Showing posts with label sustainability reporting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sustainability reporting. Show all posts
Thursday, October 6, 2022
Ryder CSR reporting. Easy(ier) then BIG initiatives
Tuesday, February 2, 2021
Sustainability in EDU Over last 20 years
Later in 2010 Hall (2010) published an article on Lessons of recessions: Sustainability education and jobs may be the answer. (SustainZine Blog post here.) This article discusses the Great Recession of 2007-2008. Make no doubt about the pandemic of 2020, it too was a recession so destructive innovation has been (and will continue to be) the result.
Monday, December 5, 2016
Corps report on sustainability, kinda
Good news corporations are reporting on sustainability-related issues, especially those risks associated with operating a business that does not account or consider the areas where they are not sustainable. Operations in the UnSustainable Zone have lots of risks such as, for example, the company may not really be profitable. Cheap coal, is not nearly so cheap when you figure in all the negative externalities: pollution, health, CO2, coal ash...
Check out this WSJ article about the reporting, or lack thereof, of sustainability by large companies. First, 81% of companies report something, but 52% of those reporting used "boilerplate language to flag the risks without articulating management response strategies." That would mean, if I understand it correctly, that only 42% of big firms report meaningful information on sustainability and the risks to the organization. But using Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, or SASB, would give the reader/investor meaningful information about the true profitability (economic profit) and the underlying risks. (See wikipedia on SASB or SASB.org.)
I know what you are thinking... These area the same types of risks that Sarbanes-Oxley was supposed to address. If the risks are real, and material, then they must be meaningfully assessed and reported. Right?
Check out this WSJ article about the reporting, or lack thereof, of sustainability by large companies. First, 81% of companies report something, but 52% of those reporting used "boilerplate language to flag the risks without articulating management response strategies." That would mean, if I understand it correctly, that only 42% of big firms report meaningful information on sustainability and the risks to the organization. But using Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, or SASB, would give the reader/investor meaningful information about the true profitability (economic profit) and the underlying risks. (See wikipedia on SASB or SASB.org.)
I know what you are thinking... These area the same types of risks that Sarbanes-Oxley was supposed to address. If the risks are real, and material, then they must be meaningfully assessed and reported. Right?
Top Companies Are Disclosing Sustainability Risks, But Not The Way Investors Want
By
By
Thursday, February 11, 2016
The State of Green Business, 2016 | GreenBiz
The State of Green Business, 2016 | GreenBiz:
The latest report by GreenBiz (and Trucost) on the State of Green Business is great. Optimistic, but no green-colored glasses. There was a lot of progress in Paris (COP21) in December, but the progress from businesses is were major progress seems to be forming.
It is great to see businesses taking more control and starting to shape sustainability arguments and the form the solutions. We at SustainZine are not great proponents of big government efforts coming to "help" solve all the world's sustainability issues; businesses can avoid this help by being proactive (and no, proactive does not mean and army of K-street lobbyists protect smoke-stack industries and to inhibit all forms of progress).
More and more companies are offering more transparency about social and environmental impacts. More companies are stepping forward with transparency on the labels (Campbell's "non-GMO" labeling, for example) and more transparency on the footprint of the supply chain, and cradle-to-cradle efforts. Management should monitor their full impact on the environment, and investors should care about progress in the most critical areas of the business. Employees are critical to any and every sustainability effort, on corporate facilities, in transit, or in their personal lives.
It is possible to develop new business models. The sharing economy is kicking huge industries in the rears. The sharing economy is causing massive and dynamic reallocated of time and resources of homes, cars, crowd funding and innovation on a time-share basis. The old economies of taxis and hotels are going to have to scramble to stay relevant, often sending them to court and to congress to try to stop the renegades from tipping over the ship. The time and resources savings from a sharing economy, often have profound savings to the environment. Many of these improvements in performance will go unmeasured by the traditional metrics of performance (like GDP).
On a leadership level. Just saying it out loud, seems to be the GIANT step: measurement, forming initiatives and the monitoring progress toward goals. As of 2014, about half of the companies had Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction targets. That percentage seems to be increasing at about 2-4% per year since this reporting was started a decade or so ago.
