Search

By Chris Dallmann

Emergency lights may not get the credit they deserve; but without them, the critical role of emergency response would be severely challenged. In an emergency sector where every second counts, the safety of lives and properties might solely hinge on the arrival time of first responders. This, in turn, is dependent on how quickly they are able to navigate through traffic and other obstacles. This is where the importance of emergency lights comes to play.

These lights help protect the lives of the brave men and women of the first responders’ community: people who have dedicated their own lives and safety to the general good of the world we live in. They constantly drive at high rates of speed and through intersections, putting not only their lives in danger, but those of the general members of the public as well.

In today’s world, however, lighting-emitting diode (LED) lights are seen as the likeliest option in order to achieve a sustainable future for emergency response. This is especially true because, as we look into reducing negative impacts on the environment, LED lights are an example of how one does not need to compromise on being environmentally friendly in hopes of trying to achieve better results.

Cost-to-life ratio

While some may be put off by the cost that comes with LED lights, their amazing cost-to-life ratio makes them a financially savvy purchase. The lifespan of LED emergency lights often far exceeds other traditional and older models in the emergency response community. Having no filaments, LED lights are long-lasting and do not burn out. In fact, LED Hideaway strobes have a life expectancy of up to a staggering 100,000 hours, which in comparison, dwarfs those of incandescent bulbs with an expectancy of a measly 2,000 hours of operational life. This amazing operational life span translates to about 11 years of continuous, non-stop operation or about 20 years when operated to the tune of eight hours a day. This statistics only prove that they will mostly outlast the emergency vehicles on which they are used.

So, the various departments of government requiring emergency lighting for their fleet of vehicles can save a lot on their budgets for emergency lights, and instead, channel the resources elsewhere. This can only guarantee the sustainability of emergency response through a significant reduction in expenditure.

Low energy consumption

Energy consumption is very crucial to sustainability. When products use too much electricity, it increases the carbon footprint and, in turn, harms the environment. A regular LED light bulb can reduce energy consumption by up to 80 percent as compared to other types of lighting such as halogen or incandescent bulbs. This can easily be applied to LED emergency lights, and if every emergency vehicle switches to LED lights, the world will see a significant dip in energy consumption for lighting alone.

According to a studies conducted by the U.S Department of Energy, general LEDs installed in the year 2012 saved around $675 million in energy costs. The study further went on to reveal that if every American replaced one conventional light bulb with an LED, the energy savings could light an estimated 2.5 million homes. That’s the equivalent to the greenhouse gas emissions of 800,000 cars. Therefore, LED lighting is not only a financially sensible option in the world of emergency response; its ability to reduce the impact on the environment makes it an obvious choice.

Efficiency and effectiveness

The choice of LEDs should be straightforward if we expect the sustainability of emergency response. Aside from the fact that they consume less energy, they also efficiently utilize the low amounts of energy that they consume. Much unlike incandescent bulbs that release about 90 percent of energy they consume in the form of heat, LEDs generate little to no heat. They also contain no mercury, a key concern with compact fluorescent bulbs.

However, all of these qualities do not make LEDs less inferior than their older and traditional counterparts. In fact, they are more durable, require little to no maintenance and illuminate much brighter. Even in sunlight, the luminescence of LED emergency lights can still be seen from a distance. This makes LED lights highly efficient despite being compact, less heavy and requiring less energy. Whether it is to announce the arrival of an emergency vehicle or to indicate its presence at a scene, LED lights leave much less carbon footprints, making it a solid candidate for the sustainable future of emergency response.

Overall, the critical role which emergency response and first responders provide can be sustained and even improved if we continue the current trend of tilting towards the path of LEDs. Asides emergency response alone, the U.S Department of Energy estimates that switching entirely to LED lights over the next two decades could save the U.S. $250 billion in energy costs, reduce electricity consumption for lighting by nearly 50 percent, and avoid 1,800 million metric tons of carbon emissions. The choice is ours to make.

Image credit: Flickr/David Lewis

Image credit: Flickr/Steve Lyon

Chris Dallmann is the CEO of Extreme Tactical Dynamics and for many years, he has been an advocate for the general well-being of first responders and the emergency response community. This he does through the provision of quality and affordable gears such as police lights and emergency lights.

