Search

By Nick Hvozda

Product take-back, a form of extended producer responsibility (EPR), is an important way to implement more sustainable practices. Whether driven by the business case, ethics or legislation, product take-back promotes the practice of recycling, lifecycle assessment and design for durable reuse in secondary markets. It's also a key component of a circular economy.

Today in the U.S., there are 84 EPR laws covering 12 product categories. As the movement toward product stewardship and closed-loop processes continues to grow, more producers will choose (or be forced) to implement product take-back programs. The growth of reverse logistics from EPR will open opportunities for sustainable businesses to capitalize on the trend. But as this happens, it will be key to consider transport costs, both economic ($) and environmental (CO2).

Imagine a pure scenario: Item X is produced at point A and is transported to point B for sale and use. The original manufacturer is compelled by law to recover Item X at the product’s useful end-of-life to recycle the non-renewable and manmade materials within. For this to happen Item X must make the round trip from Point B back to Point A.

In this scenario, successful product take-back means two times the distance traveled, two times the freight cost, the CO2 emissions, the packaging and the effort. Often it also requires incentivizing the end user to return the product. The energy required for this mechanical work (four times distance) cannot be avoided, and it may make the practice prohibitive. Even if the cost is transferred to the customer in the purchase price, the emissions and carbon cost of the return trip remain. In the global economy, the distance between A and B could be 10,000+ miles.

Of course, these interactions do not happen in a vacuum. There are many ways to recycle and reuse the industrial nutrients in the vicinity of Point B, introducing them to the local industrial or natural ecosystem. The majority of high volume, low cost items can be handled this way.

But many products cannot be easily deconstructed into component elements and sold. Let’s say that the original manufacturer takes Item X back because: 1) Item X contains high-value materials; 2) proprietary knowledge limits the ability of a general recycling facility to maximize the recycled value; and 3) it is cheaper to disassemble Item X and reuse certain specialized and durable machined components than to source and manufacture new components. Item X must then return to the point of origin. How does the manufacturer get Item X from Point B to Point A efficiently?

Networks can help. One option is to create a network that can collect and return Item X to Point A in a bulk shipment — gaining efficiency from volume. Another option is to create a network of employees or contractors, trained in the proper disassembly of the product. For a large multi-national company, these options are feasible. For a small company with a global reach, they are impossible.

A small business can partner among its industry to develop global systems of recovery. The Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corp. (RBRC) is an industry-funded recycling system has collected more than 100 million pounds of batteries over its 20-year existence. Creative partnerships along the entire chain of product life assist in reducing travel distance through collaboration. Internet communication networks between suppliers, manufacturers, retailers and end users, used effectively, create efficiencies and opportunities that were previously unavailable. The Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) is a national, non-profit organization with the mission of promoting EPR practices and legislation. It initiates multi-stakeholder dialogues around various industries to assist the development of networks.

In the reverse logistics of product take-back, time is not a critical factor. A reverse of the aphorism “time is money” holds true: price decreases with decreasing urgency. Manufacturers should utilize space-available shipping programs, such as the Fed-Ex TLX option, to reduce freight charges. By partnering with manufacturers, the global logistics industry can maximize previously unused cargo space and generate revenue. Additionally, without time constraints, manufacturers can opt for more efficient modes of transportation: rail instead of truck, ship instead of air.
With take-back in mind, producers can design packaging, as well as products, to be reused. This will not only reduce the need for two sets of packaging (forward and reverse), but will reduce the cost of packaging forward-moving products below previous levels by reducing the need for disposable packaging materials.

Product take-back will only grow as resource constraints tighten. It’s time for products to learn to travel with a round-trip ticket.

Image credit: Flickr/davedugdale

Nick Hvozda is a postgraduate student pursuing his MBA in Sustainable Management at Bard College.

New data on City bonuses from salary benchmarking site, Emoulment.com, shows that women are not aiming for employment at top firms at the outset of their careers.

