Search

A case of rum and reason

Primary Category
Content

Ethical Performance talks to Dave Howson, CSR and sustainability director of Bacardi, the world’s largest privately-owned drinks company
 

Starting out as a warehouse manager 15 years ago Dave Howson, now global director of sustainability at drinks giant Bacardi, says that sustainability is in the DNA of the company: “The company was founded in response to an overflow of molasses in Cuba, from which a much smoother variety of rum was blended. Even old bourbon barrels were used to age the rum, so we were recycling 152 years ago.”

The world’s largest privately-owned drinks company has achieved significant progress in energy and water reduction: “We have 28 distilleries around the world and there has been a lot of activity in these areas for a long time, even prior to those activities becoming part of our CR platform.”

Howson is proud of the company’s water waste reduction of 54% - “an outstanding achievement” and reducing greenhouse gases by 25% - “a great job”.

The company has recently extended its sustainability commitment with the Good Spirited initiative. “This sets our sustainability goals right across the business, not just focusing on energy and water,” explained Howson. “One area we’re focusing on is packaging. We have a sustainable packaging manual for our employees and we’re looking at reducing the weight of glass packaging and the impact of the business on the environment.”

Setting the bar particularly high is the pledge to responsibly and sustainably sourced sugarcane. As a board member of Bonsucro, the sustainable sugarcane not-for-profit, Howson is all too aware the level of difficulty and challenge presented by a commitment to 40% sourced by 2017 and 100% by 2022: “It is stretching but we’ve made a public commitment which will send out a signal to other drinks companies.”

Consumer awareness of the sustainability of the drinks industry is currently at a low level, Howson admits. “It’s nowhere near where tea and coffee are. But with millenials coming through – our future customers – they will want those credentials. And having those sustainability credentials will be our licence to operate.”

As part of the Good Spirited campaign, brand focused stories about sustainability – supply chains, the usual of sustainable ingredients, etc – are planned and will be used to spread the message.

Howson sees his biggest challenges in water stewardship – with an ever-increasing global population – and in establishing an extended value supply chain where sustainable production goes well beyond the factory walls.
Having a long term vision is implicit to any sustainability programme. Howson looks to galvanise employees by breaking down targets to focus on more manageable achievements. “Setting short to medium term goals, lets people see what can be achieved through sometimes relatively small changes.”

He is keen to emphasise that Good Spirited includes everyone in the business. “Across all our offices, we can develop 6,000 advocates for sustainability.” And it can come down to little things he says like turning lights off at home time and turning computers off over lunchtime. “With our global targets, everyone has a massive role to play. We also want to employees to bring all their green behaviours from home – eg water usuage when filling the kettle – into work.”

Another way Bacardi is looking to engage employees is through its Million Acts of Green programme on the company intranet. “It’s where people can input the green activities they’ve done – such as printing on two sides of paper – and it calculates how much energy they’ve saved. It’s simple but fun and engaging,” he said. “It may even instigate gentle competition between sites and we’ll offer rewards for an individual’s sustainable behaviour. It’ll act as a platform to share activities and perhaps spread insights from other offices which new teams will then implement.”

When working in a company as vast and as widespread as Bacardi, Howson admits that the sustainability challenge can sometimes seem daunting. “But we know it’s the right thing to do, both for the company and for the planet. And we’ll continue to strive to do that.”

For smaller businesses, Howson advises companies not to feel that they have to change the world in six months. “You need to look at your materiality and your stakeholders. See what you can achieve, what impact changes would make and then speak to your supply chain. You need to take one step at a time.”

If there was one thing he could change in sustainability business practice it would be the alignment of the total value chain. “Farmers, millers, producers –we’re all heading in a sustainable direction and really need to pull together.”
 

Prime
Off
Newsletter Sent
Off

GRI vs IIRC vs SASB: no synergy, no leadership

Primary Category
Content

Elaine Cohen, ceo of Beyond Business Ltd, discusses the current state of play in reporting frameworks
 

We are witnessing a leadership battle for ownership of sustainability transparency and it’s not a good thing. Instead of playing to everyone’s strengths, we are risking moving the needle back to only one strength. The state of everyone’s bank account. The battle is being played out on the respective turfs of the IIRC, SASB and the GRI, where IIRC and SASB are focused on what investors want to know in order to make more money and GRI is focused on what companies are doing to the world that makes it more or less sustainable.

Creating a harmonized corporate transparency pathway which enables consistent and non-overlapping disclosure frameworks does not need to be a lost cause, although it looks that way at present. Even the definition of a core concept such as materiality is not consistent across these three leading organizations, as explained eloquently by Dunstan Alliston-Hope and Guy Morgan of BSR in a great article. The lack of synergy in development of different reporting and transparency frameworks is leading to fragmentation and separation, rather than collaboration and integration.