The current targets by companies represents only about 28% of what is needed in reductions by about 2030 of about 3 gigatons of GHG emissions reduction per year. With the magic of compounding geometric growth, the required reductions per year would need to be about 32 gigatons each year if we wait until 2050. (Or 51 gigatons reduction per year if we continue business as usual until 2100; obviously far too late to consider seriously since CO2 persists in the atmosphere for about 100 years.)
Sidebar on GHGs. In terms of greenhouse gasses, this year has blasted through the 400 ppm level for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Look at the Keening Curve on this. January 2016 was 402.5 ppm. We may never be below 400 ppm again. Since this is an El Nino year, the September-to-September increase should be about +4 ppm, not the current trend of +2.2ppm per year base on the lowest month of the year (September in Mauna Loa, Hawaii). Paul Keening developed this curve starting with observatory data starting in 1958 when the CO2 level in the atmosphere was below 320 ppm. At that time the annual increase was about +0.75 ppm but quickly jumped during the global industrialization to the current average increase of +2.2 ppm each year. Many (rapidly becoming most) scientist believe that we need to get down below the 350 ppm level to avoid massive impacts from warming and climate change.
A decent percentage of companies are reporting on water, about 20% in the US and 15% globally. This seems unnecessary for many companies.
There is an interesting discussion and presentation related to natural capital (R&D, investments, profits and savings). Natural capital costs are the unpaid costs to the economy from pollution, natural resource depletion and related health costs (see the Natural Capital Project and at Stanford). Natural capital takes into consideration factors that tends to elude normal accounting and finance. A company's financials may show profits, but when all costs are considered -- including externalities -- those profits might evaporate. In fact, the S&P 500 have natural costs of about $1T per year and overall natural costs have escalated about 22% since the great recession. If all costs were considered, about 115% (to 153%) of corporate accounting profits would be wiped out in the US (and globally). (Even if you question the cost assignments for natural costing, the general methodology is sound; and this is not a pretty picture of corporate sustainability in terms of true profits.)
So, in the real world, with full costing, corporations, on average, are not profitable. And, if the company is not sustainable, then the true costs and profits are not real. Right?
Innovation and patents: Lot's of CleanTech patents, but the number is way down. The measure of Clean Tech patents is fuzzy and getting fuzzier. Electronic and auto companies (Toyota & Honda) are at the top of the list of patents. But IBM is not listed.
GreenBiz and Trucost have a wonderful 2016 report; and lots of progress is being made, in large and small ways. But keep in mind that too much reporting is, well, too much. We don't want businesses to adopt (or have forced on them) the same approach from education where testing and reporting has replaced much (most) of the teaching/learning!:-(
But, for the 50% of business that is not reporting (may not be monitoring at all), no metrics and no reporting has multiple implications. First, you obviously don't have a business plan, if you don't also have a sustainability plan in it. Second, you definitely don't know your true costs if you don't assess externalities and supply chain. Third, you have no idea what all your risks are, so you have no ability to manage or mitigate them. Even Sarbains-Oxley would have to kick in at some point when it becomes "material" to the company. Lastly, you don't know if you are actually, and truly profitable, your accounting system misrepresents the business.
If you like Sarbains-Oxley, then you will have no end of joy if/when governments starts requiring more environmental or natural capital reporting. Seems like businesses should take initiatives voluntarily, and on their own terms. A sustainable leader would insist on knowing a fully sustainable path forward. Investors, business partners and employees would want to know.
Note that this report is based on a Trucost database of 12,000 global companies that represents 93% of the world markets by market cap.
'via Blog this'
The latest report by GreenBiz (and Trucost) on the State of Green Business is great. Optimistic, but no green-colored glasses. There was a lot of progress in Paris (COP21) in December, but the progress from businesses is were major progress seems to be forming.
It is great to see businesses taking more control and starting to shape sustainability arguments and the form the solutions. We at SustainZine are not great proponents of big government efforts coming to "help" solve all the world's sustainability issues; businesses can avoid this help by being proactive (and no, proactive does not mean and army of K-street lobbyists protect smoke-stack industries and to inhibit all forms of progress).
