00.004+01:00

Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City, would have been happy. My rather large neighbours at the diner counter in the Bronx had chosen the healthy breakfast option - an omelette made from egg whites, steamed broccoli and onions. This is exactly the sort of meal the mayor, a great campaigner for healthy eating, would like to see his subjects consume.

But then my neighbours went and ruined it all, ordering sides of home fries (fried potato mash) and bacon. On top they poured at least half a bottle of ketchup.

No wonder 130 retired generals have called on the US Congress to pass child nutrition legislation because a quarter of American men are too fat to fight.

The previous night I watched Jamie Oliver campaigning in Huntingdon, West Virginia, for healthier school food. Oliver has charmed Americans with a TV series that replicated his UK school dinners campaign.

Read this article in full at Ethical Corporation

Simon Propper on BP, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and the limits of CSR-lite

2010-06-10T15:02:00.004+01:00

The corporate responsibility and sustainability community has been pretty quiet about the terrible incident continuing in the Gulf of Mexico. Nobody wants to rush to judge a situation that is complex and highly specific to the oil exploration sector.

This is patently sensible. But the ongoing disaster should make everyone involved in the corporate responsibility field reflect on the effectiveness of CR as currently practised.

Many commentators attributed the global credit crunch and subsquent banking collapse to a failure of corporate responsibility. And indeed a number of institutions obviously did behave irresponsibly.

Read this article in full at Ethical Corporation

Facts and figures will never tell the whole story

2010-02-10T10:55:00.005Z

This article originally appeared in the February 2010 edition of Ethical Performance

'Tell me a story’ – the phrase conjures up thoughts of wizards and hobbits. But stories aren’t just for kids. In fact, storytelling is the latest (controversial) trend in the serious business of corporate sustainability (CS) communications. It’s something a growing number of our clients are asking about, but it’s causing consternation among CS commentators. At a recent conference, the rise of CS ‘storytelling’ was bemoaned as the triumph of corporate fluff over substance.

It is nothing of the kind. Interest in stories tells us something important about the state of CS communications – that for all the reporting indicators and guidelines, companies feel they aren’t getting their message across to key audiences. A story, in this context, is not a work of fiction. It is a way of communicating facts that makes them interesting.

Bogged down in detail
Companies have invested considerable time and money learning the reporting ‘rules’. The average CS report is chock full of processes and metrics, and carefully aligned and cross-referenced to the labyrinthine GRI standard. But with all this detail it’s easy to lose sight of the significance of the topics discussed, and what they really mean for the company and society. Reports that have been tuned to the needs of CS analysts usually fail to get the attention of a wider audience of opinion formers, customers and employees.

Companies can improve their reporting by looking for the interesting stories buried in their data. Standard setters and auditors should remember that reporting is a voluntary activity and that companies are more likely to continue investing if they see the benefits.

Of course reports will always have limitations, and companies that really want to engage and motivate must go beyond formal reporting. Targeted communications are needed that speak to the different interests of each audience. This is where storytelling can make an impact. Whether it’s an article, blog, speech or brochure, by telling the story behind the facts, companies can really start to engage with a wider audience.

Know your audience
This type of communication requires a different mindset to reporting. Remember that people matter as much as performance metrics, and you can’t create a compelling narrative out of 25 unrelated initiatives. You need to understand the audience, be confident enough to be selective – and creative enough to make a connection. Above all, focus on the issues that matter to your audience. Challenges are inherently more interesting than achievements, so be bold. Conversations are more interesting than one-way communications.

And the CS geeks need not worry about people being fooled by corporate spin. It doesn’t take a trained auditor to sniff out fluff and flummery. If the story isn’t credible, it won’t wash.

Don’t paint all Australians with a sceptic brush

2009-12-14T16:53:00.001Z

Two weeks ago, the Australian Senate – with an opposition party majority – threw out a proposal from Kevin Rudd’s Labor government to implement an emissions trading scheme (ETS) before 2012. The Liberal Party’s former leader, Malcolm Turnbull, supported the government’s ETS, and was subsequently dispensed with in a manner reminiscent of countless Australian sporting foes. The party opted to replace him with a new leader, Tony Abbott, who has said, in his own inimitably Australian way, that climate change is “absolute crap”.

Australia is not used to being the centre of attention, but with this tumultuous turn of events there’s suddenly a very real possibility that the little land Down Under will be the first country to fight an election over climate change, thrusting it into the spotlight. As an Australian, I think it’s important this fight takes place. Here’s why:

This whole situation has raised questions over Australians’ commitment to tackling climate change. In a Washington Post article last week, former US Vice President candidate Sarah Palin used our example to support her case that “people are questioning climate change schemes”.