2010: The Global Reporting Initiative pronounces a goal to see a “generally accepted and applied international standard which will effectively integrate financial and ESG reporting by all organizations.” This was clearly an expectation that GRI would become an integral part of the fabric of any future integrated reporting framework. Everyone was optimistic and there was a big buzz of excitement and anticipation when the IIRC was formed in 2010, chaired by Professor Mervyn E. King, the then chair of GRI.

2011: Leaving the GRI to go dedicated at the IIRC, Mervyn King signals where he sees the future. With investors. GRI congratulates Professor King on his new appointment and looks forward to working closely with IIRC to promote Integrated Reporting. Perhaps GRI was a little too optimistic that the IIRC would even care. IIRC continues to generate momentum for integrated reporting and overlooks, it seems, a similar major reporting event which is taking place at the same time. The new-improved GRI Reporting Framework.

2012: In October 2012, the newly-formed Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) claimed it will be the US voice for material non-financial issues cutting right across the GRI and IIRC self-assumed mandates. With bold plans to create sector-based standards that identify material non-financial issues that should be included in mandatory reporting by publicly traded companies, SASB starts to shake up the mix.

2013: GRI and IIRC sign an MOU, declaring that both parties will proactively engage with each other by sharing information and striving for “complementarity” in their respective frameworks. Shame they didn’t agree to agree on a definition of materiality. That would have been an MOU with teeth. Just three months later, May 2013 was alive with the sound of eager applause at the GRI conference in Amsterdam, hailing the new G4 as the superhero way forward for sustainability reporting, with a materiality focus, and a shorter, sharper, cleaner, quicker way to relevant corporate transparency. The process-oriented G4 framework was seen by (almost) all as a massive improvement on previous GRI reporting frameworks. Oops. Just one thing missing. The G4 framework excluded all serious mention and reference to integrated reporting and guidance which had been promised.

Why? Well, the IIRC was powering up full steam ahead with its own framework, and apparently didn’t have the time to stop to think about how G4 could work to its advantage. Or it thought that G4 wouldn’t work to its advantage.
The official line was that the timelines for these two developments were different. Although, not that different. In December 2013, IIRC published the new Integrated Reporting Framework with a clear target audience: “The primary purpose of an integrated report is to explain to providers of financial capital how an organization creates value over time.”

Conspicuous by its omission in the < IR > Framework is any mention of GRI. There can be no mistake that Integrated Reporting is not about sustainability impacts. It’s about helping investors make financial decisions. Regrettably, or otherwise, that may exclude most of what is included in sustainability reporting.

The < IR > framework ignores GRI. Perhaps it’s time we stopped thinking of Integrated Reporting as an evolution of both Annual and Sustainability Reporting and accept that reality is different. Integrated Reporting plays a role in filling in the gap between top line and bottom line, and ensuring that the value-creation radar screen is not too narrow.
Sustainability Reporting plays a role in ensuring companies account for their impacts on all stakeholders. These are two purposes and despite the existence of a compelling connection between the two, no organization has successfully delivered a framework which encompasses both in a substantive way.

2014: And still, the MOU game continues. January saw the signing of an MOU between the IIRC and SASB “to more closely collaborate to advance the evolution of corporate disclosure and communicate value to investors...... Among other measures, SASB and the IIRC agree to strive for complementarity and compatibility in the ongoing development of their respective frameworks, guidelines and standards...” There’s that complementarity thing again. If only we could save the world by signing MOUs and preaching complementarity, we would all be able to sit back and take a long rest by now.

Present: So far, no single framework has earned true leadership. Sustainability Reporting is firmly entrenched and G4 is looking promising with uptake starting to emerge.

The token number, growing though it may be, of integrated reports, some of which are evidence of integrated thinking and some of which are evidence of little thinking, is unlikely to increase substantially unless we see that investors are not only demanding, but using, these wonderful new documents.

SASB is a great concept and has made fabulous progress in practice, but we have yet to see the detailed SASB standards being widely applied in any sector. In short, the battle for sustainability transparency leadership has not yet favoured any of the protagonists in an outright way, which might suggest that time and energies might be more productively used in working together rather than working apart.

Perhaps it is time that the leaders of the IIRC, GRI and SASB meet together at a Complementarity Retreat (no MOU necessary) and emerge with a set of agreed actions that will recognize the different value propositions of each framework, while ensuring a synergistic approach which will move us forward inclusively rather than driving more debate competitively.  

 

The full version of this article first appeared on Elaine Cohen’s CSR Reporting Blog.
 

Prime
Off
Newsletter Sent
Off

RECAP: Live Chat with Ian Hanna; Director of Strategic Development, FSC

3P Author ID
8618
Primary Category
Content

Every Wednesday at 4pm PST / 7pm EST (and every once in a while at other times) TriplePundit will take 30 minutes or so to chat with an interesting leader in the sustainable business movement. These chats are broadcast on our Google+ channel and embedded via YouTube right here on 3p.

