Search

Whatever happened to girl power? The fifth annual Girls’ Attitudes Survey focusing on equality for girls shows that sexual harassment is still endemic.

The survey from Girlguiding reports that three quarters of 11-21s say sexism affects most areas of their lives, and many worry that gender discrimination will curtail their future choices.

More than a third of girls aged 7-21 (36%) have been patronised or made to feel stupid because of their sex, rising sharply to 60% of 16-21s. and 87% of girls aged 11-21 think women are judged more on their appearance than on their ability.

Girlguiding chief executive Julie Bentley commented: “These results should be a wake-up call for decision-makers across the board. This is an ambitious, resilient and hopeful generation of girls who are capable of achieving so much – we must not let inequality get in their way.”

You can download the report here. 

Picture credit: © Galina Barskaya | Dreamstime Stock Photos

On the day campaigners have filed a complaint with the OECD about Alliance Boots and alleged tax discrepancies, a new poll from the Institute of Business Ethics shows that worries about tax avoidance have shot to the top of public concerns about business behaviour.

The results show that 37% of respondents thought tax avoidance was the main concern that businesses need to address, compared with 30 % of respondents citing remuneration. This pushed remuneration out of the top slot for the first time in six years. The ability of employees to speak out about company wrong doing was rated the third most significant concern at 22% with business attitudes to the environment and human rights coming in significantly lower at 16% and 15% respectively.

Asked whether business generally behaves ethically, 59 % of respondents said it did compared with only 48% in last year’s survey (and 58 % in 2011), but there has been an increase of seven percentage points to 35% in the numbers of those who believe that business behaves less ethically now than it did ten years ago.

The findings show that older people aged 55 and above are more likely to think that business is not behaving ethically than younger people.

Commenting on the results, Philippa Foster Back OBE, IBE’s Director, said: “These results could indicate that business has clawed back some of the public trust lost in the wake of the financial crisis. But confidence remains fragile with a year on year increase in those saying that business is less ethical than it was ten years ago. Tax is also now clearly a reputational issue and has risen very rapidly up the scale. Trust cannot be taken for granted.”

The survey of public opinion was conducted for the Institute of Business Ethics by Ipsos MORI.

• Research by the anti-poverty charity War on Want and the US labour federation Change to Win has triggered a complaint today with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The complaint accuses the high street and healthcare giant of violating the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises through inadequate disclosure about insider transactions and its avoidance of tax by apparently paying out interest to related entities rather than treating those payouts as taxable dividends.

Picture credit: © Fedor Patrakov | Dreamstime Stock Photos

Jeans giant Levi Strauss & Co. has debuted the Dockers Wellthread process for responsible sourcing at the company’s new innovation lab in San Francisco. The ground-breaking approach combines sustainable design and environmental practices with an emphasis on supporting the well-being of the apparel workers who make the garments.

It is the first time the company has brought these key elements together into one process.

“How you make a garment is just as important as the garment itself,” said Michael Kobori, vice president of social and environmental sustainability at Levi Strauss & Co.

The Dockers Wellthread design team studied garments from the company’s historical archives to see how clothing has held up over time, and from there created a pilot collection of khakis, jackets and T-shirts. The team engineered lasting value into the design process by reinforcing garments’ points of stress and making buttonholes stronger and pockets more durable.

Together with suppliers, they worked together to find ways to reduce water and energy use. Thie new process utilizes specialized garment-dyeing to reduce both water and energy consumption with cold-water pigment dyes for tops and salt-free reactive dyes for pants and jackets. In addition, the apparel is dyed in the factory, not in the mill – which allows for greater inventory agility because the garments are dyed-to-order.

The designers also considered responsible use and re-use with the end of the garment’s life in mind. Though recycling facilities are not widely available, the company anticipates that one day they will be. Extremely long staples of cotton can be more easily recycled, so the brand developed a unique, long-staple yarn for its premium Wellthread twill. In addition, every garment in the collection uses 100% cotton, thread and pocketing.

With regards to apparel workers’ welfare, more than twenty years ago, Levi Strauss & Co. developed a code of conduct, called its Terms of Engagement, for its suppliers. These terms implemented standards for labor, safety and the environment that eventually became the industry standard for global supply chains. The company is now piloting a new approach with factories to support programs that will improve the lives of workers in factories around the world. The Dockers Wellthread khakis are made exclusively at one of the Improving Workers’ Well-Being pilot sites.