The Great British Bee Count kicks off this month. Organised by Friends of the Earth, Buglife and Waitrose, the Count aims to build on the success of last year’s inaugural event, when over 23,000 people took part, spotting over 830,000 bees.

Gardeners are also being encouraged to take easy steps to make their gardens more bee-friendly, and help provide crucial havens for our threatened pollinators.

Head of Sustainability at Waitrose, Quentin Clark said: “We're committed to protecting pollinators like bees, and this summer we will also be promoting pollinator-friendly plants in our shops. People who work at Waitrose take real pride in supporting the environment, and we are delighted to support The Great British Bee Count.”

Data can be recorded via a free smartphone app which can be downloaded from Itunes or the Google Play store.

Click here to find out more.

Fair and respectful treatment of employees is the most important sign of a responsible business in the eyes of the public, reports a Business in the Community (BITC) survey.

Altogether 92% of the people interviewed said ethical attitudes towards employees would be a vital consideration if they had two identical job offers.

An employer’s treatment of customers would be a criterion for 90% of job applicants, and the safety and reliability of products and services would be important to 89%, said the survey.

Other criteria were the promotion of health and wellbeing, which would influence 86%, flexible working (79%), support for efforts to place young and disabled people in work (72%), and workplace diversity (71%).

However, only just over half of those wishing to change jobs in the next 12 months said their employers treated them with respect, compared with 85% of employees without plans to leave inside two years. Furthermore, nearly one in ten employees reported they had felt pressured to do something unethical, and only 22% were proud of their employers’ roles in their communities.

Despite this, the respondents’ view of big business was generally positive. Six in ten thought corporates made welcome contributions to the community and seven in ten employees said they would speak approvingly of their employers without being asked.

Of all respondents, 46% saw treating employees with respect as showing corporate responsibility, 33% rated treating customers with respect, 32% making safe and reliable products, and 21% tax transparency.

Stephen Howard, the BITC chief executive, said of all the figures and percentages: “It’s clear that the outdated idea of responsible business as being about giving cash or ad hoc CSR activity is over. While these things do have positive impacts, there is far more to being a good business than simple philanthropy, and the public and employees know this.

“To be perceived as responsible, a business must be authentic and have values that influence everything it does, from how it treats employees and uses natural resources to how it operates within the community and down their supply chains.

“We urge employers to prioritise how they engage and communicate with their employees. Doing so will drive trust and pride in business and create a culture within businesses that encourages staff to do the right thing. It’s only by getting it right on the inside that we will see more businesses make a meaningful con-tribution to society.”

Howard used airtime on BBC Radio to explain that businesses need to think more about employees’ health, flexible working and diversity of opportunity, but was then pressed on public views on profit. He emphasised that profit was not the purpose of a business, but the result of its conduct.

BITC, the charity that promotes the principles it considers essential in a fairer society and to a sustainable future, commissioned the survey from Ipsos Mori to mark Responsible Business Week . 

According to the figures published by the European Environment Agency (EEA), average new car emissions were 123.4g CO2/km compared to 186g CO²/km in 1995, representing a 33.7% decrease for 2014.

The agency says that this is the result of the long-term efforts of the automobile industry, which have been sustained both with and without legislation.

“Thanks to huge efforts by European automobile manufacturers and billions of euros worth of investment in R&D, Europe’s cars currently meet the highest environmental standards in the world,” commented Erik Jonnaert, secretary general of the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA).

“It is clear that CO2 emissions from passenger cars need to continue on their downward trend, and the industry is committed to this. However, because the most cost-efficient actions have already been taken, delivering on that aim requires ever greater technical investments to achieve smaller reductions.”

Ensuring further reductions in average CO2 emissions will also be dependent on greater market uptake of alternative powertrains, including electric, hybrid, fuel-cell and natural gas-powered vehicles, says the ACEA. However, as the EEA points out, electric vehicles continue to constitute only a very small, albeit rising, fraction of new registrations (0.3 % according to the EEA).

“Governments across Europe will need to increase their support if we are to see a significant increase in sales, both in terms of helping to build the charging infrastructure necessary and in influencing consumer choices,” said Jonnaert.

“Looking ahead beyond 2020, we need a wider debate involving all stakeholders on a more balanced and effective system for further reducing CO2 emissions from transport. For the automobile industry, this means we should not only focus on emissions from the vehicle itself, but also look at other factors influencing emissions during the use of the vehicle.”