More and more companies are offering more transparency about social and environmental impacts. More companies are stepping forward with transparency on the labels (Campbell's "non-GMO" labeling, for example) and more transparency on the footprint of the supply chain, and cradle-to-cradle efforts. Management should monitor their full impact on the environment, and investors should care about progress in the most critical areas of the business. Employees are critical to any and every sustainability effort, on corporate facilities, in transit, or in their personal lives.
It is possible to develop new business models. The sharing economy is kicking huge industries in the rears. The sharing economy is causing massive and dynamic reallocated of time and resources of homes, cars, crowd funding and innovation on a time-share basis. The old economies of taxis and hotels are going to have to scramble to stay relevant, often sending them to court and to congress to try to stop the renegades from tipping over the ship. The time and resources savings from a sharing economy, often have profound savings to the environment. Many of these improvements in performance will go unmeasured by the traditional metrics of performance (like GDP).
On a leadership level. Just saying it out loud, seems to be the GIANT step: measurement, forming initiatives and the monitoring progress toward goals. As of 2014, about half of the companies had Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction targets. That percentage seems to be increasing at about 2-4% per year since this reporting was started a decade or so ago.
The current targets by companies represents only about 28% of what is needed in reductions by about 2030 of about 3 gigatons of GHG emissions reduction per year. With the magic of compounding geometric growth, the required reductions per year would need to be about 32 gigatons each year if we wait until 2050. (Or 51 gigatons reduction per year if we continue business as usual until 2100; obviously far too late to consider seriously since CO2 persists in the atmosphere for about 100 years.)
Sidebar on GHGs. In terms of greenhouse gasses, this year has blasted through the 400 ppm level for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Look at the Keening Curve on this. January 2016 was 402.5 ppm. We may never be below 400 ppm again. Since this is an El Nino year, the September-to-September increase should be about +4 ppm, not the current trend of +2.2ppm per year base on the lowest month of the year (September in Mauna Loa, Hawaii). Paul Keening developed this curve starting with observatory data starting in 1958 when the CO2 level in the atmosphere was below 320 ppm. At that time the annual increase was about +0.75 ppm but quickly jumped during the global industrialization to the current average increase of +2.2 ppm each year. Many (rapidly becoming most) scientist believe that we need to get down below the 350 ppm level to avoid massive impacts from warming and climate change.
A decent percentage of companies are reporting on water, about 20% in the US and 15% globally. This seems unnecessary for many companies.
There is an interesting discussion and presentation related to natural capital (R&D, investments, profits and savings). Natural capital costs are the unpaid costs to the economy from pollution, natural resource depletion and related health costs (see the Natural Capital Project and at Stanford). Natural capital takes into consideration factors that tends to elude normal accounting and finance. A company's financials may show profits, but when all costs are considered -- including externalities -- those profits might evaporate. In fact, the S&P 500 have natural costs of about $1T per year and overall natural costs have escalated about 22% since the great recession. If all costs were considered, about 115% (to 153%) of corporate accounting profits would be wiped out in the US (and globally). (Even if you question the cost assignments for natural costing, the general methodology is sound; and this is not a pretty picture of corporate sustainability in terms of true profits.)
So, in the real world, with full costing, corporations, on average, are not profitable. And, if the company is not sustainable, then the true costs and profits are not real. Right?
Innovation and patents: Lot's of CleanTech patents, but the number is way down. The measure of Clean Tech patents is fuzzy and getting fuzzier. Electronic and auto companies (Toyota & Honda) are at the top of the list of patents. But IBM is not listed.