Others simply choose only to remember the 12 years of former-Prime Minister John Howard’s rule, ignoring the resounding defeat he suffered in 2007, the worst of which came on the back of climate concern.

Ballot box battleground
You can argue as hard as you like that the ETS would be the battleground of a snap election if Rudd called it, but the real issue would be whether or not we Australians believe that climate change is a threat, and whether or not we feel compelled to do something about it. Were we to go to the ballot box over the environment, I’m in no doubt the majority view would be a rejection of Abbott’s faecal view of climate change.

Every country has its sceptics, perhaps Australia more so than others. But with every drought, bushfire or record temperature high, more Australians are realising that position is untenable. The world’s first climate change election would prove that.

Guest post: The Group's Frank Harkin sides with Kevin Moss

2009-11-27T16:49:00.011Z

Frank Harkin, Content Strategist at The Group, adds weight to Kevin Moss's argument that blogging is a vital CSR communications tool for companies

Context has started an interesting debate about sustainability blogging and I appreciate them inviting Kevin Moss to contribute his argument.

So who is right?

After reading both sides we tend to agree with Kevin.

Context contends that “All external sustainability blogs are, by necessity, rather anodyne.” This is an accusation that is levelled at many corporate blogs but, in this case, ignores a range of engaging and thriving sustainability blogs from some of the world’s biggest companies. These include:

- Cadbury
- McDonalds
- Intel
- BNP Paribas
- Nokia
- Fedex

The wider issue
There is also a general point here about CSR. It’s easy for CSR practitioners – who are deep in the details – to forget that there is a wider debate out there about CSR itself. There are reasonable arguments against CSR and many people question the sincerity of companies’ CSR commitments. Recently, Radio 4’s You and Yours programme devoted an entire show to the debate, which indicated that not everyone agrees that CSR has a place in the world of business.

If CSR professionals and the companies they work for want to convince the sceptics of the value of CSR, then blogging can be a powerful means to provide greater detail and transparency – quite apart from the benefits Kevin Moss discusses for making individual and personalised connections with stakeholders.

In one sense we agree with what Context is saying – blogging isn’t for everyone. However, it is rash to dismiss the effectiveness of it. Many companies still need to convince stakeholders that they mean what they say and would be well advised to consider blogging as a part of their CSR strategy.

Guest post: Context has got it wrong, says Kevin Moss

2009-10-09T13:57:00.013+01:00

Responding to the first In Context Bulletin, Kevin Moss, Head of CSR at BT Americas, argues that we've got it wrong, blogging really can enhance corporate sustainability

The latest In Context Bulletin misses the true value of blogging to corporate responsibility.

The world of corporate communications is changing. There used to be a clear line of demarcation between the individual as an executive communicating a corporate message and the individual as a private citizen exchanging personal views. Corporate communications that represent the company position tend to be one to many. Private citizen communications would be two-way but limited to very small audiences.

With the tools afforded by the internet, and blogging especially, there is a great blurring of these two options that I see will bring great value to corporations and to corporate responsibility.

In large organizations, whether for-profit, NGOs or government, the individual connection between the employee and the external stakeholders can be lost. The internet is an equalizer for small to have an equal voice to large. And the internet also has the capacity to serve as the personalizer, allowing executives in large organizations to share their personal views and be more connected as individuals with their stakeholders.

Simply having a company blog open to comments from readers gives a key message on the importance and acceptance of differing viewpoints to that company. When truly an expression of the views of an individual business executive, blogging provides a strong foundation for individual accountability. And through opening him or herself up to a more personal connection with readers I believe the executive blogger (CR practitioner or otherwise) creates an environment in which the views of their external stakeholders are front of mind in their decision-making.

Blogging as a communications tool for CR practitioners is interesting, but blogging as a mechanism to bridge the gap between company executives and stakeholders is a compelling route to ever-improving corporate responsibility.

Kevin Moss has responsibility for implementation of BT’s Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) strategy in North America. The role covers a broad scope of sustainability issues including environment and climate change impact, community investment and business ethics. He shares his thoughts about the intersection between Information Communication Technology (ICT) services, business and sustainability on his blog at www.csrperspective.com

Goodbye recession, hello upturn!

2009-10-07T13:59:00.001+01:00

If we have learned one lesson from the hardship of the past 18 months it is this: corporate responsibility does indeed matter. It was irresponsibility in our most important institutions that fired and fanned the global economic crisis.