These factors include the carbon content of fuels, driver behaviour, infrastructure and the age of the car fleet, says the ACEA. 

A good reputation is more valuable than money, they say. Yet you wouldn’t think so these days with so many businesses still loathe to pay the Living Wage and happily keeping staff on zero hour contracts. So when I heard about Dan Price of Gravity Payments cutting his own salary to raise his company’s minimum wage, my usual frown turned upside down.

The US technology start-up boss is slashing his own $1m (£664,000, €923,000) salary by 90% to raise his company’s minimum annual wage to $70,000. Unsurprisingly he has since been swamped with applications for two advertised jobs. The two vacancies, for a sales rep and a support worker, attracted more than 3,500 applications in response to the new rate, instead of the usual 300 or 400. Talk about putting a new spin on the minimum wage!

Price founded Gravity Payments, in Seattle, Washington, 11 years ago when he was 19. He recalls: “When I first started the business, all I could afford to pay that person who decided to work with me was $24,000 a year, and no healthcare or anything. Ever since then I’ve been working on getting better pay. It’s always been on my mind but it was a question of whether the company could afford it. I felt like we finally got to a place where we could pull it off.”

He says making the move “was the best money I’ve ever spent in my life” and hopes his example will encourage other employers to do the same, reducing the widening pay gap between directors and workers.

Before the pay announcement Gravity Payments had 15,000 clients and handled about $10bn in payments every year. Since Price’s decision the work has expanded – so even more of the 3,500 applicants could receive job offers.

While I wonder if Price’s action will encourage other employers to do the same, wise businesses should also take heed of recent research on the Living Wage commissioned by KPMG. It found that attitudes and awareness towards the Living Wage campaign are changing with seven out of 10 UK adults saying they would consciously shop in favour of a Living Wage accredited retail chain – a rise of more than 10% in less than 12 months.

“It’s clear from the poll that ensuring the lowest paid in society are treated fairly should be near the top of the agenda for Government and for employers alike,” commented Mike Kelly, head of Living Wage at KPMG UK. “With nearly a quarter of the FTSE 100 now accredited more and more employers are reaping the benefit of joining this movement. The next big challenge will be to educate our employees, customers, suppliers and clients about the range of enterprises who are Accredited so that they too can exercise informed choice.”

Talking of businesses having the courage to make fundamental changes, keep an eye out this month for Margaret Heffernan’s new book, Beyond Measure. While not promising a prescriptive do’s and don’ts list, its pre-publicity says that it will reveal how organizations can ‘make huge changes with surprisingly small steps’. Her last book Wilful Blindness was an absolute wow and I have a feeling that this new one will not disappoint. Even the promotional flyer, inspires: “A half hour walk can prove wildly more productive…than staying late at work.” I can’t wait to get my hands on a copy.

Nick Jones, head of digital comms & corporate responsibility, Visa Europe, explains why they're backing the launch of the Entrepreneurship Skills Pass 

 

Engaging with young people is always inspiring, especially as you get older. Enthusiasm and energy carry you along. I recently visited a trade fair organised by Junior Achievement – Young Enterprise for London student companies. The vitality was palpable and their desire to sell strong. I caught their buzz and left the fair, with a couple of purchases and confident in the future those students will build.

Engaging with young people is also always challenging. The students came to that fair from different backgrounds and with different levels of experience. Some were natural entrepreneurs. Others were clearly learning the ropes. Teachers, mentors and friends all helped them tackle the challenges. It was clear that the programme was a safe place to make mistakes. And, a great place to learn from them. That’s rare in today’s society.

Such entrepreneurship education is vital. It builds self-confidence today. It starts to build the businesses of tomorrow. It builds the future stars of Europe’s start-up scene. That’s why Visa Europe wants to enable young people to thrive in the digital economy. Social value and economic value go hand-in-hand. Such values underpin the business case.

You’ll know Visa the business from the plastic card in your wallet or purse. Increasingly you’ll know it from making payments using your mobile device. And there-in you have the key insight that is so fundamental to the business case. Our children will probably never touch coins and notes outside of playing with plastic coins in kindergarten.

The digitisation of currency, transactions, values and payments is accelerating. About one euro in five spent in Europe is spent on Visa’s payments ecosystem, a digital one. In some countries that’s closer to one in three. So that’s why we want to equip young people to thrive in the digital economy. They need financial skills to have any future in a future that is digital. It’s as simple as that. And, entrepreneurship education lets them learn by doing.