On Wednesday, February 26th, TriplePundit’s Founder, Nick Aster, held a chat with Ian Hanna, Director of Strategic Development for the Forest Stewardship Council International.

The vision of the global non-profit is that the world’s forests meet the social, ecological, and economic rights and needs of the present generation without compromising those of future generations. FSC International's strategy consists of five main goals:

Goal 1: Advance globally responsible forest management Goal 2: Ensure equitable access to the benefits of FSC systems Goal 3: Ensure integrity, credibility and transparency of the FSC system Goal 4: Create business value for products from FSC certified forests Goal 5: Strengthen the global network to deliver on goals 1 through 4

To meet these goals, the FSC International's program areas such as chain of custody, social policy, ecosystem services, and monitoring and evaluation, help manage the multidimensional nature of forestry and certification.

Hanna addressed these goals and concepts, and much more, in his interview.  

The chat will be live below at 4pm Pacific:

If you missed the conversation, you can still watch it on our YouTube channel.

 

About Ian

Ian Hanna is an ecologist, social entrepreneur and sustainability advocate that is the Director of Strategic Development for the Forest Stewardship Council. He works with various industries, agencies and NGOs to shift the wood and paper purchasing of businesses, consumers and governments to more responsible, verifiable sources such as FSC certification provides. Hanna hails from the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State and is a firm believer that individual action around our purchasing decisions is the quickest path to leaving a positive environmental legacy for future generations.

 

3P ID
177679
Prime
Off

Lawsuit: Silicon Valley Under Scrutiny for $9 Billion in Wage Theft Conspiracy

3P Author ID
8765
Primary Category
Content

Ironically, the importance and tight demand for high-tech human resources may have lead Silicon Valley companies to engage in practices that actually reduced their wages.

A class action wage theft lawsuit is implicating numerous tech companies in Silicon Valley for taking organized actions to suppress wages. In one instance, legal documents reveal that Steve Jobs threatened the CEO of Palm Inc. with legal harassment in an attempt to make a potentially illegal wage suppression deal. At issue, Mr. Jobs was annoyed with Edward Collagan of Palm for poaching workers from Apple and attempted to strike a deal where the two companies would agree not to hire each others employees. It's an agreement that amounts to wage suppression since employers can't use higher wages to hire employees away from another company.

Palm CEO, Edward Collagan, was one of the few prominent Silicon Valley heads to stand up for workers and against a  possible wage suppression web that included high-profile tech companies, saying to Mr. Jobs:

"[Y]our proposal that we agree that neither company will hire the other’s employees, regardless of the individual’s desires, is not only wrong, it is likely illegal.

“…I can’t deny people who elect to pursue their livelihood at Palm the right to do so simply because they now work for Apple, and I wouldn’t want you to do that to current Palm employees.”

In turn, Jobs threatened to file costly, protracted lawsuits against Palm in retaliation, saying:

"This is not satisfactory to Apple…We must do whatever we can to stop this. I’m sure you realize the asymmetry in the financial resources of our respective companies when you say: ‘We will both just end up paying a lot of lawyers a lot of money.’… My advice is to take a look at our patent portfolio before you make a final decision..."

Basically, Jobs proposed an agreement detrimental to workers, Collagan said "No," Jobs threatened to engage Collagan in costly legal battles in retaliation and Collagan said "shove it."

This is part of a much broader issue as revealed by the wage theft lawsuit. Mr. Jobs may have also engaged in a secret pact with Google CEO Eric Schmidt to abstain from recruiting each other's employees. Yes, it's not just Steve Jobs. Two of America's most beloved tech companies may have engaged in business practices that directly contributed to wage suppression in the technology industry. Also implicated in the wage suppression lawsuit are Intel, Adobe, Intuit and Pixar.

These types of agreements became so pervasive during a period of tight demand for high-tech engineers that the U.S. Department of Justice began an antitrust investigation in 2010. That investigation formed the basis of a class action lawsuit on behalf of more than 100,000 Silicon Valley employees who claim wage suppression agreements robbed them of about $9 billion since 2000.

America idolizes many of these businesses and reveres Steve Jobs as one of our nation's visionaries and heroes. As a society we seem to idolize much of the toughness and shrewd business dealings, skirting the law at times. And they've definitely been powerhouses that have driven our society and our fortunes. We love those folks!

On the other hand, the fierce protectiveness each of these businesses has displayed for its high-tech humans resources shows an important story beyond the Individual Businessperson Hero narrative. It shows these businesses depend deeply, deeply on the skills and work and vision of the employees. And rather than rewarding these critical hands of an American technological revolution, these businesses may have in fact have taken money from them because of their importance.