“The Dockers Wellthread process is a remarkable achievement for the apparel industry,” said Nancy McGaw, the founder and deputy director of the business and society programme at the Aspen Institute. “The company took a risk on this groundbreaking vision and then supported it all the way through its implementation.”

Levi Strauss & Co. also operates other initiatives to make its products more socially and environmentally sustainable. The Levi’s Waste  

Japanese hoteliers have long prided themselves on elevating the meals in their traditional Japanese restaurants to works of art in appearance, content, and price. Nothing has been more important than the provenance of carefully selected ingredients that are delicately prepared for presentation on the finest china for diners to enjoy.

This elaborate facade collapsed when a diner at a Prince Hotel in Tokyo this May noticed a dish described as "scallops" used a cheaper shellfish. The diner posted his discovery online, prompting the Prince chain to launch an investigation of all its restaurants around Japan.

The hotel found that 3,596 customers in April and May this year had been similarly misled and that there had been incorrect menu descriptions at 32 Prince Restaurants going back to 2005. So far, over $1.1 million has been refunded to customers who have claimed they ate mislabelled dishes.

The Prince’s revelations sparked similar investigations and similar findings across Japan’s hotel industry, and also drew in the major department stores, all of whom use provenance to support high prices.

Shock grew when department store chains admitted to misleading their customers by falsely labelling items in their restaurant menus. Isetan Mitsukoshi Holdings Ltd., Japan’s largest department store operator, said that 14 of their restaurants use ingredients different from those indicated in menus.

Takashimaya Co., Daimaru Matsuzakaya Department Stores Co. Ltd., and Odakyu Department Store Co. Ltd., all admitted similar practices. Takashimaya also found that one of their restaurants used inexpensive processed meat injected with beef fat and called it “steak.”

French luxury food-maker Fauchon entered the scandal when products made under a licensing agreement with Takashimaya were revealed to misrepresent ingredients. Fauchon said it would tighten quality controls.
By mid-November over 200 hotel, department store, and restaurant companies had admitted falsely labelling food they served, invariably substituting inexpensive for costly ingredients.

Consumer groups said that these admissions show a business culture where profit is more important than credibility. Shufuren, the Confederation of Homemaker Associations, said that companies “cashed in on the trend for consumers to prefer quality even at high prices.”

To date, no one has been charged with a criminal offence. The Government says it plans to amend the products labelling law, strengthen enforcement, and introduce new legislation next year. However, despite compensation payments and tighter regulation, for many Japanese, eating out will never be quite the same again.

Picture credit: © Johanna Goodyear | Dreamstime Stock Photos
 

A 77% increase in minimum salary for Bangladeshi garment workers has been proposed by the national wages board.

This would fix the monthly minimum at 5,300 takas ($68, £42, €51). The workers, who have been demonstrating and striking for wage rises in recent months, had demanded more than 8,000 takas.

However, the industry, worth $20bn (£12.4bn, €14.8bn) a year to Bangladesh, is urging caution as government ministers consider backing the proposals.

The factory owners are prepared to pay more but warn that a sharp rise would blunt their competitiveness.

The wage issue has become prominent again after the international shock over the Tazreen factory fire in November 2012 and the Rana Plaza collapse in April. The tragedies initially provoked calls for better conditions in Bangladesh’s garment factories, and in the workplaces of other Asian countries.

In the UK parliament the all-party group for Bangladesh recommended a study to decide on an ethical stamp similar to a Kitemark for garments made outside the country. In addition, the group asked all European nations to join the UK in pushing for employment reforms in Bangladesh.

The Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI), an alliance that champions workers’ rights worldwide and says its member companies have already delivered wage increases by raising productivity in factories, welcomed a long-term comprehensive plan for Bangladesh’s garment industry.

At the same time Peter McAllister, its director, emphasised the employees’ role in setting standards.
McAllister said: “At the heart of a healthy industry is the ability of workers to raise issues with management. A significant effort must be made to ensure that Bangladeshi garment workers are front and centre of industry change, and not just passive recipients of this change.”

On pay the ETI said: “This issue needs to remain in focus, so that in the immediate term the minimum wage for Bangladesh’s garment workers moves closer towards the living wage mark.

“It’s also important that all stakeholders work together to develop a credible mechanism through which successive wage increases can be agreed.”