The launch of the Entrepreneurship Skills Pass (ESP) reminds me of how the Visa pioneers built-out a recognised brand across Europe. One that was trusted by consumers and retailers alike to be accepted where ever they were. And, one that was trusted to delivered on a promise to pay. Today, the many ways of gaining entrepreneurship experience need a mark that gives recognition across borders and beyond particular competitions and curricula.

Employers and investors also need to accept the Pass as a trusted indicator of experience and expertise gained. It should be welcomed widely. The education and experience behind the Pass are not just vital experiences for the participants but vital ingredients in any enterprise.

Our recent Everyone In Business quiz asked over 17,000 Europeans ‘what type of Entrepreneur are you?’ The choices were fun but we also asked, in accompanying market research, if they did have an idea for a business and what might stop them starting one.

The most hopeful age group were the 18-24 year olds, 56% of them had that great idea. Well above the average of 45%. However, when we asked the young people what was holding them back 20% said they did not understand the financial implications of running a business. They are dreaming but some are fearful. A good financial education delivered through an entrepreneurial experience is essential. That’s why we are backing ESP.

 

The type of information provided by corporate sustainability reports, and in non- financial disclosures varies widely. Investment analysts or other report users may believe they are reading comparable data when they’re not. Elisabeth Jeffries reports on the responsible investor’s conundrum

 

Oil sands are shifting. Two fossil fuel companies who over a decade ago declared their emissions from end-use products are now silent on the matter. Campaigners examining the disclosures they do make have yet to extract the core. The companies are BP and Shell and the analysts Carbon Tracker, a trailblazing non profit trying to shake more data from the corporate stable.

“BP and Shell...demonstrated such reporting was possible years ago taking a leadership approach, but then took a backward step, not continuing to provide data on emissions relating to their products,” points out founder Mark Campanale. Continual change is confusing to stakeholders and investors.

Cast about in a sea of varying rules, the type of information provided by corporate sustainability reports, and in non- financial disclosures generally, varies widely. Investment analysts or other report users may believe they are reading comparable data, such as emissions numbers, but the basis on which it is published often differs even within a particular industry.

Tenant emissions may be omitted in one property company report, but included in another. End-user (scope 3) emissions are often lacking in industries with high consumer impacts, such as ICT or vehicle production. Among the unresolved problems affecting comparisons is a sheaf of reporting standards and a labyrinth of reporting regulations. Standards requirements differ. The Climate Disclosure Standard requirements Board (CDSB), a consortium of global business and environmental NGOs aiming for consistency, has identified 400 different emissions reporting rules across the world.

They ranged from provisions in stock exchange rules and business law amendments, environmental reporting regulations and climate change legislation. Rules are being introduced each year, such as the Singapore Stock Exchange’s new mandatory sustainability reporting requirement for all listed companies.

As CDSB executive director Lois Guthrie points out, the fragmented nature of the different policies is an obstacle to meaningful assessment and peer group comparison: “While ownership of who is in charge of developing non-financial reporting is dispersed, it’s quite difficult to get a language on how to codify standards,” she says.

Institutions responsible for setting rules vary in individual countries. In the US, listed companies respond to guidelines by the Securities and Exchange Commission. “SEC guidance is extremely variable. Guidance encourages companies to report. But very few standards set out the requirements for compliance,” says Guthrie. In Australia, climate risk is the responsibility of corporate governance, while in the UK it comes under the Companies Act.

Three major areas require different approaches according to standard. The first is materiality – the extent to which an organisation’s activities are relevant. “The problem with materiality is that it can’t be defined in isolation from the purposes and audience of the report. You need the context of the user,” she says. Thus an industrial company’s human rights record and accident rate might be material in themselves to an NGO. By contrast, conventional investors might only find them material to the extent they incur a financial penalty.

Climate change creates particularly sharp distinctions in materiality definitions, as Lois Guthrie explains: “the impact of environmental matters is sometimes delayed. If a company’s planning horizon is five years, it can legitimately say that climate change is not material” she points out.

Secondly, companies also set their reporting boundaries at different points, and this also disturbs comparison. For example, one company may report the activities and impact of the whole group but leave out subsidiaries. Others will include subsidiaries and joint ventures, associates, upstream suppliers and downstream activities. A third area of disagreement is the extent of assurance required. One standard will require information to be checked by a third party, another may not. The purposes of the verification may differ, as can the type of information to be checked.