That's irony. It's also, possibly, illegal.

Image Credit :  sombuak : Source

3P ID
178290
Prime
Off

Seattle Company Plans First Offshore Wind Farm on Pacific Coast

3P Author ID
138
Primary Category
Content

The nation’s first offshore wind farm on the Pacific Coast cleared a crucial federal hurdle after Seattle’s Principle Power received approval to move forward on a commercial lease for the proposed $200 million, 30-megawatt project.

Principle Power received the go-ahead this month from a Department of the Interior agency to lease 15 square miles of federal waters, 18 miles from Coos Bay, Ore. If the lease request gets final approval, the WindFloat Pacific project would anchor the first offshore turbines in federal waters on the West Coast. It also would be the first in the nation to use triangular floating platforms instead of single piles driven into the ocean floor.

At this stage of the complicated federal process, Principle’s plan is considered a demonstration project. DOI’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) released a finding that there are “no competitive interests for the offshore area of Oregon” where the company has requested the commercial lease. That finding clears the way under BOEM’s non-competitive leasing process for Principle Power to submit an implementation plan for the project. WindFloat Pacific will demonstrate floating offshore wind technology; it is one of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) seven Offshore Wind Advanced Technology Demonstration Projects.

Principle Power has successfully operated a WindFloat prototype, WF1 offshore of Portugal, since 2011. To date it has delivered in excess of 8.4 gigawatt-hours of wind energy to the local grid.

Principle is a U.S. technology developer that is focused on the offshore wind energy market. Principle’s major product, the WindFloat, is a floating wind turbine support structure that enables the siting of offshore wind turbines in water depths greater than 40 meters/131 feet, thus capturing the world's windiest wind resources. The entire structure, from water surface to the end of the turbine blade, would rise about 600 feet. Offshore wind installations in these water depths have not been feasible to date, “due to economic and technological limitations,” according to BOEM.

The 2-megawatt WindFloat prototype currently operating off the Portugal coast is the first offshore wind turbine to be installed without the use of heavy lift equipment.

Under the Pacific Coast project, five 6-megawatt turbines and platforms would be assembled on Coos Bay harbor and then towed by tugboats approximately 17 miles out. They would be spaced about a mile apart and could begin generating a combined 30 megawatts of power by late 2017. That's enough to power 8,000 homes.

Ultimately, Principle hopes to deploy its platforms in Europe and in the Pacific along the West Coast, Hawaii and Japan.

But first the feds have to allow it to happen.

Image credit: WindFloat Pacific platform/turbine from Principle’s WindFloat Pacific website

3P ID
178296
Prime
Off

Is the Sharing Economy Bad for the Real Estate Market?

3P Author ID
8579
Primary Category
Content

If you want to start a debate, just mention rent control. But if you want to find yourself in a battle, throw in the sharing economy.

That was the lesson last week when a Slate writer penned an article about her town’s misfortunes  due to the sharing economy. Rachel Monroe, resident of Marfa, Texas, explained why Airbnb and, by extension, the sharing economy began as a godsend for the small town of Marfa (population just under 2,000) but later became the possible “cause of Marfa’s housing shortage.”

A small tourist attraction off of busy Highway 10 at the foothills of Texas’ scenic Davis Mountains, Marfa’s sole claim to fame is its extraordinary collection of art galleries and al fresco art installations. With more than eight different art galleries and museums, Marfa’s downtown has more art investment than many mid-size cities have within their city limits. Ironically however, it has no significant industry outside of its popular exhibits and art events, most of which center their attention on artists outside of Marfa and rely on vacationing art aficionados for their tourism dollars.

Of course, Marfa is also known for its historically affordable real estate. And that’s part of the problem, said Monroe.  Between 2000 and 2009 at the beginning of Airbnb’s rise to fame, and Marfa residents’ discovery of peer-to-peer rental opportunities, rents in Marfa rose more than 80 percent. Economic resources, such as job growth, however, didn’t keep pace, nor did the availability of accommodations for local residents.

“[More] than a third of the population still lives in a household earning less than $20,000 a year,” said Monroe.

And that rent spike, she contends, was helped along (if not created) by the sharing economy. With carefully researched statistics about rental conditions in major cities, she showed how the conundrums that Airbnb has experienced in large metropolises like New York City and Berlin are indicators that “peer-to-peer rentals were contributing to the problem and driving up costs for long-term residents.”

But as a number of commenters asked, is Marfa’s dilemma really the fault of Airbnb? Is it really fair to blame the whole sharing economy for the rental market of a small, residential town with an average property value of less than $90,000unemployment of 11 percent, and a minimal infrastructure to promote job growth and real estate expansion?

Equally, is it really accurate to blame an enterprising business model for the rental woes of a city that is famous for its endemic rental problems? Isn’t more likely that unaffordable housing markets are what gave fuel to the creation of Airbnb, and the infectious enthusiasm of its supporters?