Workplace safety, the sector’s other big issue, is the subject of pacts just produced by three industry groups.
Unified standards to simplify inspections and avoid duplication are central to the proposals from the Accord on Fire and Safety in Bangladesh, headed mainly by European traders, the Walmart-led Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety, and the Dhaka government’s National Tripartite Action Plan.

The proposals want factory inspections by qualified, experienced officials, state a maximum number of machines per floor area, require fire doors to exclude fire smoke from stair wells, and stipulate a maximum distance of 25 metres between exits.

Scott Nova, executive director of the Worker Rights Consortium, said previous inspections had failed because the engineers involved were not competent, independent or transparent.

The proposals are being fine-tuned and need approval from the groups’ steering committees.

Elsewhere, ETI companies are running supply chain programmes to improve pay and conditions.
In India it concentrates on the garment makers’ home-based network, the costume jewellery sector and the sandstone quarrying and manufacturing industry.

It is lobbying the footwear and plastic toy industries in China and the timber trade in Vietnam.

The World Banana Forum, which represents the banana supply chain, claims to be close to achieving living wages for plantation workers and packers in Latin America and Africa during the next few years.

The forum says leading brands, including Dole and Chiquita, and Fairtrade, which aims to help and empower farmers and producers, are “putting ideas and funding on the table”. It will report its progress to a trade conference in mid-2014.

Last month’s Living Wage Week offered an opportunity to highlight women’s pay. The humanitarian agency Care International emphasised that women workers are vital in manufacturers’ supply chains and deserve pay equality with men.

Pay campaigns have been conducted even in the West. Oxfam, which has just become a living wage employer, protested that the basic right to a decent income, enshrined in the International Labour Organisation charter, is still denied to millions worldwide, and that at least a million UK employees have zero contracts.

One in three workers in north-east England are paid less than the living wage, a gathering of the Northern Trades Union Conference was told last month.

By contrast, a report from the human rights consultancy Impactt showed that 80% of the UK employers that adopted the living wage believed it improved work quality and helped to cut absenteeism by 25%.

Meanwhile, the Birmingham-based Unity Trust Bank, the social economy specialist, became the first bank to receive accreditation from the Living Wage Foundation.
 

Disappointed doesn’t come close. News that IKEA failed to make a stand on lesbian and gay rights in Russia, dismays and disillusions me. Only months ago, the Swedish furniture giant was falling over itself to apologise for one of its catalogues Photoshopping the presence of women out of its pages in Saudi Arabia.

While Saudi Arabia is often criticized for its treatment of women that includes forbidding travel, study or work without permission from their male guardians, it doesn’t prohibit women from being depicted in marketing material.
"As a producer of the catalogue, we regret the current situation," Ylva Magnusson, spokeswoman for IKEA Group, an Inter IKEA Systems affiliate that runs 298 of 337 IKEA stores world-wide commented. "We should have reacted and realized that excluding women from the Saudi Arabian version of the catalogue is in conflict with the IKEA Group values."

It’s a shame those IKEA Group values don’t count for much in Russia. Self same Ylva Magnusson has just defended the company’s decision to remove an article about a lesbian couple from Russian versions of a customer magazine that is distributed all over the world, telling the Wall Street Journal: "One of the conditions we have of running our business is that we have to follow the law in the markets where we operate."
It replaced the ‘offending’ article – deemed illegal following Russia’s archaic and despotic new law outlawing the "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations" – with a feature about a designer living in China. If the company truly believes in its public statement that it "encourages fair treatment and equal employment opportunities without regard to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, disability, age or sexual orientation”, why did it not simply print blank pages which might indicate to the Russian people that something was afoot and to go Google? It wouldn’t have broken any laws. It would have made a point.

Ah, yes, but Russia is IKEA’s fifth biggest market. But isn’t the whole point of being ethical and taking a stance, the whole point? Being ethical isn’t easy. But businesses can put their ethics first and not commit commercial suicide. Look at what the late Anita Roddick achieved with The Body Shop.

I remember last summer when a relatively big beauty brand announced its plan to move into China. It had –up to that point – been widely supported for its tough anti-animal testing stance. Following a great consumer outcry, it changed tack and performed a deft U-turn saying rather than ‘encourage dialogue and provoke change’ (which was its original plan with the strategy), it would defer market entry and ‘remain true to its core principles’.