Fresh out of university, the data shows a 20% salary gap between men and women and attributes the gap to the fact that a higher proportion of men tend to work for top tier institutions such as Bain and McKinsey, thereby earning more from the start of their career.

Thomas Drewry, ceo at Emolument.com said: "It is significant that from the outset of their career, women do not aim for the top firms, unlike their male counterparts. If they did so more consistently, it would be very interesting to see just how much more they can earn when they reach Senior Manager levels."

Another new report out today from Vlerick Business School’s Executive Remuneration Research Centre shows that top German companies have caught up with top companies in the UK when it comes to executive pay levels.

The report found that, for companies with assets over €5bn, the best paid ceos are found in Germany with a median total compensation of €3.438.000, just eclipsing the UK at €3.401.000. 

However, the best paid ceos across the two categories covering businesses with assets under €5bn are still found in the UK. 

The study looked at 512 listed companies in the UK, Germany, France, Belgium and The Netherlands - with specific attention paid to pay developments over the last three years particularly with regard to retirement benefits and variable remuneration. 

Across the five countries studied, approximately half (49%) did not grant a ceo pay rise, or even reduced total remuneration, in the last three years. Chief execs in the UK were treated most severely, 61% of them did not receive a raise. Germany, on the other hand, was the most flexible; seven out of ten ceos there were given a raise. 

Picture credit: Picture credit: © Fabian19 | Dreamstime.com - 100 Euros Money Stack Photo

Today, TriplePundit, PwC, PwC Foundation and Campbell Soup Company came together for a special Twitter Chat about sustainability and CR trends for 2015.

This chat explored the big issues in corporate responsibility that are bubbling up in the year ahead.

We took the conversation from basic issues like compliance, reporting and philanthropy to more evolved topics like integrated reporting, B Corps, and triple bottom line philosophy. We covered hot button issues for 2015 such as what we predict will captivate the CR community and what we think will challenge CR practitioners in the year ahead. And, we were happy to have the opportunity to address many of your questions!

So, what will the "hot button" issues be this year?

• Rebecca Caplan: Director of PwC Charitable Foundation, predicts that 2015 will bring pervasive digitization to the social economy, and nonprofits will be challenged to redefine themselves. Rebecca says that new types of socially-minded organizations will become the norm, and therefore, foundations need to articulate how their value is unique from other CR activities.

• Shannon Schuyler: Principal, CR Leader & President of PwC Charitable Foundation, believes government action around anticipated immigration reform and disaster preparedness will take center stage, along with the sharing economy's new tools and apps that are changing consumer expectations and interactions.
• Dave Stangis: VP of Public Affairs & CR at Campbell Soup Company and President of Campbell Soup Foundation, believes shared that he is energized by the integration of CSR and sustainability across the business from R&D, to innovation, operations and marketing.

• Shannon Schuyler: Principal, Corporate Responsibility Leader & President, PwC Charitable Foundation - @ShannonSchuyler
• Rebecca Caplan: Director, PwC Charitable Foundation - @PwCFoundation 
• Dave Stangis: VP of Public Affairs & Corporate Responsibility, Campbell Soup Company; President of Campbell Soup Foundation - @DaveStangis

• TriplePundit Founder and Publisher Nick Aster - @NickAster
• TriplePundit Director of Social Media Marissa Rosen - @MarissaR1

Our perceptions of food are changing, and so is our level of acceptance toward changes to those quintessential recipes we grew up with. Just log into a cooking site and you can find a mayonnaise recipe to fit just about any dietary restriction or preference. No eggs? No problem.

But that isn’t how Hellmann’s, which refers to its egg-full sandwich spread as "real mayonnaise," saw it. Last November Hellmann's, owned by Best Foods (which is owned by Unilever), launched a suit against a startup food company for misleading consumers by referring to its new eggless product "mayo."