By comparison, Sandpoint, deep in the rural north of Idaho, has survived as an artist haven for more than a century. It is also on Airbnb, but with per-night rentals that are more consistent with the area’s motel rates and cost of living. Most of its more affluent mountain  and lakeshore offerings don’t compare to Marfa’s wide spread of prices, which includes a $3,000 a night splurge that is out of sync with local property values. My guess is that Sandpoint has learned the value of eclectic but reliable commerce that promotes job growth and stimulates varied business investment. It's also found that a business community that is patronized by locals, as well as business and vacationing visitors is an added benefit to a community driven by tourism dollars.

But the stunning takeaway message of Monroe’s article was the response it received in the comment section. American readers are clearly not ready to surrender the sharing economy as a failed experiment. With more than 170 comments amassed in four days (most in favor of the virtues of a collaborative economy structure), Marfa's heart-wrenching story serves ironically, as an advocate for the diversity and entrepreneurial spirit that today's peer-to-peer supporters love most.

Companies like Airbnb, FlightCar, Lyft and the Australian concept WeTeachMe have survived not because cities like New York have defined their usefulness, but because the sharing economy supports  business’s No. 1 motto: The customer always has the last say.

Image of Marfa: Daniel Schwen

Image of Prada Marfa Gallery: Andy Price

3P ID
178190
Prime
Off

Why Family Businesses Have a Sustainability Head Start

3P Author ID
8550
Primary Category
Content

By Anna Simpson

Nguyen Binh, a director and board member of one of Vietnam’s most successful enterprises, speaks with pride of his mother. She has held the titles of chairwoman and chief executive of Refrigeration Electrical Engineering (REE) for the past decade, having started her career with the company in the 1980s. For her son, Madam Nguyen is “a true pioneer … decisive and modern." When he accepted her invitation to join the firm, his motivation was not only “to bring the company to greater heights, continuing her legacy," he asserts: “I also wanted to help the REE Family grow from strength to strength."

Charles Tan–a second-generation employee of Sunray, one of the largest interior developers in Singapore–tells a similar story: “After my graduation from RMIT University, I returned to the family business. Topmost on my mind was the Chinese proverb […] that I am to remember my roots. Truly, I want to give back to the Sunray Family who supported me.”

Businesses can struggle to inspire such commitment among their employees, particularly as more people aspire to flexibility and variety in their working life. Strong values can make a difference to staff engagement and retention, but defining them is one thing–instilling them in the hearts and minds of the workforce another. In this, family businesses (defined as those in which at least two relatives are involved, through ownership and/or management) have a head start, thanks to their intergenerational approach.

For one, the next generation can be primed from a young age, witnessing their family’s values in action around them. Blood ties aside, family businesses often nurture relationships with employees, partners and suppliers over many years, building a culture of trust and loyalty. And, with an eye on the future, leaders start planning for succession well in advance of their exit, long before a typical three-month notice period.

What does this long-term approach mean for sustainability? It certainly doesn’t mean every family business is necessarily a leader, but it does mean they are primed to address some key challenges–from strong value chain management and resource stewardship to an appetite for innovation and a clear social purpose.

I met Jamie Lim, regional marketing director of the carpentry firm Scanteak, and the daughter of its founders, at the launch in Singapore of new research into succession issues within Asian business families, conducted by Singapore Management University’s (SMU) Business Family Institute (BFI) with a grant from Deloitte Southeast Asia. Lim’s slick and stylish garb is appropriately set off by her 10-month-old babe in arms.

“This could be something that she will like," Lim explains to me. “So we can start investing in her now. In family businesses, young talent can learn the soft skills that they would not learn in any business school. This helps us such a lot. My brother and I were exposed from a young age, going to meetings and so on: We made connections. Now we are connecting with our business partners’ kids, so the second or third generation can continue that network. Normally it would take a long time to build up that rapport with a business partner–but we know that our parents trust them, and we know that their parents trust them, and we probably even met them when we were young.”

This approach to relationships has ramifications throughout the supply chain, Lim claims, putting the emphasis on quality and longevity, above cost. “When my parents started they really had to find their sources; some of the suppliers have been with us for 15 to 20 years, and so it would take a lot more than a better price to convince us to make a transition.” It has also meant that Scanteak looks to the future of the stock: “We now only use plantation teak which means that for every tree cut down, they have to plant another”–a strategy which has been in place for over a decade.

When Lim joined the firm, she asked her father for permission to rebrand it for the next generation of consumers, moving away from the traditional aesthetics established through Indonesia’s long history of teak furniture production, and instead focusing on lifestyle. She came up with the concept for an award-winning television advert, which tells the story of a young boy caught doodling on a table by his father. “The angry father tells him off, only to find that he was scribbling the words "I love you Daddy." Fast-forward to the future, and the father gets the son a desk as a graduation present–with a message engraved on it.”

