Search

The compensation fund for victims’ families and survivors of the Rana Plaza disaster in Bangladesh is still about $20m (£12.4m, €15.7m) short 18 months after the event.

The fund, known as the Rana Plaza Arrangement, has reached nearly $20m, with a $1.5m commitment from the French brand Auchan, but it requires $40m.

Contributions are coming from companies that sourced textiles and garments from factories occupying Rana Plaza, which collapsed in April 2013 killing 1,138 workers and injuring more than 2,000.

However, the Amsterdam-based Clean Clothes Campaign, which works for better conditions in the garment industry, was “dismayed that the industry has failed to pay up sufficiently”.

Ineke Zeldenrust, the campaign’s international co-ordinator, said: “What are brands waiting for? They all say they support the Rana Plaza Arrangement and that the calculations, overseen by the International Labour Organisation, are fair and just.

“But unless all brands up the amounts they’ve paid in so far, the arrangement can’t pay the claims in full.”
To date the Italian fashion brand Benetton and the French supermarket chain Carrefour have contributed nothing.

Zeldenrust commented: “It is unacceptable that a brand the size of Carrefour have not paid a single cent … They say the evidence linking them to the site is insufficient.”

The campaign is also highlighting the fact that survivors are also finding it hard to find jobs.

“Factory owners are turning people who worked in Rana Plaza away as they are deemed too ‘damaged’ and too much of a risk,” says Samantha Maher, of Clean Clothes Campaign, who returned to Bangladesh last month,

The fact that the Rana Plaza Donor Trust Fund has only been able to provide 40% of the compensation payments due to survivors means that being able to make long term plans are impossible.

“In many cases the fact that full compensation cannot be made is having a serious impact on the usefulness of these partial payments,” added Maher.

“Receiving money in small amounts means that for people already living in dire financial straits they have no choice but to use it for daily life, instead of saving it or investing in a new business or land to ensure they will manage in the long run.”

Further information here.

Picture credit: &copy  Bayazidakter&nbsp | Dreamstime com&nbsp - Aftermath Rana Plaza In Bangladesh (File Photo) Photo

When I heard about Facebook and Apple’s practice of offering female employees the opportunity to freeze their eggs (in order to retain and attract more female talent), my first thoughts were extremely negative. It smacked of a paternalistic and patronizing attitude, which the whole gender balance argument stands against – and yet this initiative was all about ensuring a more fair gender balance!

When it comes to industry, the tech sector suffers particularly badly from this imbalance. In the US only 26% of tech industry professionals are women, so it’s not surprising that the most innovative firms looks for innovative ways to attract talented women.

But here’s the thing. Why not just pay them the same? As Professor James Hayton of the Warwick Business School points out: “Broader pay equity might be an even stronger signal of the importance of women in the workforce.”

Hear! Hear! And why should employers get involved in their employees’ reproductive choices in the first place? “We want to empower women at Apple to do the best work of their lives as they care for loved ones and raise their families,” Apple’s statement read.

OK, so why not focus on offering more flexibility and support for parents? Are the days of the company crèche long gone? And, anyhow, freezing eggs doesn’t necessarily guarantee fertility. You can’t equate physical fitness with egg fitness… And by offering such an option, isn’t a company promoting the idea that women need to postpone having children in order to succeed?

That’s when I knew I couldn’t be reading Facebook and Apple’s policy in context. Ah, context. That most valuable and overlooked factor! And voila. Here it comes. The clarity of context! It turns out that, according to Facebook, egg freezing was an employee benefit that had been requested. The offer is also egalitarian, men are offered the same benefit by covering the cost of freezing sperm.

You’ve also got to remember that these benefits are about American employees who live in a country where health insurance is a necessity and fertility treatments are not always covered. It’s all beginning to look and sound a little more rational now isn’t it?

Indeed, on closer examination, in answer to critics that the move may actually dissuade women from having famiies at all, Facebook currently offers four months of paid maternity leave for parents – exceeding the usual six-week offer for most mothers in the US – and also offers $4000 to help with newborn expenses.

Apple also offers an adoption assistance programme.

And just as I was coming to terms with all that. Microsoft boss Satya Nadella went and advised women not to ask for a pay rise and karma-gate ensued. He has since apologized for his comments, describing them as ‘inarticulate’ and ‘completely wrong’. He also redeemed himself – and Microsoft – by revealing that one of his main goals at the tech giant is “to continue to focus on equal pay for equal work and equal opportunity for equal work”. Currently, although it fluctuates a little each year, the overall difference in base pay among genders and races – when considered at level and job title – is consistently within 0.5%. Last year, women in the US at the same title and level earned 99.7% of what men earned at the same title and level.

[email protected]
 

Sustainability is undoubtedly a buzzword at the moment, writes Paul Raleigh. Whether business leader or consumer, we cannot escape from being told to consider the long-term implications of our actions or spending decisions. When they are rational and focused, I welcome these arguments. Evidence shows that exhausting scarce resources now will reduce the opportunities available for future generations.

But what of the role of businesses – often unfairly typecast as faceless, profit-grabbing corporations who would do anything to sell more stuff today, with no concern for the consequences tomorrow? As Barack Obama recently said: “The business community (has) broader responsibilities to the system as a whole… (although) the general view today is that the only responsibility that a corporate CEO has is to his shareholders.”

