Search

Not mincing his words, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and anti-apartheid campaigner Desmond Tutu said in a 2012 International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Ican) report: “Nuclear weapons are an obscenity. They are the very antithesis of humanity.”

Divestment was vital in the campaign to end apartheid in South Africa, he wrote. The same tactic must be employed to challenge what Tutu describes as “man’s most evil creation.”

Yet despite what many believe is a moral imperative to exclude nuclear weapons from investment portfolios, many financial institutions continue to profit from backing the sector.

Banks such as Bank of America, BNP Paribas, HSBC and Deutsche Bank invest in nuclear weapons manufacturers, either directly or through subsidiaries, while institutional investors – many signatories to the United Nations’ Principles of Responsible Investment (PRI) – are well represented in Ican’s 322-strong ‘blacklist’.

US-based CalPERS, the largest public pension fund in that country, owns or manages at least 0.5% of GenCorp, a company which develops and produces nuclear ballistic missile systems, according to Ican’s Banking the Bomb report.

Netherlands-based ING has a defense policy that excludes the financing of companies that produce, maintain or trade controversial weapons. Yet ING is involved in financing Boeing, EADS, Honeywell International and Safran.
Understanding the importance of not just excluding nuclear arms manufacturers the NZ$22.5bn ($17.3bn) New Zealand Superannuation Fund (NZSF) has just announced the divestment of nuclear base operators that take part in nuclear warhead modification and maintenance activities as part of recent programmes to extend the life of nuclear stockpiles in the US and the UK.

“The exclusions we have announced reflect new information and changes in company circumstances,” said NZSF head of responsible investing Anne-Maree O’Connor. “We aim to be consistent in applying our exclusion criteria.”
The fund first pulled out of companies involved in the manufacture of nuclear explosive devices in 2008. The move to pull out of nuclear operators because of the involvement in weaponry is a step further in the divestment paradigm and could have serious implications for private-sector owned operators.

Fostering good returns
The Benevolent Society, Australia’s oldest charity, has launched a A$10m social benefit bond to support an intensive family support service. In the first bank-backed issue of a social benefit bond in Australia, the bond is expected to unlock new funding to invest in reducing the number of children needing to enter foster care and provide investment returns based on reducing the cost to government.

This type of financing, backed in this instance by Westpac and the Commonwealth encourages discipline in the reporting of social outcomes and creates an asset class which does not require a choice between being a philanthropist or an investor.

Oliver Wagg is a journalist & leading SRI commentator 

UK business could secure £100bn in annual productivity gains generated by innovations designed to address environmental and social challenges, according to a new report by Accenture, Business in the Community and Marks & Spencer.

The report, Fortune Favours the Brave, argues that companies must go beyond conventional corporate and social responsibility programmes and, instead, place sustainability at the heart of business strategies and operations to unlock the full commercial potential and sustainability benefits.

Based on primary and secondary research by Accenture and in depth discussions with ceos of some of the UK’s leading companies such as Kingfisher, BT Group and Jaguar Land Rover, the report suggests that scaling innovation in five categories – resource efficiency, the circular economy, new consumption models, shared value approaches and transparency and customer engagement – can improve competitiveness, grow revenues and better address changing customer needs.

To accompany the report (which you can see in full here), BITC is to publish a new Sustainable Business Toolkit that provides practical guidance on how companies can create and test new innovative ideas that deliver commercial, environmental and social benefit. 

Image credit: Charles Postiaux/Unsplash

Nestlé, the world’s biggest food company, plans to help at least 20,000 young people across Europe find employment over the next three years.

The “Nestlé in Europe” Youth Employment Initiative will offer jobs and create thousands of apprentice positions and traineeships by 2016.

As part of the new initiative, Nestlé will also encourage its European suppliers to offer a job, apprenticeship or traineeship to the under 30s.

“Governments alone cannot resolve the problem of youth unemployment in Europe – companies must play their part,” said Laurent Freixe, Nestlé executive vp and zone director for Europe. “We are committed to offering a substantial number of young people the opportunity to learn and develop within our company”.

The roles offered as part of the initiative will be across all the different business areas and at all levels within the company – from operators on the factory floor to sales assistants and business management. The Nescafé maker is seeking talented young people with vocational skills and training, as well as graduates seeking their first position after university.

Further details of the programme will be announced in September.
 

The strongest call yet has gone to UK farmers to grow genetically modified crops but the response of food retailers reflects a continuing public wariness.