The theme of education is not accidental. “Business families understand that training and development needs are of paramount importance in ensuring success of the next generation,” says Tam Chee Chong, regional managing partner at Deloitte Southeast Asia. Anecdotes of inter-generational learning and mentoring recur, with the younger generation frequently reporting to long-serving employees to ensure their insights and techniques are passed on. Such is the secret behind the success of Singapore’s popular kaya toast (a traditional breakfast served with eggs) brand, Ya Kun. Its founder, Loi Ah Koon, grew up watching his father’s meticulous preparation of the toast, learning “to make sure it was crispy and good."

But does such an emphasis on tradition get in the way of innovation? Not necessarily, the BFI-Deloitte report indicates. In a survey of 83 business families, mostly from Southeast Asia, the research team found that 61 percent see research, development and innovation as one of their top three priorities for the next three to five years, alongside expanding into new markets and growing new lines of business.

“In order to maintain a family business, you must be very receptive to changes and you must be very fluid,” Neo Tiam Boon, the second-generation CEO and executive director of property and construction firm TA Corporation Group, told me at the launch event. “There’s no need [for my generation] to maintain the same business that our late father started [specializing in public housing in Singapore]. Innovation, for me, is continuously introducing new ideas into a business. If something has been there for 10 years, it can’t be left unchanged 10 years down the road. You have to be very creative in your designs.” and in meeting requirements.”

For Neo, planning his own exit and successor is the key to ensuring the business stays fresh and competitive. “As a CEO I’ve been there for eight years, and I’m not prepared to be there for too long – because sometimes we take things for granted. If we assume we are doing well, we are discouraging new blood and new ideas from coming in. I strongly believe that CEOs should not be at the helm of a company for too many years; maybe 10 years is good enough.”

Choosing a successor will only go so far towards ensuring innovation. “In the face of mounting resource and climate-related business challenges, there is a real opportunity right now to groom a pool of environmentally-aware next generation leaders, and equip them with the skills to shift their family business onto a more sustainable path,” says Jie Hui Kia, a futures advisor at Forum for the Future, Singapore.

If you really want to drive innovation, there’s also a need to invest in research and development. The long-term mindset of family business helps to foster longer-term investment strategies–argues Professor Annie Koh, vice president for business development and external relations at Singapore Management University, and academic director at BFI. “If you don’t have patient capital to wait for ideas to take on a life of their own, there will be no innovation.” Such capital is easier to set aside in family businesses, she notes, which are often privately held, and so experience less pressure to meet shareholder demands or targets set on a quarterly reporting basis.

For these reasons–their capacity to fund innovation and their emphasis on social capital–claims Koh, if any business can lead change in sustainable development, a family business can. Moreover, they have an added incentive, she says: “They have to live up to the name of the family in every product or service that bears their name.”

This incentive–the family name and its reputation as a brand–drives many family businesses to take both their environmental and social responsibilities seriously, through both corporate policies and philanthropy. “If we look around us, in any part of the world, most educational institutes and hospitals carry family names,” Koh observes.

Stephanie Draper, deputy chief executive at Forum for the Future, agrees that family businesses, such as Swire, YTL and Huntsman, have a sense of responsibility and reputation that makes them well placed to lead the charge on social and environmental issues. “At Forum for the Future, we are keen to see this go beyond traditional philanthropy and reach into the heart of the business,” she adds.

John Riady, the grandson of the founder of Lippo Group, a major Indonesian conglomerate established in 1950, illustrates the potential. “My father didn’t build all this for me. The word he uses is ‘stewardship,’ and this is the word I would also use. It means that the businesses you own, you don’t really own: You are its steward. You have a responsibility to grow it and to also use it responsibly. Hopefully, our businesses can be a blessing for the people of Indonesia.”

Riady’s interest in the future stretches well beyond the interests of his family: His personal ambition, he declares, is to train and educate the next generation of Indonesians. He is an associate professor and dean at the country’s leading private university, and oversees BeritaSatu, one of Indonesia’s largest multimedia organizations, owned by Lippo Group.

“It’s a country full of inequalities: many people do not have medication, many do not have access to health care,” he explains. “It’s a country without the infrastructure necessary to empower people to be able to do what they can do. I grew up during a time of transition; it was a time of political upheaval and social and sectarian violence. All these experiences have really shaped my views and why I am in business.”

Perhaps the most striking (and frequently cited) example of leadership in sustainability among family businesses is the Malaysian infrastructure conglomerate, YTL. The real leader on this front is Ruth Yeoh, who before the age of 30 was driving the environmental agenda within the business as executive director at YTL Singapore Pte Ltd and director at YTL-SV Carbon, an in-house carbon credit and clean development mechanism consultancy that she established to help companies within the group–and also across Malaysia–“go clean and green."