The vegan product, boldly called "Just Mayo," was the brainchild of Hampton Creek, a food tech company based in San Francisco that's become known for its unorthodox approach to America's quintessential recipes. In the manufacturing giant's view, however, the recipe alteration confused consumers and constituted "stealing market share from Hellmann's."

After consumers protested and Hellmann's was accused of tweaking information on its website that suggested that some of its mayo products might also be missing eggs, the company dropped the suit  a week before Christmas.

With new research that suggests that food allergies are increasing in the western world and current concerns about H5N1 outbreaks in poultry  in the Northwest, the U.S. market is ripe for vegan/vegetarian products that can address individual needs and preferences. According to the Vegetarian Resource Group, 3.4 percent or 7.5 million surveyed identified themselves as vegetarian in 2009. Of that number, 0.80 percent, or 1.8 million said they were vegan. The numbers have increased in recent years, with confessions by movie stars and political icons who admit they've sworn off of meat-based foods.

All of this puts weight in Hampton Creek's favor and has likely piqued the interest of other food manufacturers as well. Still, it brings up a great question for today's foodies: Does altering mama's state-of-the-art recipe change what you can call the store-bought product? Is gluten-free bread that touts "whole grains" (and includes a good amount of things like tapioca and buckwheat) fudging the context?

It's a question that most food manufacturers don't want to become embroiled in these days, particularly in light of the increasing debate over genetically modified organisms (GMO) and the questions concerning U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations that allow drink producers to advertise their highly-sugared juice cocktail drinks as "juice" on store banners.

As for Just Mayo, sales have been just great since Hellmann's launched its suit. A consumer-led online petition and plenty of advertising from the suit helped promote its brand name as well as its vegan-friendly qualities. I'll be interested to see what new tangents mayo-makers come up with next to court the interests of America's growing number of vegetarian consumers.

Image credit: Mike Mozart

By Reuben Jaffe Goldstein

With electric cars finally making it to the market -- at prices that are cost competitive with traditional gasoline-powered cars -- many of us are breathing a sigh of relief: There is a viable alternative that will allow us to keep driving.

Fluctuating fuel prices and pollution are not the only costs associated with driving, however. Heavy reliance on automobiles wears down transit infrastructure and encourages sprawl development and other unhealthy practices. If people really wanted a greener world, we would drive less, not just make our driving greener.

Since electric cars still need roads, the challenge of funding road maintenance and expansion remains. Upkeep costs used to be fully funded through the gas tax, however according to The Economist, this has not been the case since 2008. As a result, the federal government has to step in to cover the shortfalls at the state and local levels, resulting in the borrowing of $41 billion from the treasury to fund road maintenance. While roads have become more expensive, there appears to be minimal transition away from the lifestyle that already exists. There has been little headway in finding alternative forms of transportation that would divert people from driving. Several state governments, most notably Florida in 2011, have even killed plans to develop high-speed rail projects.

The problem is exacerbated by the United States' relatively low population density. Geographically, the U.S. is the size of China, but it has only a fifth of the population. Outside its cities, the U.S. is particularly sparsely populated. This is an opportune environment for car travel. Cars encourage people to live wherever they want, which drives suburban sprawl. A famous map shows how much land would be required if the entire world lived like New Yorkers. All of humanity could live comfortably in an area the size of Texas.

Cars themselves consume a substantial amount of resources:

A new car requires 260 gallons of gasoline to produce, while weighing close to 3,000 pounds. For people who claim to be environmentalists, this is the opposite of living small.

Due to their size, the mindset in the United States says that roads are for cars, and cars cannot share. Cars compete for road space with bikes. (The picture below shows the amount of space necessary for the same number of people to drive compared to bike.) The two cultures do not get along well. The relationship is so poor that it inspired the article, “Is it O.K. to kill cyclists” in the New York Times on Sept. 9, 2013, illustrating that bikers are treated as second-class citizens.