Is that really too much to ask? To remain true to core principles? IKEA are you listening? Coca-Cola, sponsor of the upcoming Sochi winter Olympics which bills itself as “one of the world’s most inclusive brands that values and celebrates diversity,” are you?
 

Some of South Korea’s leading businesses have been caught stealing cheap electricity to power research facilities, offices, and golf courses.

 The violations took advantage of differences in electricity rates. In 2012, prices were KRW 112.5/kwh at regular rates, KRW 92.8/kwh at industrial rates, KRW 108.8/kwh at educational rates, and KRW 42.9/kwh at agricultural rates. This year 208 rate violations were detected by August.

 The Samsung Group had the most violations. Six Samsung companies were found using electricity at the wrong tariffs and were fined accordingly. Samsung Electronics and Samsung SDI respectively paid KRW 27 billion and KRW 1.1 billion in penalties for using industrial electricity at R&D facilities. Samsung Total, Cheil Industries, Samsung Electro-mechanics, and Samsung Heavy Industries also wrongly used industrial electricity.

 LG Display paid KRW 31.99 million in penalties for industrial electricity used at an employee dormitory. CJ Construction used it to water a golf course.

 Public corporations, the armed forces, and universities have also been penalized for violations.

“Large corporations like Samsung benefit immensely from industrial electricity sold at less than production cost,” said Rep. Kim Je-nam to the Hankyoreh newspaper, “Now they’re making off with tens of billions of won more by breaking the rules and using industrial electricity where they should be paying regular rates.” Ms. Kim is an independent member of the National Assembly.

Government policy has favoured cheap electricity. Low rates have served as subsidies to industry but, unable to cover costs, Korea Electric Power Corp. has accumulated losses of KRW12,800 Billion since 2008.

South Korea also faces severe power shortages this winter due to cuts in nuclear power generation. Six reactors have been idled after the discovery that Korean suppliers provided fake parts with forged documentation in their construction. Widespread corporate electricity theft has only made matters worse.

Against fierce opposition, the Government increased industrial tariffs by 6.4 percent late November. Business leader say this will reduce competitiveness. However, A Bank of Korea study showed electricity accounted for just 1.33 percent of manufacturing costs in 2011 – less than the 2000’s 1.65 percent.

In 2012, the OECD average industrial electricity cost was US$122.30/MWh, while South Korea’s was US$82.40. According to the International Energy Agency, in 2012, Korea had the third-lowest electricity costs for industry among 33 OECD countries.

Some companies now say they will have to cut back power consumption in offices and elsewhere, which is what the government had hoped.

Picture credit: © Glenn Jenkinson | Dreamstime Stock Photos
 

There is emerging evidence that in addition to straight philanthropy through donation or foundations, Ultra High Net Worth Investors (UNHWIs)are also financing social investment. Equally, there has also been a strong growth in investment in sustainable/ethical investments through private banks and family offices on behalf of UNHWIs.
Professor Tony O’Rourke reports

The key for success in doing socially responsible investments has moved quite markedly into the investment mainstream as activities with a social, ethical or environmental impact.

As we know, the original ethical investment funds avoided industries engaged in addictive products, armaments or the exploitation of the natural environment.

Over the past decade there has been strong growth in the availability of investment products relating to green energy, recycling and climate change. There have been growing opportunities for investment in socially responsible areas such as affordable housing or community projects.

In general we have tended to see such investments as within general retail investment - investment with a conscience. What is not so obvious is that socially responsible investments have also attracted a following among High Net Wealth (HNWI) investors (above USD 1m in disposable assets) and Ultra High Net Wealth (UHNW) investors (above USD 50m in disposable assets).

The European Sustainable Investment Forum (EUROSIF) has calculated that socially responsible investments by European HNWIs and UHNWs increased by 60% (valued at EUR 421bn) between 2010 and 2012, compared to an 18% increase in overall investment in the same period.

EUROSIF also commented that this level of growth mainly derived from new HNWI/UHNW clients (44%), followed by existing clients deepening their commitment to socially responsible investment (37%).

In general the most popular investment objects are clean energy, water and green technology. EUROSIF also mentions that 50% of the wealthy investors they surveyed over 2010-2012 ranked investments with a social-environmental impact as important as straight philanthropic giving.

Where is this trend coming from? Are the wealthy becoming more concerned about the longer-term sustainability of investments? Or are wealth managers and private bankers looking for novel investment classes, with beneficial returns, to attract and to retain clients?