In reality, businesses across the world are engaged in a whole host of environmentally and socially responsible activities. We know this through our work with our clients but it also shines through in Corporate Social Responsibility: Beyond Financials, the latest publication from our International Business Report. More than two-thirds of the 2,500 mid-sized businesses we interviewed told us they gave either time or money to a local cause over the last 12 months. Two in three said they improved waste management or energy efficiency. More than half gave away products or services to charity, while the overwhelming majority said they are involved in CSR activity of one type or another.

That said, businesses do of course have a responsibility to investors, shareholders and also indirectly to the people they employ to turn a profit. Strong social and environmental credentials can also create customer loyalty and enhance reputations, something which has become increasingly important with the rise of social media. But increasingly business leaders are realising that commercial drivers and CSR drivers are becoming ever more aligned. Two thirds of those we surveyed cite cost management as a key driver in implementing socially and ethically responsible measures, up from just over half when we last surveyed this topic in 2011.

Improving energy efficiency is a great example of a cost-saving action with wider environmental and potentially social benefits. Take Ben and Jerry’s. The ice-cream giants recently converted one of their European factories so that the electricity it uses is generated by the by-products of the ice-cream making process. Not only will it cut down on their energy bills, it’s a great story through which they can demonstrate their green credentials. It’s compelling evidence that businesses now understand the commercial benefits of being sustainable.

At the same time, however, nearly two in three businesses also said they are operating more sustainably because it’s the ‘right thing to do’. This may seem a fairly nebulous concept in the world of business, but it highlights what is at the heart of any corporation: people. At Grant Thornton, our own CSR programme focuses on how we can get the skills of our people out into local communities, both for their own development and for the wider positive impact.

As with many ubiquitous phrases, Corporate Social Responsibility invariably means different things to different people. But for me as a business leader, good CSR is so much more than simply writing a cheque. In an ever more crowded and competitive marketplace, it means differentiating yourself to unlock the potential for growth in your people and in your communities. It means developing and evolving, but not at the expense of the natural environment or society. It means growth that considers longer-term implications. It means acting as responsible global citizens.

The good news coming out of our research is that the vast majority of mid-sized businesses feel exactly the same.

Paul Raleigh is global leader – strategic development and growth at Grant Thornton
 

A London restaurant that serves up fine dining to the likes of David Cameron, Boris Johnson and Prince Andrew is also cooking up a storm in the homeless community with its award winning chef-training programme.

Beyond Food Foundation and partners, the Brigade Bar & Bistro, has recently won the Community Partners Award at this year’s Lord Mayor’s Dragon Awards, for their work with people who have been at risk of or experienced homelessness. The chef-training programme motivates those on the scheme to not only gain fully certified apprenticeships and real work experience within the restaurant’s kitchens, but to gain a chance of employment within the hospitality sector.

Since it opened in 2011 Brigade Bar & Bistro has employed 61 kitchen apprentices, who have progressed into industry work placements to complete the NVQ Level 2 in Professional Cookery before forging careers as chefs at top eateries such as the Savoy, Swan at the Globe, Plateau and five star hotels across London.

Owned by PwC and managed by De Vere Venues, the restaurant’s cook school facility has provided a training space for 240 people, aimed at promoting core employability skills such as team work, communication, professionalism and the fundamentals of nutrition, health and wellbeing. Over 130 trainees at the cook school progressed to work placements within the Brigade’s training kitchen and over 100 of these trainees have received accredited learning awards for the hospitality sector.

Simon Boyle, chef and founder of the Beyond Food Foundation (BFF), told Ethical Performance that receiving the Dragon award was an acknowledgement from the City that “we are doing the right thing”.

“It’s good for our profile – after all the restaurant is a business and we need to make money,” he said. “But going forward it also opens the way to new partnerships.”

Boyle pointed out that BFF also runs a Fresh Life programme which is about helping homeless people get a new start at life. This includes two weeks’ work experience in a restaurant. “It’s not just about food and cooking, but about commercial skills too,” he explained.

BFF works in combination with the Princes Trust’s Get Started programme, in order to find people to participate in the scheme. “The aim is to promote sustainable, meaningful employment,” he emphasized.

Boyle said that the Foundation was currently looking at creating a blueprint of “what we do and how we do it” but said he would not want to replicate Brigade. “We’ve a very special relationship with PwC and DeVere. What we’re doing now is looking at launching a new business which is aimed at providing good food in hostels. You would be flabbergasted by the current standard of food on offer,” he said. And the good news is that the Foundation has just received seed funding for this new strand to the business from the Andrews Charitable Trust.

Established 27 years ago, the Lord Mayor’s Dragon Awards are the longest running awards that recognise excellence in corporate community engagement programmes. From small and medium enterprises (SMEs) including restaurants and furniture businesses, to international financial and legal firms– companies across London are demonstrating their commitment to CSR that has a positive and lasting impact on individual lives.

Overall, this year’s Dragon Award applicants supported more than 200,000 individuals across London, with 166,242 hours ploughed into projects – equating to £1.2m worth of investment.

Lord Mayor Fiona Woolf said: “Since the launch of the Lord Mayor’s Dragon Awards nearly three decades ago, there has been a marked change in business approach to CSR. It is no longer a ‘nice to have’, it is a ‘must have’. We all recognize that human investment is a vital precursor to good commercial investment. So we celebrate the growing ambition of business to create long term value for their workforce, and for wider society. This is an exceptional example of how a scheme has successfully engaged with unemployed people to give them skills that will empower them to change their future.”
  