One year after Ruth Yeoh joined her father’s company, in 2005, YTL produced its first sustainability report–two years before the Malaysian stock exchange required any CSR disclosure. Ask Ruth about the roots of her environmentalism, and she points to her father, Tan Sri Francis Yeoh. “[He] played a big part in inspiring my passion for protecting the environment and growing my commitment to the cause," she told the publication Green Prospect Asia, recalling in particular the experience of planting trees with her father on the island of Pangkor Laut–one of her earliest memories, and “particularly influential in instilling such values within me.” She also remembers accompanying her father on business trips to New Zealand, where she remarked not only on the country’s natural beauty but also the active role of communities in protecting it.

Working to her vision and direction, YTL has set up systems to monitor energy, water, waste effluent, solid waste and consumables, across all its divisions–and targets to reduce its impact. One success story is a 10 percent reduction in carbon emissions at the YTL Power Seraya plant, through efficiency measures and a switch to less carbon-intensive fuels. Another is the installation of energy meters on the high-speed rail service KLIA Ekspres, which runs from KL International Airport to Kuala Lumpur and in which YTL is a major shareholder–resulting in a 5.3 percent reduction in energy cost per trip. Ruth’s talent and determination speak for themselves, but it’s difficult to tell whether these measures would have been implemented so rapidly were it not for her influential position in the family.

While non-family businesses may not be able to fast-track innovative policies, perhaps by overriding the hesitations of wider stakeholders in the way that a family business can, there are lessons they can learn. The value of nurturing relationships over generations, building both trust among employees and partners and commitment to the company’s social role is certainly one. As the Chinese proverb goes, “If you want one year of prosperity, grow grain. If you want 10 years of prosperity, grow trees. If you want 100 years of prosperity, grow people.”

Image credit: DenKuvaiev/iStockphoto/Thinkstock, A Journey Through Time V/YTL

Anna Simpson is an editor for Green Futures.

3P ID
177512
Prime
Off

CSR and Financial Performance Linked, Moskowitz Prize-Winning Scholar Reveals

3P Author ID
100
Primary Category
Content

By Deborah Fleischer and Christina Meinberg

Winning the prestigious Moskowitz Prize—the only global award that recognizes outstanding quantitative research in socially responsible investing (SRI)—is no small feat. It recognizes scholars who are at the forefront of academic research on SRI, including such topics such as shareholder activism, socially responsible mutual funds and how SRI impacts financial performance.

Caroline Flammer, assistant professor in general management at Ivey Business School at Western University (London, Ontario), was recently named the 2013 Moskowitz Prize winner. Her paper, "Does Corporate Social Responsibility Lead to Superior Financial Performance? A Regression Discontinuity Approach," competed with a record number of 49 other submissions. Her complex research makes a bold and clear conclusion--that the adoption of corporate social responsibility (CSR) shareholder resolutions (e.g., which tackle environmental issues such as reduction of CO2 emissions or social issues such as the implementation of non-discrimination policies) leads to an increase in shareholder value and enhances long-term operating performance. We recently had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Flammer on the implications of her work. The take-home messages, discussed in more detail below, include:


  • There is empirical evidence to show that companies that adopt CSR proposals see financial benefits (0.92 percent increase in shareholder value, as measured by the stock market reaction on the day of the vote), supporting the conclusion that CSR initiatives lead to better financial performance.

  • Pensions and SRI funds have the most success in getting resolutions approved (although a resolution provides positive financial performance regardless of who sponsored it).

  • CSR programs improve operating performance (e.g., return on assets, net profit margin) as well as labor productivity and sales growth. This suggests that CSR programs improve employee satisfaction and boost productivity while helping companies cater to customers that are responsive to sustainable practices.

Lloyd Kurtz, chief investment officer at Nelson Capital Management, lecturer at Berkeley-Haas and faculty co-chair of the Moskowitz Prize, described Caroline’s work as "one of the most important studies of CSR because it makes the strongest argument for a causal relationship between CSR and financial outcomes that has ever been made.”

“It’s methodologically innovative and very, very good," he adds. Nadja Guenster (visiting professor at Berkeley-Haas, faculty co-chair of the Moskowitz Prize and former Moskowitz winner, herself), agrees. “Dr. Flammer's study is an outstanding and unique contribution to the large amount of literature on the link between CSR and financial performance,” explains Dr. Guenster.

The chicken and egg problem resolved: Shareholder value improves in wake of shareholder-sponsored CSR resolutions


Do companies that adopt CSR activities become richer, or it is that richer companies can afford to take on more CSR initiatives?