GreenBiz and Trucost have a wonderful 2016 report; and lots of progress is being made, in large and small ways. But keep in mind that too much reporting is, well, too much. We don't want businesses to adopt (or have forced on them) the same approach from education where testing and reporting has replaced much (most) of the teaching/learning!:-(
But, for the 50% of business that is not reporting (may not be monitoring at all), no metrics and no reporting has multiple implications. First, you obviously don't have a business plan, if you don't also have a sustainability plan in it. Second, you definitely don't know your true costs if you don't assess externalities and supply chain. Third, you have no idea what all your risks are, so you have no ability to manage or mitigate them. Even Sarbains-Oxley would have to kick in at some point when it becomes "material" to the company. Lastly, you don't know if you are actually, and truly profitable, your accounting system misrepresents the business.
If you like Sarbains-Oxley, then you will have no end of joy if/when governments starts requiring more environmental or natural capital reporting. Seems like businesses should take initiatives voluntarily, and on their own terms. A sustainable leader would insist on knowing a fully sustainable path forward. Investors, business partners and employees would want to know.
Note that this report is based on a Trucost database of 12,000 global companies that represents 93% of the world markets by market cap.
Monday, June 1, 2015
Fast 10 sustainability leadership tips | GreenBiz
'Fast 10' sustainability leadership tips | GreenBiz:
There are great tips.
I really like the "building a business case" tip. If you can't build a pretty good business case for something, then it makes a case for change that is usually hard, nearly impossible.
Getting ahead means that you can play offense, not defense.
Langert is from McDonald's so he has had his work cut out for him. When McD has tried to introduce more healthy foods, the consumer usually hasn't been buying it... they go to McDonald's for BIG Mac and fries.
McD really grew sales after the Great Recession. Until 2014, when sales slumped (same-store sales). Consumers have been going for healthier foods like Chipotle.
* Check out the healthier Corner McCafe by McDonald's.
* Is Chipotle really healthier than McDonald's?
It would be interesting to see what Langert recommended for McDonald's. Healthier fair would likely be slower fair, ... and in a few weeks, it won't be there.
That doesn't make Langert's advise any less valuable. But in some places it is a whole lot easier to go more sustainable than in others.
Makes you wonder what Hall and Knab (2012) would suggest related to how these 10 tips fit into the profile of a Sustainable Leader?
Reference
There are great tips.
I really like the "building a business case" tip. If you can't build a pretty good business case for something, then it makes a case for change that is usually hard, nearly impossible.
Getting ahead means that you can play offense, not defense.
Langert is from McDonald's so he has had his work cut out for him. When McD has tried to introduce more healthy foods, the consumer usually hasn't been buying it... they go to McDonald's for BIG Mac and fries.
McD really grew sales after the Great Recession. Until 2014, when sales slumped (same-store sales). Consumers have been going for healthier foods like Chipotle.
* Check out the healthier Corner McCafe by McDonald's.
* Is Chipotle really healthier than McDonald's?
It would be interesting to see what Langert recommended for McDonald's. Healthier fair would likely be slower fair, ... and in a few weeks, it won't be there.
That doesn't make Langert's advise any less valuable. But in some places it is a whole lot easier to go more sustainable than in others.
Makes you wonder what Hall and Knab (2012) would suggest related to how these 10 tips fit into the profile of a Sustainable Leader?
Reference
Hall,
E., & Knab, E.F. (2012, July). Social irresponsibility provides opportunity
for the win-win-win of Sustainable Leadership. In C. A. Lentz (Ed.), The
refractive thinker: Vol. 7. Social responsibility, (pp. 197-220). Las
Vegas, NV: The Refractive Thinker®
Press.
(Available from www.RefractiveThinker.com, ISBN: 978-0-9840054-2-0)
'via Blog this'
(Available from www.RefractiveThinker.com, ISBN: 978-0-9840054-2-0)
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
GreenBiz 2015 | GreenBiz Conferences, Feb 17-19, 2015
GreenBiz 2015 | GreenBiz Conferences, Feb 17-19, 2015:
This is a very cool Sustainability/GreenBiz forum lineup. In Phoenix, in February.
Listen to some of the big companies out there including Unilever, J&J, Target, Levi's, adidas,... I like some of the discussion on metrics and ROI from sustainability... Seems like such a good place to start.
Should be fun. Also, if you are associated with Gov or Edu or ?Org? you might be eligible for a 40% discount.