Standard-setting organisations have different objectives depending on their stakeholders, and this partly explains these distinctions. “sustainability standards… are generally tailored to different target audiences, with varying expectations and different levels of understanding of sustainability,” points out Friederike Jebens, Senior Consultant at consultancy thinkstep (formerly PE Consulting).

A popular standard is the Greenhouse Gas Protocol developed by World Resources Institute and World Business Council on Sustainable Development. “It has all the hallmarks of an appropriate and rigorous standard, but the way it is applied can vary.
“For instance, a hybrid approach is taken to exclusions from reporting, which are not always stated,” points out Guthrie. Other standards include the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Climate Registry: Oil & Gas Protocol, ISO 14064-1 and dozens more. They vary in a number of areas. Some, like the GRI, cover ESG reporting overall, and others particular concerns like climate. Some cover a wide range of stakeholders, and others only shareholders.

For investment analysts and others trying to make sense of the data, therefore, the picture is still opaque. At the moment, a case-by-case approach works best. “You have to familiarise yourself with how the organisation reports,” explains Jebens. Users need to understand the basis on which reports have been prepared before drawing meaningful conclusions about an industry. One reason is the way definitions of concerns such as materiality in non-financial reporting are shaped. This differs from company to company.

“Under the GRI, investors have some licence to determine the definition themselves, but in practice the company runs stakeholder programmes to decide on the key issues.

“Some may be interested in water, others more in human rights. So you end up with a quite bizarre range of definitions, even if the organizations are in the same industry,” says Lois Guthrie.

Disclosure is improving, though, at least in terms of quantity. In most of the European Union, more than 83% of the FTSE Global 500 are now revealing carbon emissions data. Nevertheless, businesses are still going through a formative, intense era in global non-financial standard and regulation development. This has a positive side, however: it allows NGOs and other campaigners to set the terms for disclosure in future.

Standards are also gradually drawing closer together. According to Lois Guthrie, the US Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, the International Integrated Reporting Council and her own organisation CDSB “have the most in common on mainstream reporting. GRI and the Carbon Disclosure Project are more aligned on wider range of reporting, such as supply chain.”

Like many non-financial reporting reformers, the CDSB would like to see a globally governed set of requirements. The end goal is an international system akin to the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) providing a common global language for business so that company accounts are understandable across national boundaries. “We are always looking for that analogy in financial reporting to be applied [to sustainability reports],” she says.

But the IFRS has taken decades to develop, and adjustments take years to agree. By implication, an international non-financial reporting system might not be in place until at least the 2020s. Financial reporting implementation requirements have had time to develop a consistency of narrative to be more transparent. The definition of an asset is one example. Likewise, sectoral accounting requirements are more clearly defined.

The same level of detail is lacking in non-financial reporting. But Lois Guthrie looks ahead to a more positive future again aligned with the financial reporting world: “All of this good activity just needs a bit of order brought to it by an institutional home for gathering and ordering that information.” 

It’s the organisation people love to hate. But as the BBC’s project manager for environmental sustainability, Hattie Park is on a mission to use the corporation’s unique position to encourage the whole industry to collectively reduce its impact on the planet

 

Stakeholder scrutiny doesn’t get more severe than when you’re working for the BBC. Its unique funding structure sets it up for much public attack, and accusations of wastefulness (among many other things) continuously recharge the debate around licence fee value.

It has tried hard to shake off its bloated, senior-management-heavy image, not least with property portfolio consolidation.
As part of a long-term strategy, the number of buildings occupied by the BBC has been reduced from over 200 to 154, cutting overall space by 30%. By 2017, the corporation will be saving £67m a year, which it says will be spent on programmes and services instead.

Much loved, yet technically obsolete, Television Centre, Bush House and White City One in London, Queen Margaret Drive in Glasgow, Oxford Road in Manchester and Pebble Mill in Birmingham are now gone. In their place are a range of gleaming new buildings, including the BREEAM ‘Excellent’-rated New Broadcasting House in London, the first ever Listed building to achieve such environmental credentials. Selling Television Centre alone raised £200m and cut running costs by £30m.