As we look to a brighter 2010, two issues are clear. First, with limited resources and ever-growing demands, super-sharp strategic thinking is needed to ensure that corporate sustainability delivers the maximum return on investment.

The cutting has been done, now is the time to grow. Most of the value will flow from exploiting new business opportunities created by a global shift to sustainability.

Second, market demand for social and environmental performance information is increasing. Bloomberg has brought these data into the mainstream and other information providers are expected to follow.

This, combined with the wild growth of online social media, has made effective corporate sustainability communications an imperative. The shy will fail to capitalise on their investments.

We expand on these points in our latest publication, the first of our quarterly bulletins. We want the conversation to continue here, so please comment freely.

Five trends, five themes

2009-09-29T15:05:00.003+01:00

I was a keynote speaker at the recent European workshop in Brussels on corporate disclosure of ESG (environment, social and governance) information. These are the headlines from what I told the 60 or so participants about disclosure trends. I'd be interested to hear if you agree or not.

1. Experimentation is rife
Disclosure comes in many forms, including information on product packaging, advertising, print and electronic documents for use by companies internally and externally. Formal reporting, in dedicated CR or sustainability reports and in annual financial reviews, is just one disclosure route.

Disclosure isn’t necessarily public – companies provide information to investors in face-to-face meetings and responding to questionnaires. Smaller companies’ formal ESG communication tends to be mainly with their (big company) customers.

2. Five key trends

Enthusiasm for communicating on ES(G) – large companies are keen to communicate, though the G in ESG tends to be handled separately from the ES.

Experimentation, diversity, communication – experimentation means that there is more diversity in communications rather than less (which is what might be expected as disclosure matures). The emphasis is increasingly on communication rather than regulatory style disclosure.

More attention upstream and downstream – companies realise that in most cases their most significant impacts are not inside their own walls. They are therefore concentrating more on the products and services they market, and the impacts upstream (in supply chains) and downstream (when the products are used).

Increasing focus on positive contribution – what began as defensive disclosure about negative impacts has become more positive. Companies are talking more and more about how their products and services help make the world a better (more sustainable) place.

Formal reports are still the major vehicle – they are the basis for other communications. Rigorous, comprehensive report information is necessary to make other communications credible.

3. Five reporting themes

Multiple versions – companies are increasingly using different disclosure methods for different audiences, including social media for employees and brochures for customers.

Data and targets – every year data collection and target setting tends to get better: more comprehensive, more relevant.

Integration – reflecting the growing integration of sustainability in corporate strategies, there is growing interest in integrating ESG information in mainstream reporting. But beware – integrating the information doesn’t mean the strategy is integrated, and even if it is there is a danger of ESG information being lost in a swathe of financial detail.

Assurance – limited interest in the UK and US, but more enthusiasm on the continent.

GRI – general acknowledgement in the sense of including a GRI index, but little enthusiasm in the US and northern Europe for rigorous adherence to GRI indicators.

That's it in a nutshell (maybe a cocount shell). What do you think?

Live reporting flies the nest

2009-08-21T14:23:00.005+01:00

Companies have kept stakeholders up to date on their CR initiatives through regular online posts for some time. But until now live sustainability reporting has been the domain of industry-specific social networks, limiting the readership to people taking the time to establish a profile and log on regularly.

The Guardian Media Group, publisher of one of the UK’s biggest national newspapers, has brought live reporting into the mainstream with its new sustainability report.

Whereas most sustainability microsites leave information static until the next reporting cycle, the Guardian’s will be updated with articles and think pieces throughout the year. It will also use the popular comment element of the Guardian Online news website to establish a constant and open dialogue with stakeholders – something lacking from sites that rely on comments through emails and secure feedback forms.

The Guardian has given momentum to the live reporting trend that started at Just Means, the social networking site dedicated to sustainability. That’s set to continue with beauty product retailer The Body Shop poised to publish its next sustainability report in a similar way. With two such heavyweights endorsing the format, best practice manuals are on the verge of being torn up.

But there’s a hitch. Through social networks, you know you’re reporting to an engaged and interested group. For live reports to work outside those confines, they need to capture an audience with the same enthusiasm.

Building a following
I’m not the first to point out that one of the UK’s most popular media groups, with millions of online users, will have an easier time of this than others. But is it a model that other companies should emulate? Perhaps, but not without some groundwork.

Encouraging online interaction has to be the first step. Various multimedia tools and interactive dialogues will help by ensuring stakeholders have a reason to be engaged. Utilising these and building an online audience before reporting might give a live report the leg-up it needs.

This is a trend that has every possibility of becoming a standard, but only the most creative and engaging reporters will stand out.