Americans view the right to have cars on the road the same way we treat gun ownership. When New York City rolled out the Citi bike share program, Dorothy Rabinowitz said: “Envision what happens when you get a government that is run by an autocratic mayor." Failure to pass a congestion tax in NYC has kept the congestion intolerable, with politicians electing to look out for their suburban driving constituents over the efficiency of the city.

There is good news though: Americans may have hit peak driving. It appears that the nation’s annual miles driven are on the decline, while public transit usage is going up. Cities are growing at a faster rate than the national average, partly due to the fact that cities are able to integrate walkability (the ability to walk around the city and not rely solely on your car), which leads to healthier communities and people.

We hated the car when they were getting 10 miles to the gallon. As cars became more efficient, we began to forgive them. We have slowly stopped hating the car, but maybe we shouldn’t.

Image credits: 1) Flickr/James Schwartz 2) City of Muenster Planning Office

Reuben Jaffe Goldstein is a postgraduate student pursuing her MBA in Sustainable Management at Bard College.

By Brooke Forde

Revolutionary inventions have taken human civilization from nomadic tribes to mega-cities. Our current behavior, however, is leaving the survival of our species to the generation just now learning the alphabet. Complacency is our death warrant; we are driving head-on into a train while sitting on our hands.

Humans hit the inheritance lottery -- evolving on a planet with an amazing and unique collection of ecosystems, spinning through space with the sun as a massive source of energy and light. While current society values monetary capital, we must recognize that natural capital is the only currency that matters. Our very existence depends on maintenance of potable water, breathable air, functional soil and biodiversity. Generations before us prided themselves on innovative progress, self-sufficiency and providing for the future. We squander this legacy.

We are better than this. We have the potential to revolutionize our industry and once again lead. This challenge is the kind that has always strengthened humans, boosted our economy, provided jobs and infrastructure, and made America the economic aspiration for developing countries. We have the ingenuity; we have the capability to change our trajectory from devastation to maintenance. More than iPhones, flat screens and fast cars, maintenance of the natural capital that underpins our existence must hold precedence.

Sending troops to their deaths for oil reserves, wiping out forests for a few dollars, and poisoning communities for the sake of comfort are not the actions of a country secure in its ability to innovate and discover. We are chasing the wrong goals. We should be creating life-enhancing technologies: innovative water purification and forest restoration. Basing our economy on renewable energy, such as solar, provides more opportunity than oil and gas, as everyone has access to the sun. With solar panels on every roof and a food garden in every neighborhood, we will increase the wealth of every family and community.

We have the power to reduce our exploitation of natural capital and give our descendants the opportunity to survive. We can use our finances and our actions to change the trajectory -- through our purchases, divestment of fossil fuels and local sourcing -- to retain and enhance our natural capital. Every dollar spent in the positive direction is a vote for our future — the strongest action we can take. Maximizing our investment in natural capital provides dual protection: for us and generations after us. Financial investment in protecting forests, oceans and resources from damage demonstrates the importance we place in them. When we purchase non-certified palm oil, we show we don’t care about the forests that are cleared to establish the palm fields.

When we choose products that preserve ecosystems, we preserve the future for others around the world and provide a richness that cannot be duplicated. Future generations will be grateful we slowed the degeneration and left them natural wealth to enjoy from this beautiful world. We will be rewarded through our continued survival -- and by knowing we did the best we could to save the planet for future generations.

Brooke Forde is a postgraduate student pursuing her MBA in Sustainable Management at Bard College.

Image credit: Flickr/epsos

Mark Parsons is chief customer officer at logistics firm DHL and while heavily involved in the commercial side of the business, his remit also extends to CR and sustainability. He tells Ethical Performance about the company’s drive to deliver sustainability

How big is DHL in the UK?
We have the biggest fleet on the road (after Royal Mail) running 8000 trucks. However, most of the time you don’t see the brand as we uses branded trucks to deliver for clients such as M&S (non food items) and Sainsbury’s. We are also one of the biggest foreign employers in the country after Walmart.