“It is very difficult to test the causal relationship between CSR and financial performance,” explains Dr. Flemmer when asked why there have been very few strong academic studies of CSR resolutions to date. According to her, it’s a “chicken and egg problem."
New CSR activities proposed by a firm’s shareholders are often put to a shareholder vote. Dr. Flammer looked at more than 2,500 CSR proposals in U.S. publicly traded companies between 1997 and 2012, covering both social responsibility and environmental performance. Environmental proposals request that a company issue a CSR report or adopt policies to minimize the company’s negative impact on the environment. Social proposals cover a range of issues, including animal rights, human health, labor conditions or discrimination.

In her winning paper, Dr. Flammer found that corporate financial performance improved sharply in the immediate wake of shareholder-sponsored CSR proposals that were “close calls”–those passing by a small margin of votes. Studying close-call proposals is appealing since the outcome of the vote is as good as randomized and cannot be anticipated prior to the vote. Specifically, Dr. Flammer’s results show that the stock market reacts positively to the passage of close-call CSR. Flammer further documents an increase in long-term financial performance based on various indicators. According to Dr. Flammer, “In the four years following the vote, the companies’ return on assets, net profit margin and firm value significantly increased” for companies that passed CSR resolutions.

What are the implications for shareholders?


As articulated in the study’s executive summary, “This study provides the first empirical evidence of a casual link between CSR and financial performance. The results indicate that implementing CSR leads to higher shareholder value, along with improved operating performance, happier employees and strengthened shareholder interest.” Should institutional investors be more “active owners," given these findings? Dr. Flammer’s findings suggest that the answer to this question is yes. “The findings suggest that there is some value of active ownership with respect to CSR.”

She points out three key implications for shareholders:


  • CSR Programs Improve Operating Performance: One implication for managers, according to Dr. Flammer, is that “CSR is unlikely to be a cost, but rather a valuable resource. Accordingly, managers may find it worthwhile to invest in CSR programs.” Dr. Flammer found that increased shareholder value and operating performance happen because of improved labor productivity and sales growth.

  • Resolution Sponsor: Two groups were most effective: public pension funds and SRI funds. However, if a resolution passes, “on average, financial performance goes up, regardless of who sponsors it.”

  • CSR has Diminishing Marginal Returns: “If you have very few social initiatives, it is fairly easy to pick the low hanging fruits,” Flammer states. “However, once you have many more initiatives in place, it gets harder, more difficult, and probably more costly to implement even more. Therefore, we can expect that the financial return is lower (albeit still positive) the higher we get.”
Deborah Fleischer is a Communications Consultant with CRB, and Christina Meinberg is its Associate Director. CRB has just launched a crowdfunding campaign to support the Haas SRI Fund. Learn more here.
3P ID
178353
Prime
Off

Willmott Dixon to help build UK's first eco town

Primary Category
Content

Willmott Dixon's credentials as one of the most prolific constructors of sustainable developments have been further strengthened with its appointment for the initial stage of the UK's first eco town, located in Bicester, Oxfordshire.

The company has won a £27m contract to build the first 94 of the planned 393 true zero carbon homes that will make up the initial phase of the North West Bicester (NW Bicester) eco-town.

The initial phase, known as The Exemplar, has already been awarded BioRegional's One Planet Living* status, making it just one of nine developments in the world to achieve this coveted mark of progress in sustainability.

NW Bicester aims to be a glimpse into the future of new residential developments that make minimal impact on the environment and promote sustainable lifestyles. This starts at the construction stage with zero waste going to landfill, using techniques and a supply chain that saw Willmott Dixon already achieve 95% waste division across all sites in 2013.

Further features that Willmott Dixon will deliver include achieving Code for Sustainable Homes Level 5, supported by PV solarpanels on every home (covering an average area of 34m2 per property), making it the UK's largest residential solar array and capable of generating power to supply 550 homes.
 

Prime
Off
Newsletter Sent
Off

Climate change protesters gift 'survival kit' to UK environment chief

Primary Category
Content

Representatives of flooded communities and climate change campaigners in the UK have delivered a ‘climate change survival kit’ consisting of wellington boots, a snorkel and flippers to the UK's Environment Secretary Owen Paterson. 

Dressed in wetsuits, raincoats and wet-weather gear, the campaigners carried a banner bearing Mr Paterson’s own words: ‘Climate change? “We’re very good at adapting,”’.

During his tenure as Secretary of State, Owen Paterson has cut Defra’s climate change adaptation team from 38 staff to just 6, and slashed his department’s domestic climate change budget by 40%. 

The campaigners also delivered a set of petitions in sandbags to 10 Downing Street. The petitions, collectively bearing the signatures of over 120,000 people, called for the Prime Minister to take action on flood defences, tackle climate change by setting tougher emissions targets and ending fossil fuel subsidies, and to sack Owen Paterson as Environment Secretary.

Prime
Off
Newsletter Sent
Off