We, in the OECD countries, spend about 90% of our lives inside buildings so it should be pretty clear that healthy and comfortable indoor environments contribute significantly to overall health and happiness.

It also makes economic sense since in the US alone the annual cost of building related sickness is estimated at some $58bn.

Whereas “green” building, or sustainable construction, used to focus specifically on energy efficiency and conserving natural resources, now it takes a more holistic approach to provide healthier living and working environments as well as minimising environmental impact.

Yet, despite a growing body of research proving the contrary, the myth persists that “green building” is expensive. In fact, sustainable construction practices, rather than focusing on short term economic gains, emphasize long-term affordability, efficiency and economic sustainability offering investors lower operating costs, longer useful lifespans and improved marketabililty as well as higher occupant productivity.

The latest report to debunk the sustainability-is-expensive myth comes from the research team at the Sweett Group and BRE, the independent Building Research Establishment.

Delivering sustainable buildings: Savings and payback (brebookshop.com) examines both capital construction costs and operational costs applying cost data from real construction projects to three case study buildings – an office, a secondary school and a community healthcare centre.

The researchers concluded that minimum BREEAM (BRE Environmental Assessment Method) ratings can be achieved at little or no extra cost while targeting higher BREEAM ratings – more challenging sustainability levels – typically incur extra costs of less than 2% which, moreover, can be recovered within 2–5 years thanks to operational savings.

“This study proves that, as long as good planning is involved at an early stage, a sustainable approach need not add significantly to building costs,” says BRE’s Yetunde Abdul, one of the report’s authors. “And, where there are additional capital costs, these can be repaid relatively quickly through the reduced costs of operating the building.”

Indeed, Abdul goes on to say, payback through reduced operational costs can actually make green buildings work out cheaper in the long run.

So with the financial disincentive being replaced by a likely financial incentive, could we soon see green buildings added to corporate must-have tick boxes alongside sustainable supply chains and enhanced transparency?

Abdul believes we will, citing the ever increasing numbers voluntarily approaching BRE for advice on updating their standards. Even where a new build is not happening, she points out, there are adjustments that can be made using the Breeam In-Use initiative for existing buildings such as maintenance improvements which can cut costs, ensuring desks are spaced in a way that offers computer users a distance view which can reduce headaches, or adjusting acoustic levels so work spaces are neither too loud or too quiet - both of which can be stressful.

When it comes to construction and full-scale refurbishment, however, one company raising the bar on sustainability in the built environment is Marks & Spencer which, currently increasing its retail space by 20% and refurbishing all its stores, has approached BRE to help the company fulfill its goal of becoming the world’s most sustainable major retailer.

“Our customers don’t want just an ethical range in the corner of the store. They expect a simple brand promise from us that we will strive in everything we do...to offer the most sustainable option possible,” says Mike Barry, Director of Plan A.

Launched in 2007, Plan A is the company’s 100 commitment eco and ethical programme and has helped M&S send no waste to landfill and become carbon neutral. Now the company has joined forces with BRE in a unique retail partnership which involves BRE developing a Sustainable Construction Manual for the company with guidelines covering analysis of initial store designs and the selection of construction materials to auditing and working with key suppliers to deliver sustainable construction methods.

The key to no-cost or low-cost sustainable construction lies in forward planning, stresses BRE’s Yetunde Abdul. This is a holistic approach, involving both stakeholders and designers working collaboratively from the early planning stages through to occupation.

With this in mind, experts from Birmingham University have criticised the government’s recent proposal to drop the zero carbon homes standard for thousands of new homes on brownfield sites as ‘“short sighted”.

“Ignoring climate change and easing regulations to reduce construction costs in the short term is a false economy for planners when planning to build new homes on this scale,” says Professor Keith Osman, Director of Research. “The use of analytic tools demonstrates clearly that reductions in energy usage, which reduces both CO2 emissions and energy costs for the occupants, can always be achieved and should a compulsory requirement for all new build housing.”

Currently, the built environment is responsible for around 25-40% of total energy use, 30% of raw material use, 30-40% of global greenhouse gas emissions and 30 to 40% of solid waste generation.

Osman urges the government to look longer term and use a more integrated strategy in future planning, an approach currently being pioneered by a pan-European consortium led by the University.

The KIC-Transitions (KIC-T) project brings together data, modelling and visualisation tools to provide a comprehensive simulation framework that will assist strategic planning. This integrated platform enables “plug-in” to a wide range of information sets for analysis of key environmental impacts, including energy needs, noise pollution or carbon emissions.
“This highlights just how important our project will be in helping planners to better assess the impact such ambitious proposals will have when built without due enforcement of regulations that minimise environmental impact,” he says.

David Lawrence, European Director for Construction and Development at AIG/Lincoln which built the BREEAM Excellent rated Campus M Business Park in Munich agrees on the need for forward planning. “A high priority was given to bringing all parties involved in the sustainability brief together early – the earlier everyone understands the process, the more cost and time effective green construction is,” he says. “We are particularly pleased with our BREEAM rating and Campus M proves that achieving Excellent does not mean additional cost.”