Is it a top down approach?
As part of Deutsche Post, I look to ensure that the CR/sustainability values of the parent company run throughout the four strands of the UK business (PEP, a mailing business, Global Forwarding containers, Express delivery service and Supply Chain services). The board is very committed to the CR/sustainability agenda. Indeed, the ceo, Frank Appel, sits on the UN’s High-Level Advisory Group on Sustainable Transport.

Where is your focus?
There are four pillars for DHL’s strategy: Go Green (having a fleet of diesel trucks tends to mitigate your sustainability), Go Teach (the company sponsors a lot of post graduates), Go Help (a disaster recovery team which focuses on the infrastructure of a disaster zone rather than providing aid) and Global Volunteer (encouraging employees to do voluntary placements).
My role is to encourage employees to buy into the strategy too – essentially to take the boardroom ethos to the warehouse man in Coventry.
In the UK there are three key areas: road safety, employability and employee engagement. These three pillars support the sustainable business case for the UK business. Road safety is obvious given the size of our fleet. Employability is an issue because the logistics industry needs to be viewed as positive industry. It’s not necessarily the most attractive industry and it has a slightly ageing profile. We want to change that. We tackle employee engagement because it is important to demonstrate our values throughout the business, not just ride on the back of the principle of doing it.

What are you doing in employability?
We support the Prince’s Trust, through the DHL Foundation, bringing 10-16 young people for 3-10 weeks on a work placement, with a view to getting them employable. So far 300 have gone through the programme and 80% have become employed by DHL. It’s something we’ve been running since 2007. A more recent development has seen the Prince’s Trust feeding into our Apprenticeship schemes. We’ve also been consolidating 25 schemes into 4 national programmes.
Currently we’re putting a lot of effort into looking at ex-service personnel and bringing them into the business. We are trialing a programme where 6 months before they exit the service, they can sample what it would be like to work at DHL. It’s an important driving pipeline for us.

What’s your take on employee engagement?
Employee engagement combines with our road safety focus in our TACS (Trucks and Child Safety) programme which has been running since 1998. We target the under-10s. This involves a 40ft truck visiting a school. One of the devices we use is to put one child in the cab and their classmates in front of the truck. We then ask them who they can see. It’s a valuable way to demonstrate how they can’t necessarily be seen by a driver. It’s a 2-hour visit and the children are also shown how the truck works and we leave the teachers with a number of activities (connected to how to cross the road safely etc). So far 300 drivers have volunteered to run one of these activities and we’ve reached 260,000 primary school children.
On the fundraising side, we run a Match It scheme and also encourage payroll giving. Currently, 5% of the workforce is signed up to payroll giving and my goal is to get that to 10%. Employees nominate the charities they want to support, so currently there are around 275 charities supported.

Most recent initiative?
We launched a new CNG-powered concept truck for use in towns and cities at Quiet Cities, the first global summit focused on enabling quieter deliveries of freight in urban environments.
It was designed to be considerate of the environment so includes a new spark ignition ‘Otto Cycle’ engine, which can reduce engine noise by up to 50% when compared to a standard diesel engine, which is crucial for making quiet out of hours deliveries in urban environments.
As part of DHL’s work to use more environmentally friendly vehicles, the new truck uses Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Bio-Gas to significantly reduce its CO2 footprint and harmful pollutants. And to ensure the truck is suitable for populated, urban environments DHL has included a range of innovative safety features in the vehicle. Identifying the most dangerous blind spots around vehicles, DHL has designed the new vehicle cab to ensure vulnerable road users are more visible to drivers..

And the challenge ahead?
Logistics is a fairly new industry and there are lots of small players, so I imagine we’ll see a lot more collaboration. We could be more collaborative in road safety for example. We also need to make the industry more attractive to employees and need to promote a better image of the industry. 