One supermarket chain is so reluctant that it hints it will introduce GM-originated products only when it has to.
The UK government minister overseeing GM issues, environment secretary Owen Paterson, has trumpeted “significant economic, environmental and international benefits” from implementing the technology.

Speaking at Rothamsted Research in Hertfordshire, one of the world’s oldest agricultural research institutions, Paterson quoted findings that farm production must rise by 60% during the next 40 years to satisfy demand and recommended GM plant breeding to boost crop yields.

GM crops offered easier and cheaper pest and weed control, minimised soil erosion and reduced fuel and chemical use.

Paterson understood people’s health and environmental fears – and the critics’ Frankenfood label – but emphasised that studies throughout the world had produced no scientific evidence of risks from GM crops and suggested today’s precise technology and regulatory scrutiny probably made them safer than conventional plants.
Other advantages highlighted in Paterson’s speech were the vitamin A content that would protect children in poor countries from blindness, the potential for new medicines, the hardiness of GM crops during droughts, and higher yields to feed developing countries.
For ecologists Paterson’s message was that efficient cultivation would release more areas as natural habitats.
For economists he said GM cotton uptake had increased in India 216-fold in 10 years and had raised farm income by $12.6bn (£8bn, €9.5bn).

However, Waitrose, one of the UK’s leading grocery chains, was unenthusiastic.

Quentin Clark, head of sustainability and ethical sourcing, told Ethical Performance: “We intend to stay as GM-free as we can for as long as we can. We believe this is what our customers want.”

He said non-GM plant breeding was showing good results and Waitrose itself was developing the sourcing of British barley and wheat to serve pig farms locally.

In addition, large amounts of GM-generated food would hit the organic farmers who supply many products to Waitrose, and this would restrict customers’ choice. There was no conclusive evidence anyway that GM techniques lower food prices, said Clark.

Tesco, the UK’s largest supermarket chain, responded similarly that some customers were worried about GM ingredients. Tesco’s own-brand goods are therefore GM-free, and non-Tesco branded products with GM content are labelled to enable customers to choose.

A company statement said: “We will continue to listen to our customers, monitor scientific research and be guided by the Food Standards Agency’s advice.”

A third large food retailer to be guided by its public is J. Sainsbury. The group says that, despite government advice, it acknowledges customers’ concerns and excludes GM crops, ingredients, additives and derivatives from the own-label products in its shops.

Friends of the Earth claimed other types of conventional farming science were providing drought-tolerant crops. The charity’s food campaigner Kirtana Chandrasekaran said: “They are starved of funding. We are continuing to flog GM when it’s not delivering what we need.”

The Soil Association maintained that GM techniques destroy the systems needed to feed the world. Policy director Peter Melchett said: “We need farming that helps poorer African and Asian farmers produce food, not farming that helps Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto produce profits.”

Nevertheless, Paterson insisted in his presentation: “The farmer benefits. The consumer benefits. The environment benefits.”
 

Picture credit: © Mirage3 | Dreamstime.com

While other commodity crops have much higher sustainable certification levels, only three percent of the world's soy supply is certified sustainable, according to a new paper by KPMG International, titled A Roadmap to Responsible Soy. By contrast, 50 percent of non-farmed whitefish is certified, 16 percent of coffee, and 14 percent of global palm oil production. The paper is part of KPMG's Sustainable Insight Series.

Soy is a valuable crop and yields more protein per hectare than most other crops. Soy demand has increased by around 70 percent in the last 10 years. However, as soy production increases, its environmental and social impacts also increase. These impacts include deforestation in the Amazon and cases of poor working conditions in India and China. In Brazil, an area roughly equivalent to South Korea, 10 million hectares, was brought into soy production between 2000 and 2010, a 73 percent growth rate. It is estimated that up to half of it may have been deforested. Brazil and Argentina account for almost half of global soybean production.

The paper identifies four key barriers that are preventing certified soy production from growing:

• Weak market demand for certified soy
• Variable availability of certified soy
• Fragmentation of the certification landscape
• The cost of certification for soy farmers

Growing demand for GMO labeling might lead to a growing demand for certified soy

Why is there such weak market demand for certified soy? One of the reasons the report gives is that since most of the soy for the U.S. market is grown domestically there are less environmental and social issues. However, there is one potential driver in the U.S. for certified soy, which the report doesn't touch upon: the increasing demand for organics, or for genetically modified (GMO) food products to be labeled. A number of states have GMO labeling bills pending, and one state, Connecticut, recently passed a labeling bill. Most of the soy grown in the U.S. is GMO.