I might have to try to do it online. I didn't see any details about that. Obviously keynotes are easier to virtualize than breakout/work sessions.
Hope to see you all there.
'via Blog this'
This is a very cool Sustainability/GreenBiz forum lineup. In Phoenix, in February.
Listen to some of the big companies out there including Unilever, J&J, Target, Levi's, adidas,... I like some of the discussion on metrics and ROI from sustainability... Seems like such a good place to start.
Should be fun. Also, if you are associated with Gov or Edu or ?Org? you might be eligible for a 40% discount.
I might have to try to do it online. I didn't see any details about that. Obviously keynotes are easier to virtualize than breakout/work sessions.
Hope to see you all there.
'via Blog this'
Saturday, March 9, 2013
WME Honorees | World's most ethical Companies.
WME Honorees | Ethisphere™ Institute:
Check it out.
This is the list of the world's most ethical companies.
There is a huge presence of US firms. One reason would be because there simply are so many US firms. It seemed that all were publicly traded, so they already are doing a lot of reporting and now are probably doing social responsibility reporting.
But it is interesting to see.
Look at the companies in the various sectors.
The several that I thought should be one the list turned out to be there. In a couple cases in different areas than I original thought.
Now it would be interesting to cross-reference these companies with their sustainability reporting/commitment.
Very cool.
'via Blog this'
Check it out.
This is the list of the world's most ethical companies.
There is a huge presence of US firms. One reason would be because there simply are so many US firms. It seemed that all were publicly traded, so they already are doing a lot of reporting and now are probably doing social responsibility reporting.
But it is interesting to see.
Look at the companies in the various sectors.
The several that I thought should be one the list turned out to be there. In a couple cases in different areas than I original thought.
Now it would be interesting to cross-reference these companies with their sustainability reporting/commitment.
Very cool.
'via Blog this'
Thursday, November 1, 2012
A Sustainable Walmart...
Check out the Corporate Responsibility Report by Walmart for 2012. http://www.walmartstores.com/sites/responsibility-report/2012/pdf/wmt_2012_grr.pdf
This is very impressive. It not only includes such things as Energy and Carbon Footprint from all of Walmart's stores, it also addresses the impact of the products and foods from suppliers and how sustainable they are.
Walmart's goals of renewable energy are pretty impressive, but they step up and state the long-term obvious: the long-term goal is 100% renewable energy.
They are moving toward more local suppliers (for foods) which also means they will have a lot more suppliers. They are moving toward all suppliers reporting on their carbon footprint (and water footprint).
One of the things I really like it that they focus on 10 areas that they think are the most important. Some should help the bottom-line directly, others only long-term or indirectly. Still, they seem to be an impressive, yet target-able set of objectives. This fits very well into the Triple Bottom-Line of Sustainability.
Note the need for reporting all along the value chain.
Note the need for education & training all along the value chain.
[With all that Walmart does well/right, there are still some who complain and criticize. More on this view in another post.]
'via Blog this'
This is very impressive. It not only includes such things as Energy and Carbon Footprint from all of Walmart's stores, it also addresses the impact of the products and foods from suppliers and how sustainable they are.
Walmart's goals of renewable energy are pretty impressive, but they step up and state the long-term obvious: the long-term goal is 100% renewable energy.
They are moving toward more local suppliers (for foods) which also means they will have a lot more suppliers. They are moving toward all suppliers reporting on their carbon footprint (and water footprint).
One of the things I really like it that they focus on 10 areas that they think are the most important. Some should help the bottom-line directly, others only long-term or indirectly. Still, they seem to be an impressive, yet target-able set of objectives. This fits very well into the Triple Bottom-Line of Sustainability.
Note the need for reporting all along the value chain.
Note the need for education & training all along the value chain.
[With all that Walmart does well/right, there are still some who complain and criticize. More on this view in another post.]
'via Blog this'
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Carbon Disclosure Project Newsletter - Reporting Standard Interface
Carbon Disclosure Project Newsletter - May 2012: "
The Carbon Disclosure Project has introduced a standard reporting format that is similar to the reporting for financials purposes. This should streamline the reporting process and make it easier for organizations to report.