In the first of a two-part Amity Insight research paper by Ecclesiastical Investment Management Limited (‘EIM’) titled ‘Digital Planet: A brave new world for business’ (November 2014), the seismic technological change the world is undergoing in transitioning from analogue to digital and the implications for business and society are examined. While this revolution is throwing up issues with global impact it also offers extraordinary potential.

The 16-page paper by Thomas Fitzgerald, an EIM investment research analyst in London, points out that as recently as 2000 around 75% of the world’s technological information was in analogue form but by 2007 had witnessed a “near complete shift” with 94% preserved in a digital format.

As well as examining the catalysts for the digital revolution and its impacts on several sectors and companies that have been digital pioneers (e.g. Vodafone and Wolters Kluwer) and “digital duds” who failed to adapt such as HMV and Hibu that entered administration in 2013, the paper looks at the challenges and opportunities raised by the adoption of digital technology within an Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG) framework.

Highlighting the sheer proliferation, pace and increased openness of communication devices the Cisco Visual Networking Index has predicted that the number of mobile-connected devices would have exceeded global population by the end of 2014 due to multi-SIM ownership. Indeed, mobile phone subscriptions globally are now estimated to exceed 6.5 billion. And, beyond 2014 robotics for domestic use, digestible sensors, artificial intelligence and virtual reality applications will increasingly come into play.

Neville White, EIM’s Head of SRI Policy & Research, commenting says: “While the digital planet will undoubtedly empower and transform millions of lives for the better…it also raises some profound challenges that are new and evolving. Cybercrime, security and the blurring of private versus public are exercising considerable attention. The environmental consequence of the huge uptick in energy needs required by data centres and video streaming is still to be addressed in terms of its impact on climate change.”

On human rights challenges, White says. “Internet repression and Government snooping - especially in an age of terror - raise control concerns for users and libertarians alike.” Nevertheless, he adds that “as responsible investors we are positive about the extraordinary potential of the ‘digital planet’ for individuals and society.”

In identifying investment opportunities via the digital value chain, EIM will “engage with companies on the major risks, and seek to understand how these can be managed in difficult and challenging environments.” Supporting this approach the firm has over twenty years of experience of socially responsible investing (SRI) and maintains a comprehensive in-house SRI research function.

The EIM team is focused on seeking out companies with business models that are leading the way or transitioning to the digital economy. Finding the pioneers and those companies adapting their businesses will be of “equal importance” as avoiding the duds, the report notes.

Fitzgerald adds: “We believe that companies involved in building the digital infrastructure of the future will be in strong positions as further technological innovations lead to acceleration in the digital revolution.” Companies held in EIM’s Amity Fund range include Cisco, Ericsson, Intel and Sage.

This paper is being followed by part two (‘Digital Planet: Big data - small world’) in January 2015 that will examine the winners and losers in the space and the ethical dilemmas.

Picture credit: &copy  Denisov&nbsp | Dreamstime com&nbsp - Digital Planet Background Photo

Robeco Indian Equities D EUR Acc, a £22.78m fund, again top ranked amongst UK Registered funds over the past year to 30 November 2014 with an improved cumulative return of +49.31% versus +57.81%/29th rank over the last three years. In second spot out of 249 funds over the past year was the £464.63m AXA Framlington Health R Inc fund, which posted +29.84%. However, its performance was stellar over the past three and five years posting a double first with +105.92% and +149.53%, respectively. The relatively new £115.30m City Financial Wealth EUR X Acc fund bottom ranked over the past 12 months on a lacklustre -15.23%.

Combined the top five ranked US Mutual funds for the past year accounted for an aggregate funds value of $3,057.45 million. The peer group average for this sector stood $529.52m and as a whole displayed the best peer group average amongst the five sectors analysed in Morningstar’s analysis over three- (+46.73%) and five-year (+70.86%) periods.
The $705.98m Parnassus Endeavor Fund, which was in runners up spot over the past 12 months to 31 October 2014, rose to the top of the pile with a performance of +21.75% for the past year to date. This compared with an improving +88.80%/5th over the past three years and a broadly static +118.21% but with a slightly improved 17th ranking over the last five years.