CASE STUDIES

Campus M Business Park in Munich - a BREEAM Excellent at no extra cost

Campus M Business Park in Munich, built by the AIG/Lincoln Group, is a 18,500m2 office and technology park 4km from Munich city centre with four buildings and multi-storey parking.
Scoring particularly well in Management, Health and Wellbeing and Energy and Transport, it was awarded a BREEAM excellent.
The park re-used an existing site which involved the specialist disposal of contaminated material. 
The buildings are entirely naturally ventilated and offer high levels of natural daylight, with workstations at most 7 metres from a window. There are storage areas for recyclable waste in the basements and highly efficient gas condensing boilers heat the interior. 
Energy use is low and complies with German energy saving regulations.
The Park also has excellent public transport links as well extensive cyclist facilities and showers in order to reduced CO2 emissions linked to the Park.
Director of Sustainability at BRE Global Paul Gibbon, says:”Campus M delivers an important message to investors, developers and the industry as a whole that with good design, achieving a BREEAM Excellent rating does not cost extra.”

Marks & Spencer’s Cheshire Oaks store

Marks and Spencer, along with the Murphy Group, has joined CIRIA’s (the construction industry research and information association) BIG Challenge which seeks to reward biodiversity enhancements that go beyond normal business practice. 
M&S became the first UK retailer to receive The Wildlife Trusts’ Biodiversity Benchmark after creating a wildlife haven at its award winning Cheshire Oaks store by introducing green living walls, a pond and wetland area, trees, hedgerows and wildflowers at the store near Ellesmere Port. 
Now, the company wants to expand its biodiversity initiatives. “We believe that our buildings can be important hosts for biodiversity and promote flora and fauna in urban locations,’”says Property Plan A Project Manager Roseline Holt. “CIRIA’s BIG Challenge is a great vehicle to help share best practice in the industry and encourage collective action to help prevent the decline of biodiversity in order for us to achieve a sustainable future.”

 

The sixth biennial Sustainable and Responsible Investment Study from the European Sustainable Investment Forum (EUROSIF), the leading pan-European Sustainable and Responsible Investment (SRI) membership organisation spanning institutional investors, asset managers, index providers and Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) research firms, has for the time provided detailed insights on Exclusions, European Impact investing and ESG integration practices across thirteen countries from Austria to the UK.

The 72-page SRI study, first conducted in 2003 and sponsored by Edmond de Rothschild Asset Management, Generali Investments Europe, Inrate AG and Nordea Asset Management, noted that Exclusions (or negative screening) - a strategy involving removing companies or sectors from the investible universe of a portfolio - are going “mainstream”.

François Passant, EUROSIF’s Executive Director in Brussels, commenting said: “The continuous growth of SRI practices in Europe signals a positive change in attitudes toward stewardship and the materiality of ESG matters.”

He added: “Discussions are shifting from whether SRI makes sense or not from a financial return standpoint, to how its tangible impacts can be measured. Increasingly, investors and other industry stakeholders will push the market in this direction, bringing it to a new level of maturity.”

That said, the latest study notes that “no single harmonised and operational European defi­nition of SRI” currently exists and therefore does not impose a specific definition of SRI. As such it continues to cover “any type of investment process that combines investors’ financial objectives with con­cerns about ESG issues.” Nevertheless it points to several initiatives in France, Italy and Germany that have been set in motion (or are still in the process) to define what SRI is more specifically.

Assets subject to exclusion criteria grew according to the findings by a stellar 91% between 2011 and 2013 and cover an estimated 41% (€6.9 trillion (trn) of European professionally managed assets. Exclusions cover more assets than any other SRI strategy and have the most consistent usage across Europe.

Voluntary exclusions related to Cluster Munitions and Anti-Personnel Landmines (CM&APL) were found to be the most common covering about 30% (€5.0 trn) of the European investment market. Other Exclusion assets, not related to CM&APL, account for about 23% (€4.0trn) of the market.

For the first time, the study provides a growth figure for Impact investing, which was found to be the fastest growing strategy in Europe (+132% since 2011) and now estimated to be a €20 billion market. Key markets for this strategy are the Netherlands and Switzerland, accounting for an estimated two thirds of European assets, followed by Italy, the UK and Germany. Separately, almost 40% of ESG integration assets now follow structured investment processes and incorporate non-financial criteria.

Against the backdrop of this growth, the study describes a number of “market failures or challenges”, for example “wide variations in adoption of SRI practices across countries, the weakness of the retail SRI market and the under-utilised potential of Sustainability themed in­vestments given their potential to closely align with certain public policy objectives.” As such legislation will continue to “play a key role” in addressing such market failures, EuroSIF said.

EuroSIF’s latest study, which can be downloaded via www.eurosif.org, contains three case studies (on Norms-based Screening at Etica SGR, The Social Stock Exchange and the Threadneedle Social Impact Bond Fund) as well as thirteen focuses including Fostering Greater Transparency of the European SRI industry and New SRI Definition and Label.

The £404.55m AXA Framlington Health R Inc fund top ranked amongst UK Registered funds over the past year to 30 September 2014 with a cumulative return of +24.41% - with double-first rankings over the last three years (+85.42%) and past five years (+123.46%), respectively. Sarasin Sustainable Equity USA P USD Acc, a £31.35m fund, has performed consistently over the past one- and three-year time periods ranking second over the past 12 months (+22.62%) and third (+80.13%) over the last three years.