The EUROSIF evidence would indicate that an appetite for socially responsible investment exists. We can also take account of the fact that wealthy investors now appear far more committed to longer-term investment strategies – this has been instanced in recent reports on global wealth trends by Boston Consulting Group, CapGemini/RBC Wealth and McKinsey.

This would then imply a relationship between socially responsible objectives and acceptable returns on investments with socially responsible structures. Again, to revert to EUROSIF data, they estimated that in 2010 11% of all HNWIs/UHNWs in Europe were making investments with strict sustainability criteria.
In general, these investors were relying on wealth managers and private bankers to adopt policies which included:

• •Thematic investing – e.g. protecting the environment
• •Positive investing – e.g. looking for opportunities which will engage in positive social-environmental outcomes
• •Responsible ownership – e.g. encouraging better business behaviour and observing Corporate Social Responsibility norms
• •Negative screening – e.g. moving in investments related to armaments, pornography, exploitation of children, addictive substances or support to regimes indulging in supression of beliefs or views

Interestingly, to meet these objectives private bankers and wealth managers have been expanding the investment vehicles available to include, for example - discretionary portfolio management services; ETFs with sustainable/responsible objectives; “Green business angel” funds investing in sustainable SME projects and “Green” REITs.

So who is driving this interest by the wealthy and ultra wealthy in socially responsible investment – investors or their advisors?

Perhaps it is possible to respond to that question by introducing a potential connection between socially responsible investment and philanthropy.

Wealth managers and private bankers have been developing philanthropy as a major area of customer service and advice over the past decade.

In general philanthropy has been seen as an act of making donations or establishing funds to distribute donations.
There is evidence that in the volatile macro-economic environment of the past five years, the level of philanthropic activity, especially by UHNWs, has increased. Barclays Wealth have commented that “the experience of financial ups and downs creates a strong tendency for philanthropy”.

They explain that wealthy individuals who have seen volatility in their asset base are more likely to engage in philanthropic activity than those who whose levels of wealth have remained stable. The problems of banks and the financial markets may therefore be seen as a stimulus to philanthropic engagement.

We are aware that many philanthopists are keen to evaluate impact.

Direct philanthropic engagement or operation through foundations may not necessarily provide immediate feedback on impact. It could be argued that socially responsible investment may be able to provide a faster form of feedback. We can see this in microfinance funds, or social finance for housing or in community projects.
At the same time such projects tend to have a longer term horizon where wealthy investors contributions may be seen to encourage large scale retail investment.

In conclusion, perhaps we can therefore see the engagement of High and Ultra High Net Worth investors into socially responsible investment as being a means for them to see an applicable impact, to encourage wider contribution into those funds or investment opportunities and over the longer term to dynamise those investment classes as sustainable, applicable and socially valuable investments.

However, this is speculation, and to a strong degree there is an urgent need to undertake serious research into the sourcing of socially responsible investment flows – a subject as important as the actual destination of theose investments.

REFERENCES
Barclays Wealth (2013) Origins and Legacy Vol 17 Insights series. Available at: https://wealth.barclays.com/en_gb/home/research/research-centre/wealth-insights/volume-17.html
Barclays Wealth (2010). White Paper: Global Giving – The Culture of Philanthropy [online]. Insights series. Available at: http://www.barclayswealth.com/insights/assets/pdf/Global-Giving-The-Culture-of-Philanthropy.pdf
Eurosif (2012) 3rd Study on High Net Worth Individuals & Sustainable Investment. [online] . Available at: http://www.eurosif.org/images/stories/pdf/1/1. report_hnwi.pdf.pdf
Boston Consulting Group (2013) Maintaining momentum in a complex world. BCG Perspectives [online] Available at: http://www.bcg.com/expertise_impact/publications/PublicationDetails.aspx?id=tcm:12-135357
McKinsey Global Private Banking Survey (2013): Capturing a new generation of clients. McKinsey Insights [online]. Available at: http://www.mckinsey.com
CapGemini/Royal Bank of Canada Wealth Management (2013) World Wealth Report [online]. Available at: www.worldwealthreport.com
 

This year Ofgem announced that Britain will face an energy drought by 2015, as our ageing coal fired power stations are systematically decommissioned. Whilst the materialization of Hinkley Point C will make a contribution to plugging the gap without further perpetuating our dependency on fossil fuels, this new power station will only be of use in 10 years’ time, at the earliest.