The consolidation is about getting “maximum value for the licence fee, with fewer but better buildings that operate more efficiently”, Hattie Park says.

As the organisation’s project manager for environmental sustainability, she is proud of what’s been achieved so far. “We have a role to better represent our audience, reflecting the creative and distinctive output from all of the UK, hence a move to develop sites across the UK, such as MediaCity in Salford.”

More than half of BBC staff now work outside of England’s capital, compared with 42% in 2004; the strategy is working.
After a stint in investment banking at Lehman Brothers (which ultimately saw Park leaving, going back to academia with a Masters at Imperial College London and re-joining the business as part of a team charged with building some sustainability principles into the bank before it came crashing down in 2008), she worked on a staff engagement project at Guy’s and St. Thomas’s NHS Trust before moving to the BBC.

Today, she sits in a central function, working with numerous BBC departments to tackle operational efficiency. But driving down carbon, energy, waste, water and travel impacts is only part of the job. She has a bigger focus on ensuring each programme that is broadcast by the BBC has been made with minimum environmental impact. “As a public service, it’s important we are seen to be operating in a sound way – and also that we are benefiting the industry as a whole too,” she says.

And it is this focus on supporting the whole sector that led to the development of albert, the production industry’s tool to measure and reduce footprints while making TV shows. “We are not making tins of beans, so every production is different, every time. And you can’t compare ‘Frozen Planet’ with ‘Flog It’.” So, albert – created by Park’s “brilliant colleague” Richard Smith in 2010 – offers a way for production teams to calculate their own impacts, understand where they can make a difference (whether that’s in making sure cast accommodation is closer to the sets to reduce transport, or saving power by using low-energy lighting) and compare themselves with similar types of productions.

It has been adopted by most industry players, with the likes of Sky, Channel 4, ITV and BBC all working together as members of a BAFTA-led consortium to make the tool even better – and collectively helping to reduce the burden of TV production on the planet. It is compulsory for all in-house Children’s and BBC TV productions to use albert.

Sky has gone one further, asking all of its suppliers to do the same. Around 280 companies have signed up to use albert, including big independent production firms like Twofour and Kudos, and it has more than 1,800 users.

So, what’s it like working with competitors? Fairly easy, says Park. “Everyone was keen to come on board and work together. And inside the BBC, there’s something about our position as a public service body that really helps people feel that this is an important thing to do – and we get very little push-back from production teams.

“When it comes to footprinting and environmental assessment, there are so many different ways of doing it. So, albert enables everybody across the industry to use the same standard tool and methodology.”

Taking things one step further, albert+ has been developed to help companies actually certify their impact reduction and continue to manage their impacts; successful productions are given a 1, 2 or 3-star rating and even get to display the albert+ badge during TV show credits. “If albert is the set of scales that tells you what you weigh, albert + is the diet plan to help you lose weight,” says Park.
Twenty-one BBC productions have gone through the albert+ process, including last year’s Manchester bombings drama, ‘From There to Here’ made for BBC1 by Kudos.

But do customers care about the badge? Are they paying attention? Park thinks so. “Our audiences do care, and I want licence fee payers to see that mark and know that our TV production teams are doing all they can to reduce the environmental impact.
“To be honest, we need more resources to get that message out there. Of course, the more partners we have on board, like Sky and ITV, the more we’ll be able to get the message out there.”

Of course, broadcasting more programmes that focus on the big issues, such as climate change, would have a huge impact – and it’s something Park admits “hasn’t been cracked yet”.

But there’s a much bigger picture Park wants the sector to look at: What happens once TV productions are in the can?
There are the different methods of transmission and the consumption of TV in homes across the country – and not just on television, but increasingly on laptops and smart phones too.

“We’re starting to collaborate on some of these issues because it’s a system with lots of different players – and we’re trying to build-out a picture of what total sustainable production and broadcasting looks like.

“The production part is within our control but we have a responsibility to engage with others to tackle this bigger picture. But there is an absolute willingness at the BBC to do something about that.” 

Prestigious New York jeweler Tiffany & Co has appointed the company’s first-ever chief sustainability officer with its stated aim “to elevate the company’s sustainability strategy and accelerate progress against its social and environmental business objectives”

Anisa Kamadoli Costa, who previously served as vice president, global sustainability and corporate responsibility at Tiffany & Co., was appointed to the newly created position and will report directly to Tiffany’s CEO. She will retain her position as chairman and president of The Tiffany & Co. Foundation.