Although the report points out that soy can often be a hidden ingredient, there is a growing demand for products where soy is the main ingredient such as mock meats (think meatless burger patties). You can now find them at virtually any grocery store. That is something the report doesn't mention. One of the reasons for the growing popularity of mock meats is the increasing awareness of the health and environmental concerns of meat consumption. See, for example, the growing popularity of Meatless Mondays. Burger King, a profoundly pro-meat place if there ever was one, promotes Meatless Mondays and even tweets about it. If the trend to eat less meat continues alongside the trend for GMO labeling, there will eventually be more of a market demand for certified soy in the U.S.

Charlotte Vallaeys, Director of Farm and Food Policy for The Cornucopia Institute, recommends Organic certification. She told TriplePundit, "Cornucopia considers organic to be the best certification scheme for any food, including soy. Unlike any other existing certification program, the organic label prohibits genetically engineered organisms (GMOs), toxic pesticides and herbicides, synthetic fertilizers, toxic solvents in processing, etc."

Key actions recommended by KPMG

The report recommends key actions to increase sustainable certification of soy, which include:

• Increased commitment to certification by end users of soy including major food and retail brands
• Greater collaboration between the many and various certification schemes to align their assessment criteria and processes, and improve mutual recognition
• Financial support from soy processors to assist farmers in funding the up-front costs of certification
• Greater demand from banks for certification as a pre-condition to providing finance to companies in the soy supply chain
• More financial incentives for certification to be provided by governments, for example through their tax systems

Image credit: Flickr/Kjokkenutstyr Net

The 60 winners of the inaugural European Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Award Scheme have celebrated their achievements at a special ceremony in Brussels.

This pan-European award scheme aims to inspire CSR excellence in partnerships, with particular emphasis on collaborative programmes that tackle sustainability through innovation. Successful projects represent a variety of business sectors, ranging from banking to pharmaceuticals.

European Commission vp Antonio Tajani, commissioner for Industry and entrepreneurship, said: "The remarkable work of the winning partnerships highlights the best in corporate social responsibility practices in Europe today. It shows that a strategic approach to CSR is increasingly important to the competitiveness of SMEs and large companies. It also encourages more social and environmental responsibility from the corporate sector at a time when the crisis has damaged consumer confidence and the levels of trust in business." 

For full details of this year's winners see the July issue of Ethical Performance, out next week!

Dreamliner maker Boeing has made significant improvements in its environmental performance, despite a 50% increase in airplane production over recent years (2007 to 2012).

According to its just published annual Environment Report, Boeing's manufacturing and office employees consumed less energy and water, reduced carbon dioxide emissions, generated less hazardous waste and sent less solid waste to landfills. 

"Five years ago, we set ambitious goals to reduce our environmental footprint while significantly growing our business. Thanks to the dedication and hard work of everyone at Boeing, that's what we accomplished, and we are ready to make more progress in the years ahead," said Kim Smith, the company's vice president of Environment, Health and Safety.

On a revenue-adjusted basis, Boeing facilities reduced hazardous waste by 33%, carbon dioxide emissions by 26%, energy use by 21% and water intake by 20% since 2007. Measured on an absolute basis, the reductions equate to 18% for hazardous waste, 9% for carbon dioxide emissions, 3% for energy use and 2% for water intake. In 2012, 79% of the solid waste Boeing generated was diverted from landfills -- a 36% improvement since 2007.

To view Boeing's 2013 Environment Report, click here.

Submitted by James Temple

By James Temple

Lately I’ve been hearing from a lot of people who are interested in building a career in the corporate responsibility field: as many as 20+ inquiries each week from networks, social media, website inquiries, cold calls – the list goes on.  

Most are looking to build a career with purpose and new ways to highlight how their professional contributions are helping to address society’s challenges. 

This is encouraging, and as a member of this sector, I am heartened to see others wanting to head down this path. However, this growing interest led me to a ‘eureka’ moment a few weeks back, and I asked myself an important question: what aren’t we doing (as practitioners) to help connect emerging leaders with our profession?   

What I’ve heard is that few forums exist to connect emerging leaders with opportunities in our field.  There are not many platforms available to them to ask open and honest questions in a safe environment.  Other confessions include a feeling that one must ‘break into’ the CSR space and that CSR is a highly technical field based on methodologies, terminology, and processes. 

Then there is a perception that CSR is a job title, not a mindset. 

Setting The Stage For Emerging Leadership

Last week, I hosted a series of webinars with PwC Canada that addressed these issues and aimed to help people think differently about our field.  The webinars highlighted current information about the profession and included panel discussions with practitioners and employees who are seen by many as agents of change.    