Pictet Timber-HR EUR, a £342.05m fund, bottom ranked in the sector out of 207 funds on past one-year horizon on -9.62% - versus +34.26%/127th rank over the past three years. SUNARES came second bottom over the last 12 months with a performance of -6.91% and was even worse over the past three years (-44.13%/196th rank)

In the US Mutual funds sector, which exhibited the best peer group average over both three and five years at +54.77% and +68.55% respectively, Wells Fargo Advantage Lg Cp Core A, a $307.68m fund, came top over the past 12 months with +22.24% versus +100.37%/7th rank over the last three years and +105.95%/28th rank over past five. The
$664.73m VALIC Company II Socially Responsible fund was runner up over the last year on +21.09% against +89.49%/15th rank and an impressive +112.18%/16th rank over five years. Ariel Discovery Investor, a $46.24m fund, came bottom out of 192 funds in this sector on -5.80% over the last 12 months (+52.36%/96th rank over past three years).

FL/AXA Framlington Health AP Pension fund again top ranked in the UK Individual pensions sector for the past one, three and five years on cumulative returns of +26.45%, +93.69% and +139.23%, respectively. As a whole this sector posted the best peer group average return over the past year out of the five sectors in Morningstar’s analysis with +27.37%.

FL/Framlington Health AP Inet Pension fund was runner up over the past year on +24.17% versus +83.25%/8th rank over past three years and +118.39%/7th rank over last five. Bottom ranked out of 122 funds in the sector on a past one-year view was OMW/Allianz Gl Eco Trends on -1.17% versus +30.26%/96th rank over the past three years and +1.74%/97th rank over past five.

It was a similar picture amongst UK Insurance funds with FL/AXA Framlington Health AL Life fund top over the past year, second over past three years and top over five.  

Having been inspired by a former KPMG partner who lectured on corporate responsibility while doing his MBA, Mark Parker, CSR Programme Manager at Whitbread, tells Ethical Performance how he drives sustainability in the UK’s ever-growing hotel and restaurant group. Whitbread’s brand include Premier Inn, Table Table, Brewers Fayre, Beefeater Grill, Taybarns and Costa.

What do you consider to be Whitbread’s key CSR achievements so far?
Whitbread’s CR efforts are focused on its Good Together initiative, launched in 2009, which is based on three pillars: Team and Community, Customer Wellbeing and Environmental Management. They’re all given equal status and my role cuts across all three pillars.
Our key achievements in my view so far are, in Team and Community, our WISE programme which is investing in young people. It’s an apprenticeship scheme where participants can progress and earn qualifications. It’s part of our ethos that ‘anybody can be successful in Whitbread’. It’s about creating employment opportunities for those who don’t think they are capable of such.
Our charity partnerships are very important. We asked our team members who they wanted to support and Great Ormond Street was a clear winner, polling 7:1. The goal is to raise £7.5m by 2017 and we’re well on course for that. The money raised will result in the opening of the Premier Inn Clinical Building (at Great Ormond Street) which will be part of the Mittal Children’s Medical Centre, where parents will be able to stay at the side of their sick children.

Tell us about developments in Whitbread’s sustainable supply chain.
It’s a very exciting time. Under the Customer Wellbeing umbrella, we are launching this soon. Working with suppliers we’ve been assessing where the risks are and where the opportunities lie. And through that identification process, we then tackle those risks through policy creation. It’s been my baby for the last two years.
We could have built a very stringent policy but this wouldn’t effect real change and, in all likelihood, frustrate suppliers.
For example, take cotton (used in laundry and bedding products throughout Premier and the restaurant groups). The risks are pretty obvious, such as human rights and working conditions. The opportunities are strong: R&D is one route. We’re asking what’s the next step in cotton (and using bamboo may be a way, though currently it is too expensive an option).
So the strategy is database driven. Suppliers self assess and upload evidence. The system then implements a traffic light system that will flag any potential risks. This will be backed up by audit and we’re building that process right now. It’ll launch officially in February 2015.

Where does the environment figure for the company?
It’s a significant pillar for Whitbread, as it has been reporting on this particular aspect since 2004. Traditionally it’s been the starting point for many an organisation’s CSR strategy and Whitbread benchmarks and excels on this front. For example in 2011 we set a water management strategy of a 15% reduction by 2017. We’ve actually achieved that a lot earlier - leak detection is a key part of the strategy and we’ve now fitted 40,000 low flow showers - and so have revised the target now to 25% by 2017. It wouldn’t be right to set targets that are easy to achieve. Where would be the challenge in that?

What’s next?
The challenge now is to communicate our sustainable strategy to our customers. We need to explain, for example, why energy efficient hand dryers are a good thing. We currently take a softly, softly approach but we’re asking ourselves what else can we do? How do we make it relevant? Can we be a bit more bullish? After all, our message needs to flex with the brand be it Premier, Beefeater or Table Table. We have some upcoming plans where we’re really going to talk to customers.

How do you involve employees?
Engaging team members [Whitbread employees] is paramount and key to environmental changes. Our Switch It Off campaign is a good example which encourages change for saving energy. It’s promoted by Whitbread’s online platform, Avenue, which also incorporates interactive video games such as Waste PacMan and Carbon Space Invaders.
CSR at Whitbread benefits from top down involvement. Andy Harrison, the ceo, is very engaged. His belief in our ‘Customer’s Heartbeat’ model means strong and robust teams deliver a strong customer heartbeat which in turn drives profitable growth. The Good Together initiative underpins this whole strategy. Driven like this from the top, it galvanizes the CSR side and pushes it out to the whole company. It means that different people take ownership and it just doesn’t boil down to the CSR team.