“Tiffany & Co. is not only one of the world’s most important luxury houses but also a leader in sustainable luxury,” said Frederic Cumenal, ceo. “Anisa is an important voice for Tiffany on issues relating to corporate social responsibility and philanthropy, and appointing her to this new position underscores the strategic importance of the CSR programme to the Tiffany brand.”

Over the last 12 years, Costa has played an integral role in developing Tiffany & Co.’s corporate responsibility programme. Through her efforts, the company says that it has embraced a collaborative and stakeholder-driven approach to sustainability that includes engaging with civil society, mining companies, the luxury industry and local communities to shape best practices across the sector.

Under her guidance, the company has increased public awareness about environmental concerns such as the proposed gold and copper mine in Bristol Bay, Alaska. In addition, Costa established the company’s CSR metrics programme and process of external reporting, which has gained wide recognition for its quality and transparency. Tiffany’s latest sustainability report will be released this summer.  

Lauren Compere, md at Boston Common Asset Management, says that investors are finally waking up to the importance of human rights risk

Human rights used to be a subject discussed mainly in public and civil society circles. In more recent years it has emerged in the corporate world as a significant business concern. Now it is time for institutional investors to grasp the nettle.

Although institutional investors can rarely be expected to undertake due diligence on every activity by all companies they invest in, they still face public censure if they are not assessing investee company risks related to human rights.

For example in 2013 two European investors, including Norges Bank Investment Management, were rebuked by the OECD for applying insufficient human rights due diligence over their investments in South Korean company POSCO. This criticism came even though both were only minority shareholders. (In the wake of this censure it is perhaps no coincidence that last week the Norwegian government decided not to renew the mandate of the head of the OECD’s ‘National Contact Point’ body in the country).

The evidence of investor interest in human rights is growing every month. For example earlier this year we saw a group of investors launch the ‘Corporate Human Rights Benchmark’ a new ranking analyzing the human rights performance of 500 large global companies; and in February a $4 trillion coalition of major investors from North America, Europe and Australia came together to urge investors to use a new guide to help them manage human rights risks in their portfolio.

That latter coalition, led by Boston Common Asset Management, backed detailed new guidance on how investors can help the companies they invest in to assess, manage and report on those human rights risks that are salient to their business. The coalition is still growing and later this year will also launch a collaborative investor engagement to ask a select group of companies in high-risk sectors - such as extractives and ICT - to consider adopting use of a new human rights Reporting Framework.

As reported by Ethical Performance in April, Ericsson has now released a sustainability report which makes them the first company to report in line with this new reporting framework. Unilever is set to include the framework in their sustainability report in June.

Beyond ethics
However I believe that the biggest factor driving pressure on investors in this area is the increasing evidence that mismanagement of human rights risks leads to real value destruction.

Two recent examples of this from the extractives sector include the 30% share price decline at platinum producer Lonmin a week after 34 mineworkers were shot dead at its Marikana mine in 2012; and the research by Aviva Investors that mining firm Vedanta Resources has underperformed its peers by 29% due, in part, to a lack of focus on human rights management.

Another example came last month when US marine company Signal International were forced to pay $14m for luring five Indian men to work in inhumane conditions on a ship repair.

Investors should also be aware of a growing regulatory trend in this area. For example the EU Directive on the disclosure of non-financial information which passed in 2014, and the 2010 US Dodd Frank Act (focused on conflict minerals) both compel thousands more companies to release information on human rights performance.

I have spoken with many investors about this issue and it is increasingly the case that analysts and CIOs are using human rights management as a litmus test to help understand the overall quality (or not) of a company’s management. If a company is not competent in putting sufficient resources into fully understanding and managing human rights issues throughout its supply chain, argue the investors, then that tells us a lot about the governance of that company.

A study by the Economist Intelligence Unit in April found that while 83% of Executives agree that human rights are a matter for business, less than 50% had an explicit policy statement that references human rights. This is the sort of mis-match that investors are seizing upon.

For many years investors have been able to pass the buck to civil society or corporate responsibility when human rights issues have been put on the table. Now these issues are increasingly landing on the plates of investors themselves.

Lauren Compere is a Managing Director at Boston Common Asset Management and sits on the Governing Board of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility.

The information in this article should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell any security.