Here’s a snapshot of what was shared:

1. It’s better to get your foot in the door and connect-the-dots between where you are today and the path to a CSR related role

The Boston College Centre for Corporate Citizenship's 2013 Profile of the Profession reinforced our panelist’s observations: over half of CSR practitioners are hired from the organizations within which they already work.

The webinar participants also recommended focusing on getting your foot in the door with an organization that shares your values and offers you a diverse array or professional development experiences to hone your skills. Be open to taking on a role that matches your immediate qualifications but allows you to integrate a CSR mindset into your day-to-day work. 

Probabilities suggest you won’t have the CSR job title right off the bat. 

But you can showcase your fit for the role by demonstrating a connection of the dots between your current position and a CSR focus. Also, you may be well served by articulating the process you used to inspire others to think differently about issues relevant to your organization’s stakeholder groups. 

2. Focus your time on developing technical competencies and leadership capabilities

Our panelists also recommended selecting one area within the CSR space to focus your time.  Make it a priority to build deep subject matter expertise in one area to help make your mark. It’s a lot easier to start from a place of specialized strength in the environmental, social or governance arena before you try and skate on the top layer and be all things to all people. 

It’s also important to remember that the issues that are material to your organization’s stakeholders will guide how a CSR portfolio is developed, implemented and reported on year over year. The skills required to implement a CSR strategy will also vary depending on the unique regulatory environment, geography, industry group, size or scope of your organization’s operations. 

And remember, while the skills and experience you’ll need to take the lead will transform over time, your ability to lead others through complex situations, using your impact and influence to enhance the effectiveness of decision making processes and behaviours over time, will remain constant.   

3. Find the right balance between passion, personality and professional contributions

Embracing humility and positioning yourself as a guide to others throughout the CSR journey are themes that resonated with the panel and for those in the room with me. All of the practitioners we spoke with understood how their role was supporting the overarching goals of business and society. 

They were the pinnacles of shared value (and values!). There were no egos, or ‘right’ answers. There were different perspectives to help people build knowledge. This observation is a critical component to success, and you’ve got to find the right balance between your passion for CSR, your personality, and how your professional contributions address the business issue rather than the personal gain. 

Finally, a golden rule: not every corporate responsibility role has those words in its job title. And that's okay. It’s about the way in which you do your work and lead others – a fundamental component of great leadership in any field.  

The Carbon Trust has developed a Cut Cost & Carbon Calculator specifically for the catering industry. According to the Trust, UK catering operations account for almost 2% of all business and public sector emissions in the UK.

The calculator enable users to fully understand how to enhance profitability and reduce environmental impact through a range of activities including behavioural change, kitchen design, menu complexity and equipment selection.

Over 8bn meals are served every year across 260,000 sites, costing £770m a year on energy, and resulting in 3.9m tonnes of carbon. By taking a more strategic approach to catering operations the Carbon Trust estimates that a saving of over 30% is achievable, saving over £250m in energy costs and more than a million tonnes of carbon every year.

For the full story see the July issue of Ethical Performance

© Muharrem Kartal | Dreamstime Stock Photos
 

Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron has officially launched the Social Stock Exchange (SSE), a new initiative designed to connect the public financial markets with social impact investment. The SSE gives investors access to information on publicly listed businesses with strong social and environmental purpose, and guarantees full and transparent disclosure on the impact of those businesses.

Cameron said in a speech that the SSE demonstrates that the UK is at the heart of financial innovation and social investment. The global market for social impact investment is estimated to be worth $9bn and expected to grow to between $200 and $650 billion in the next decade.

The first member companies to be admitted to the SSE are high growth businesses in markets such as social and affordable housing, clean-tech, waste, water, recycling, renewable energy, sustainable transport, health, education and culture. They include Ashley House plc, V22 plc, Straight plc, Scope, Places for People, ITM Power plc, ValiRx plc, Good Energy Group plc, Primary Health Properties plc, Halosource plc and Accsys Technologies plc.

A further 12 companies are currently pending admission, following the SSE’s three stage admissions process, which includes the requirement to be admitted to a regulated Stock Exchange (hence the role of London Stock Exchange Group in supporting the initiative), the production of an Impact Report and assessment by the SSE’s Admissions Panel, formed of leading social impact investment experts.

The SSE is supported by a number of high profile organisations including London Stock Exchange Group, City of London Corporation, Big Society Capital and the Rockefeller Foundation.