The $720.20m VALIC Company II Socially Responsible fund came second over the past year on +19.02% versus +81.67%/9th rank over three years and +115.17%/21st for the past five years. Guinness Atkinson Alternative Energy, a $17.15m fund, bottom ranked in this sector out of 193 funds with a deteriorating and negative performance of -12.56% over a past one-year view (+17.26%/155th over past three years/-39.36%/164th over five).

Among 1,162 European Funds examined, the €5.93m MAP Clean Technology Fund I beat the field by a country mile with +125.56% over the past 12 months. MCO2 New Energy FEIF bottom ranked here on the past one-year horizon with -37.38% versus -61.10% and -77.24%/926th over the past three and five years.

The £2.28m 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 improving cumulative returns of +31.58%, +114.32% and +166.62%, respectively. As a whole this sector posted the best peer group average return over the past year of the five sectors examined with +27.37%. 

Data courtesy of Morningstar

Richard Kirby, technical director at CRedit360, explores the complex web of reporting standards 

Making use of reporting frameworks to communicate and benchmark sustainability performance is increasingly the norm for leading global companies. However, while disclosing progress against social and environmental goals stands to deliver significant operational and commercial benefits, there is still no universal standard for companies to report their respective impacts. Navigating the complex web of ‘standards’, frameworks and analyst surveys can be confusing, or, worse, can create a heavy reporting burden, with some companies disclosing a multitude of information that may not be material.

Effective sustainability reporting can only be achieved by selecting the frameworks that correspond most closely to a company’s material issues and reporting in line with these frameworks in a structured, efficient way.

The GHG Protocol for reporting Scopes 1, 2 and 3 emissions is the only true non-financial reporting ‘standard’ devised to date, and enables a comparison between different companies’ carbon footprints. Covering multiple themes, the voluntary GRI framework is used by 80% of the world’s top 100 companies in 41 countries, according to a 2013 KPMG survey.

The new GRI G4 framework is intended to help companies focus on the aspects that are most important to their business and stakeholders. Companies also face a multitude of surveys, with CDP and the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) among the most widely applied.

Moving towards a greater degree of standardisation takes time – the GAAP principles for financial reporting took decades to develop, for example. Policymakers can help to catalyse change by introducing legislation such as the new European Union law mandating non-financial reporting for major companies in Europe. In the meantime, we shouldn’t undervalue the work of the GRI in providing a comprehensive framework to help companies get started on this challenging journey.

One of the major issues arising from the lack of standards for non-financial reporting is the lack of consistency in reporting and the consequent lack of comparability between companies and sectors. It can also be hard to know how to select the right framework or approach overlapping questions. Establishing a common, universal dataset is fundamental – a comprehensive and organised base of information from which to draw for every framework or survey can significantly help to streamline the reporting process.

We recommend:
• Establishing clarity of purpose by looking within the business and deciding which aspects to measure, in line with corporate goals.
• Understanding how closely these themes fit with the frameworks to which you are considering responding and selecting those that are most relevant.
• Maintaining a ‘bedrock’ of hard quantitative data and applying best practice standards like GHG Protocol and OSHA whenever possible. We recommend integrating an underlying system of data capture with corporate reporting functionality, in order to ensure that collecting, reporting and auditing data is seamless and transparent.
• Using the underlying dataset, identify information that can be used across multiple frameworks and make adjustments as required for each survey. Repeat the process as frameworks or surveys are updated or new frameworks are introduced.

Software can play an important role in collecting and managing data, providing smart ways for users to organise, identify, and/or tag requirements for various frameworks. It is also possible to consolidate information from multiple data systems.

Non-financial reporting is certainly a challenging topic and it is likely to be some time before true ‘standards’ for sustainability reporting are established. Nonetheless, having an intelligent information management system in place to streamline the process can be a significant help in terms of improving efficiency and enhancing the quality of information required for reporting.