What should we look out for?
In November, we are launching a new hotel concept called Premier Inn Hub. The first one is in Covent Garden in London and it’s the most technological hotel in the UK. You can control everything in your room from an app.

If you could influence one major thing in sustainable business practice, what would it be?
It would be to change the short-term outlook some organizations have. Since the recession there has been huge growth in quarterly earnings reporting. If we could change those horizons, to a more long-term outlook, we could make fundamental changes.
 

The business landscape is very different now to when I started my career in the field of sustainability over 15 years ago, writes Joe Franses.

Businesses today face significant pressure to deliver value beyond a return for investors. They must generate a profit whilst also addressing the significant social and environmental challenges we face.

At Coca-Cola Enterprises (CCE), we wanted to better understand whether today’s business leaders and those of the future think that the business community is currently doing enough to address global sustainability challenges. We commissioned new research with The Doughty Centre for Corporate Responsibility at Cranfield University, Net Impact and the Financial Times’ FT Remark to explore the expectation from both generations about the role of business in society.

The research revealed there is a strong alignment on the topic of ‘profit and purpose’, with 90 per cent of future leaders and 88 per cent of current leaders believing that business should have a social purpose. However, only one in five future leaders thinks companies already do so (compared with four in five future CEOs) indicating that business either isn’t doing enough to address global sustainability challenges, or isn’t communicating its achievements to a global audience.

Management attitudes and inconsistent government engagement were cited as some of the barriers to combining profit and purpose, preventing business from taking the action that the future generation expects.
 
At our recent Future for Sustainability Summit, held in partnership with the Financial Times, our peers and stakeholders came together to discuss the challenges that businesses are facing in incorporating sustainability as well as share best practice.

Many businesses are indeed addressing sustainability challenges and turning them into business opportunities. For example, Laura Storm, Executive Director of Sustainia, highlighted Atlantic Leather – on the ‘Sustainia 100’ list – which turns food waste (fish skins) into a sustainable material that can be used to make handbags and other luxury items.

MBA Polymers – founded by Mike Biddle – has shown that businesses can tackle the sustainability challenge related to society’s use of plastic, by creating a new business opportunity: in this case, a recycling plastics company. Built on the premise that plastics are financially valuable, Mike set up MBA Polymers to separate and recycle plastics from complex waste streams, ensuring that the material can be used again and again.

Despite many positive examples, one of the key themes to emerge from the Summit was the importance of businesses defining their social purpose in the first place – being clear that to be successful companies need to ensure that profit and social purpose are fully complementary. Sharing best practice at summits and conferences is an important way to encourage businesses to do more and learn from industry leaders.

Business leaders need to be inspired to take action and the future generation of business leaders, who have such high expectations, are key to the challenge. Today’s companies must play an active part in inspiring future leaders and encouraging them to build a brighter future, by supporting them in acquiring skills and understanding of the workplace.

At CCE we are working hard to integrate sustainability into our operating framework and core business strategy. We have an ambitious sustainability plan that was launched in 2011 as a result of significant collaboration with stakeholders across our territories in Western Europe.

We strive to incorporate new innovation, technology and collaboration into our future plans, and we recognise the benefits each holds in unlocking the opportunities across our value chain. For example, our recent partnership with online collaborative platform OpenIDEO.com allowed us to draw on inspiration from across the globe to generate new ideas to increase recycling at home.

We’ve made strong progress as a result of our approach, both within the context of our own business and across our wider value chain, and we’ve learned a lot about the role of innovation and technology in accelerating the pace of change. However, we also acknowledge that we, along with many companies, still have a long way to go on our sustainability journey.

We recognise that today’s business leaders clearly have an essential role to play in addressing global sustainability challenges in order to enjoy continued success. Our focus is on maintaining positive momentum through innovation and collaboration to ultimately combine profitability with purpose – which we very much believe are two sides of the same coin.

Joe Franses is head of CR at Coca Cola Enterprises Ltd

Since the financial crisis of 2007-2008, skepticism (and even downright hatred) of the financial services industry has been high -- and many would say for good reason. To that end, governments, advocacy groups and other stakeholders have focused intensely on creating a more responsible industry. But how much has really changed in the past five years? Is the industry really modifying its core business practices in the interest of corporate social responsibility (CSR), or is it just smoke and mirrors (again)?

At the 2014 BSR conference in New York City this week, a group of expert panelists assembled to discuss just that. The conversation was dynamic and drew enthusiastic participation from audience members across multiple industries. (Stay tuned for more coverage of this thought-provoking panel discussion next week on TriplePundit.)

I had the chance to sit down with Andrew Plepler, global corporate social responsibility executive for Bank of America, before the panel on Thursday. Plepler has been with B of A for more than a decade -- meaning he was the guy who bravely pitched CSR ideas in board rooms before the crisis, with members who may or may not have been receptive. Now, five years later, he's working on annual CSR reports and serving as the smiling face on videos explaining what responsibility means for the company. Since he's seen the issue come full circle, I was intrigued to hear his thoughts.