Of course, monitoring, measuring and reporting is only a small first step toward sustainability, but it is a critical first step.
Here's what they said in one area of the newsletter:
Did you know that disclosing through CDP automatically meets the Caring for Climate reporting requirements?
Caring for Climate (C4C), a joint initiative between the United Nations Global Compact and the United Nations Environment Programme, has recommended CDP as a reporting framework for almost 400 companies that are C4C signatories. Newly published guidance outlines disclosure-related responsibilities for C4C signatories to meet the annual reporting requirements. Companies that publicly disclose their climate change strategies and carbon emissions through CDP will automatically meet the C4C annual reporting requirements and need only refer to their most recent CDP response to be in full compliance."
. . .
"eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) is set to transform the way you disclose your climate change information. It is already widely used around the world for financial reporting ..."
In this way, information can be easily and consistently reported by organizations. They are talkin about creating a Climate Change Reporting Taxonomy (CCRT) for the Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB).
We probably should not complain about the alphabet soup of acronyms here. When creating something new, it is often better to invent new terms and phrases than to try to work with existing, but inaccurate terms.
Check out the websites of CDP and CDSB where you can find information about this project.
[Note that this link, https://standardscenter.com, requires some access in order to participate in the "sharing" and participation process associated with the design.]
'via Blog this'
The Carbon Disclosure Project has introduced a standard reporting format that is similar to the reporting for financials purposes. This should streamline the reporting process and make it easier for organizations to report.
Of course, monitoring, measuring and reporting is only a small first step toward sustainability, but it is a critical first step.
Here's what they said in one area of the newsletter:
Did you know that disclosing through CDP automatically meets the Caring for Climate reporting requirements?
Caring for Climate (C4C), a joint initiative between the United Nations Global Compact and the United Nations Environment Programme, has recommended CDP as a reporting framework for almost 400 companies that are C4C signatories. Newly published guidance outlines disclosure-related responsibilities for C4C signatories to meet the annual reporting requirements. Companies that publicly disclose their climate change strategies and carbon emissions through CDP will automatically meet the C4C annual reporting requirements and need only refer to their most recent CDP response to be in full compliance."
. . .
"eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) is set to transform the way you disclose your climate change information. It is already widely used around the world for financial reporting ..."
In this way, information can be easily and consistently reported by organizations. They are talkin about creating a Climate Change Reporting Taxonomy (CCRT) for the Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB).
We probably should not complain about the alphabet soup of acronyms here. When creating something new, it is often better to invent new terms and phrases than to try to work with existing, but inaccurate terms.
Check out the websites of CDP and CDSB where you can find information about this project.
[Note that this link, https://standardscenter.com, requires some access in order to participate in the "sharing" and participation process associated with the design.]
'via Blog this'
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Bonian Golmohammadi: Why We Need a Global Environmental Organization
Bonian Golmohammadi: Why We Need a Global Environmental Organization:
This article seems to do a good job of organizing the current research. It builds a good case for global action.
This article seems to do a good job of organizing the current research. It builds a good case for global action.
The global organization is needed, yes. But that is part of the problem. The dysfunction of individual governments is amplified many, many times when it comes to global organizations such as the UN. I think that a big part of the denier ideology is the fear of the following logic train:
1) Global warming (yes)
2) Human caused (debate mainly over how much)
If yes to 1 & 2, then we have a moral and fiduciary responsibility to:
3) start taking action, at least prudent action.
4) Global coordination and cooperation are required.
5) The UN is the logical place to start...
Sooo, what if the global and UN involvement is an unacceptable alternative?
It's hard for those of us who have thought about the outcomes and the possible ramification of climate change to get our heads around the likely results. The ideas of taking huge sums of money, giving it to an organ of the UN, and having them giving it to climate refugees is ugly in all the ways you look at it.
To the extent that we all can have non-government solutions, the better all around. It will certainly help get people on board as they try to work themselves past #1 and #2 above.
So, I'll come back and check the article and its links to see how well they did.
Thanks. EH
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)