Distribution Network
Content
Environmental and social campaigners in many respects are like
entrepreneurs - brilliant at spotting a gap and ruthless at exploiting
it. They share other characteristics too: an ability to achieve their
ends with minimal resources and a tendency to move onto the next big
thing before boredom strikes. Freewheeling strengths, however, can
foster the sense that rules are for others to follow.
Sustainability reporting is a minor, but revealing, example: it seems companies are expected to disclose their social and environmental impacts, while non-governmental organizations are not.
NGOs were quick to demand that companies begin reporting on their non-financial performance, and business responded. But they were quicker still to dismiss sustainability reporting as another manifestation of greenwash. There are certainly examples that are largely cosmetic, but many of the companies singled out for opprobrium are more deserving of a 'good first effort, needs to do better' rating than outright dismissal. Producing a non-financial report is not easy, as Amnesty International, the only NGO to attempt one so far, is discovering.
More serious is the practice of constantly moving the goalposts. This is a very effective way of prodding companies to do better, and has arguably been the single most effective tool used by pressure groups to improve corporate environmental performance over the last three decades. But if not done with forethought, it can conceal a lack of strategic thinking, a common failing of cash-strapped organizations.
Too often, NGOs seem to think that as far as they are concerned, different standards apply. The Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, for example, has lately been promoting the 12 'golden rules' of sourcing gold written by Oxfam America and Earthworks (see page 5). Companies are complaining that these rules were drawn up with minimal business consultation.
If the intention is to outline aspirations for the industry, that is fair enough; but companies are being asked to confirm that their current operations satisfy this wish list. NGOs often stress the value of cross-sectoral initiatives, yet sauce for the goose it seems, is not sauce for the gander.
NGOs and companies alike share a need to balance ideals and practicalities. NGOs are aware of this necessity, illustrated when the European Commission attempted to persuade them to sign up to a multi-stakeholder forum that was supposed to have played a vital part in the future direction of policy - but was in fact biased towards industry interests. They sensibly withdrew. Companies, too, require similar room for manoeuvre. A common standard of accountability is needed for NGOs and business alike.
Sustainability reporting is a minor, but revealing, example: it seems companies are expected to disclose their social and environmental impacts, while non-governmental organizations are not.
NGOs were quick to demand that companies begin reporting on their non-financial performance, and business responded. But they were quicker still to dismiss sustainability reporting as another manifestation of greenwash. There are certainly examples that are largely cosmetic, but many of the companies singled out for opprobrium are more deserving of a 'good first effort, needs to do better' rating than outright dismissal. Producing a non-financial report is not easy, as Amnesty International, the only NGO to attempt one so far, is discovering.
More serious is the practice of constantly moving the goalposts. This is a very effective way of prodding companies to do better, and has arguably been the single most effective tool used by pressure groups to improve corporate environmental performance over the last three decades. But if not done with forethought, it can conceal a lack of strategic thinking, a common failing of cash-strapped organizations.
Too often, NGOs seem to think that as far as they are concerned, different standards apply. The Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, for example, has lately been promoting the 12 'golden rules' of sourcing gold written by Oxfam America and Earthworks (see page 5). Companies are complaining that these rules were drawn up with minimal business consultation.
If the intention is to outline aspirations for the industry, that is fair enough; but companies are being asked to confirm that their current operations satisfy this wish list. NGOs often stress the value of cross-sectoral initiatives, yet sauce for the goose it seems, is not sauce for the gander.
NGOs and companies alike share a need to balance ideals and practicalities. NGOs are aware of this necessity, illustrated when the European Commission attempted to persuade them to sign up to a multi-stakeholder forum that was supposed to have played a vital part in the future direction of policy - but was in fact biased towards industry interests. They sensibly withdrew. Companies, too, require similar room for manoeuvre. A common standard of accountability is needed for NGOs and business alike.
Super Featured
No
Featured
No