TriplePundit: What did you see as some of the gaps that existed as far as CSR in the financial services industry before the crisis, and how has that changed?

Andrew Plepler: Through every crisis, there comes something good. And I think that one of the outcomes of the financial crisis is there has been, certainly at our company, a certain amount of introspection and reflection about the role of the company in society. Philanthropy has been historically viewed as 'philanthropy and volunteerism,' and I think through the financial crisis obviously what became paramount is: What is our role in a global economy going forward?

The good news is: The result of that has been far more integration of the principles of CSR into the actual operation and governance of the company. So, we've moved from the old model of philanthropy -- "Oh, we do something over here in the philanthropy group" -- to now I'm sitting at the table with people in global wealth management about clients that want to invest in sustainability. I sit with the consumer bank talking about how to create products that meet the needs of all of our customers, including low-income customers, and what we can do to mitigate the foreclosure crisis in neighborhoods and communities.

So, [the question has moved to]: How do we deploy all of our assets and resources at the company across the enterprise to be a positive force in society? As opposed to years ago: How do we make some grants and demonstrate that we're part of the community?

3p: Can you speak to some of those steps Bank of America is taking to address the foreclosure crisis?

AP: The company certainly had a very aggressive outreach component: Do outreach events, get people in the community to work with borrowers to understand what their options were. It was both the right thing to do and in the company's interest. Contrary to what sometimes is the narrative out there: The last thing the bank wants to do is foreclose. It's expensive; it's devastating to the reputation of the company; it's complicated; it presents legal risk. A sustainable loan modification was always the first desire on the continuum. If you can keep somebody in their home making mortgage payments, that's better for everybody -- better for the homeowner, better for the neighborhood, better for the bank.

That was not possible with everybody, with the devastating nature of the financial crisis and unemployment and the drop in property values being the chief culprits. It's very hard to keep somebody in their house who didn't have any income. So, for those situations we tried all sorts of ... continuum of solutions.

And then the last resort being foreclosure, then you're dealing with properties in these neighborhoods that needed to be disposed of in ways that didn't damage the neighborhood. Because the other issue that we're seeing more of now is: Vacant properties in distressed neighborhoods are the worst thing for communities -- they're not on the property tax rolls, they don't have occupants maintaining the property. So, we're really working now on some initiatives around: How do you get those properties disposed of in a way that is the best outcome for the community?

3p: Definitely. I've seen that firsthand myself. Where I live in Philadephia, there is a massive vacant land problem, and that's a big issue there. What are some of the options you use to deal with vacant homes?

AP: It's a fairly complicated topic, but if we own it in many cases we are able to donate it to a nonprofit. We've had a fairly aggressive military donation program of over 1,000 properties to returning military veterans, [as well as] several thousand properties donated to other nonprofits, including Habitat for Humanity, who can work with the neighborhood to get a first-time homebuyer or a client that they work with into those properties.

A lot of these properties need a lot of rehab work. So, that's another piece that we can work with nonprofits to get the property back up to a condition where it's habitable. In some of these communities, the timeline to go to foreclosure is so long that a property sits vacant for three or four years. That's a horrible outcome for everyone. So, you're trying to cut those timelines by working with municipalities. Mayor [Michael] Nutter in Philadelphia has actually tried some things like a fast-track kind of disposition. But donation, rehabbing the properties and expediting the foreclosure process itself are sort of the keys.

3p: Given this mindset and how the company is looking at philanthropy and CSR now versus how you looked at it a few years ago, do you think this has been enough to ease the minds of consumers or shift public perception surrounding the financial services industry?

AP: It's going to be a long road. This is not going to be overnight. The narrative was very well entrenched that big banks are bad, big banks are greedy. That is going to be a very difficult narrative, and it's going to be a journey to change that perception.

Where I think we've seen some softening is with influencers who we're able to sit down with and have longer conversations about what we're doing, what the philosophy of the company is, what products we've introduced into the marketplace that are good for consumers, steps we've taken on things like overdraft fees that have helped millions of consumers manage their money better. When we're able to sit down with consumer advocates, civil rights groups and public officials and actually have that dialogue, there's more of a willingness to hear us out. And I think the attitudes of those folks is starting to shift.

I think the broader public is still very skeptical. It's much harder to sit down with the public -- we don't run an ad saying: "Hey, we're really good guys. Look what we just did on overdraft fees." That's a very hard conversation to have in a 30-second or 60-second ad.

So, you really need to be able to engage people in more substantive conversations about: "Okay, we get it. We've done plenty of reflection on the company and where we've been, but let me explain to you what we've done that has had a positive impact on communities." ... That's a longer conversation than a sound bite, but when you can have that conversation I think the attitudes do begin to change. But we're not naive. This is going to be a long road to restore reputation.

3p: Well, now that you have the platform, would you like to share some projects that Bank of America is working on that folks in the broader public may be surprised to learn about?

AP: The one that jumps up for me is overdraft fees. It's a little inside baseball: Our company went way beyond the new regulations around overdraft fees. So, if you went and used your debit card and you don't have money in your account, the transaction will be declined.

So, we shut down what was really a spigot of fees. Now, consumer advocates applauded us and thought it was fabulous; regulators thought it was fabulous: "Oh, you did something that really protected customers. You really put your customer above profits. That's really good."

But the public at large doesn't really know. You have to be really following the industry to know that little nuance -- and that's what's hard. There are things that are happening that are very meaningful that are still not widely known.

3p: It's interesting you say that because I know there has been a lot of regulatory pressure surrounding overdraft fees in recent years. Was that move in direct response to this regulatory pressure, or was it something the company wanted to do for its customers due to this greater integration of CSR into core business operations?

AP: It's a great question. There was regulation that was changing the way [overdrafts work], so that you would have to opt in. What we said is that we're not even going to try to get you to opt in. We're going to go beyond what the regulation calls for. We're just going to say, "You're not going to be permitted to spend money you don't have with your debit card." Period.

And that was what customers told us: "Don't let me spend money I don't have. Don't surprise me. Don't have hidden fees." So, it was in response to both customers and really proactive discussions with consumer groups and civil rights leaders to [find out] where the real pain points are and what we need to do. It was really a reaction to both the customer feedback and the advocates' feedback.

3p: So, you referred to this as a journey. What do you think still needs to be done in this space, and what do you hope the next steps will be for Bank of America and the financial services industry as a whole?

AP: I think governance is huge. Today at the company for the first time we have a CSR governance committee that my boss, Anne Finucane, who's the global strategy officer with the company and directly reports to [CEO] Brian Moynihan, chairs. And it's made up of business leaders from across the company -- first time we're doing this. So, now we have quarterly meetings with people from commercial banking, global corporate banking, wealth management -- all in a meeting with an agenda exclusively focused on CSR issues. And those issues will be constantly evolving in terms of environmental issues that come up, human rights issues that could come up, employment issues, diversity and inclusion, where this committee will weigh in with an enterprise view.

It won't just be me sitting over here saying, "Hey here's a big CSR issue." It will really be engaging the leaders of the business to say, "How are we going to run the company [in a way that's] consistent with our commitment to corporate social responsibility?"

That's a big shift, and it allows us to penetrate where the real decisions for the company are being made ... and it allows CSR to play a bigger role in a company of our size.

3p: Very interesting. So, you're starting to move away from CSR being a department on its own -- and viewed as "those guys no one really wants to listen to," who have to come into the board room and pitch their concept -- to really integrating and having those board members be a part of the process?

AP (chuckles): That's right. Everyone used to applaud [an idea to] do a volunteer project, and everybody said: "Great, great. The CSR people over there will arrange the Habitat build." That's vitally important, but it can't be a stand-alone or the totality of our CSR program. And what the business discussion allows you to do is really drive things that the company is addressing that can be very meaningful.

So, our environmental initiative is $70 billion of capital that the lines of business can deploy in investing in renewables and making investments in our corporate workplace practices that really will have impact far beyond what $100,000 grant could mean.

3p: Do you think eventually, as you continue to expand your CSR and sustainability initiatives, those programs will begin to attract more customers, gain consumer trust and actually provide long-term financial benefit for the company?

AP: That's the holy grail right there. If you talk to the people in wealth management, institutional investors and high net-worth investors are starting to think about investing their values, particularly millennials.

I believe the ultimate nirvana will be: You start to see share price reflect the companies who are receiving investment flow of socially conscious investors. And my point that I keep saying is: I can't yet prove it but if you look at the trends, the flow of institutional investors saying, "We want socially responsible portfolios." We want Bank of America in those portfolios -- and that will be a big win. When you can actually demonstrate that link, then you really will be able to show that the company will perform better the better we get at this.

3p: And how do employees play into this? Do you feel expanding your efforts around CSR and sustainability engages employees and gets them excited about the company, rather than perhaps being reluctant to even tell others they work for a big bank?

AP (laughs): That was a huge issue in the past several years, and we talk about this a lot. We use the example of people going to their kids' soccer game saying, "I don't even want to talk about the company because people are just going to yell at me." [We're making efforts to] shift that now, so people can actually talk about a lot of the positive things we do as a company and feel a little bit more confident like they're on their front foot. [So they can feel like] if they're wearing their Bank of America T-shirt, they're not a villain.

Changing the psychology of the employee base is a huge part of CSR. Top talent, particularly this generation, they don't want to go to a company that has no soul. It's driving their choice of employer. So, one of the places we work really closely with is HR to say, "People are coming in for interviews, lets tell them about our CSR commitments." Because they want to hear that; they're interested in that. And I think it's really a big part of changing the culture of what had been the old, stodgy financial institution.

If you're going to compete for that next generation of talent, you better be able to convince them that you're serious about this.

3p: Definitely. Anything else you'd like to add?

AP: The stakeholder groups that [we] hit on I think are exactly the way you have to think about this: your business partners, your employees, the investor community and then influencers who can begin to reshape the narrative of the company. If we're able to convince all those stakeholder groups that this is for real, I think the company is going to be very successful -- and you have to think in terms of the success of the company as you're positioning CSR.

You're going to be a much more credible partner within an institution like ours if you can demonstrate that if we conduct ourselves consistent with these principles, it's not a detriment to the performance of the company; it's actually an asset. That's the win-win.

Image credit: Vincent Breton

Based in Philadelphia, Mary Mazzoni is a senior editor at TriplePundit. She is also a freelance journalist who frequently writes about sustainability, corporate social responsibility and clean tech. Her work has appeared in the Philadelphia Daily News, the Huffington Post, Sustainable Brands, Earth911 and the Daily Meal. You can follow her on Twitter @mary_mazzoni.