As 2014 approaches, something needs to be done urgently to address our energy security needs. The technology we need does exist – a solar farm capable of powering thousands of homes can be operational in a matter of weeks, without harming the global environment or the ground it sits on. The solar sector in the UK is gaining traction and the experience in Italy and Germany has shown that the solar industry has the capability to deliver the same energy production as Hinkley Point C in less than 2 years and at a comparable cost. So why isn’t everyone talking about it?

Unfortunately, debates are consistently focussed around aesthetics and “green taxes” instead. It is frustrating for the renewable industry that one of the points fuelling debates around green levies is based on a misconception – that paying for a sustainable future is already taking a significant toll on energy bills. In reality, Renewable Obligations, which incentivise most new utility scale solar farm developments, make up only 5% of the average household energy bill. Once a solar farm is deployed, there are no volatile raw material costs involved in the generation of energy, so the cost of buying renewable energy is stable. As the price of fossil fuels continues to rise and the cost of solar technology continues to fall, investment in solar will start to combat the ever increasing strain which our dependency on fossil fuels puts on household budgets.

 We are urging the Government, and the public, to shift the focus away from “green tax” debates and development beauty contests, as these arguments will remain meaningless if our energy security needs are not addressed right now and in the right way.
The mechanism in place for the deployment of renewables in the UK has already proven that it works. Over the last 5 years, government schemes have encouraged massive investment from the private sector, which has resulted in the birth of a new industry, the creation of local jobs and a new way of diversifying farm land.

Contrary to the unfounded opinions of some, the benign, temporary structures which make up a solar farm do not harm the land they sit on. In fact, solar farms create pockets of passively used land which allow biodiversity levels to soar. The land on a solar farm is typically 70% open grassland, so this also provides further options for farmland diversification by grazing small livestock such a sheep or chickens. Sheep grazing in particular is a tried and tested solution proving it is possible to deploy renewables in such a way that food and energy are produced simultaneously.

So how do we move forward? Britain needs to realise that as a nation, we have the capability of taking matters into our own hands, and the progress towards sustainability does not need to harm our landscape. Integrating renewable technology into our farms, our communities and our way of life has the potential to safeguard our environment, our economy and our energy supply for generations to come.

Mark Turner is operations director of Lightsource Renewable Energy 

Bengt Brunberg, sustainability manager at BillerudKorsnäs, the Swedish packaging material manufacturer, tells Ethical Performance about why he believes it is important to take a broad view on the road to sustainable development

What does sustainability mean to you?
That was one of the first questions I had to ask myself when starting out as sustainability manager here two years ago. Of course I had an idea about it but it was just based on my perception from what I had read and heard. I was glad to find the definition from the Brundtland commission on sustainable development, which I considered as a good start for me personally as well as for discussing the subject further within BillerudKorsnäs.
As a result we have defined what sustainability is to us and the area is really huge as it is based on economy, environment and social aspects. Our definition is based on 12 principles and includes economic outcome, resource efficiency, environmental performance, transparency, employee commitment, health and safety and relations to society. Furthermore we don’t only consider our own operations, we have to include the supply chain and collaborate with our customers as one overall ambition is to strengthen the value chain for paper products based on renewable resources.

I also felt we had to decide why this field is so important to us. Employees need to feel proud of what they are achieving at work too. So, my ambition was to include such elements beside the more economic and technical aspects. The outcome of this exercise is that we have stated six motives to why sustainability is important to BillerudKorsnäs. To us it is about company competitiveness, meeting investor and customer expectations, making employees proud, being attractive to future employees, ensuring today’s as well as future needs are met and showing this sector contributes largely to the common task of sustainable development.

How did you get interested in the field?
I have for quite long wished to contribute in a positive way to overcome environmental challenges. I guess literature such as Silent Spring made me interested when I was a teenager. I had a summer job inventorying forest land in the far north of Sweden. I then became interested in working in the forestry sector as I liked outdoor life and found the combination of natural conservation and renewable products fit me very well. So instead of building roads and bridges - as was my original plan - I changed my educational orientation and converted to the forestry sector.

What are the most interesting innovations in sustainability that we're seeing now?
I would say packaging solutions that meet the needs of food and drink distribution without compromising quality or environmental standards (as well as avoiding food waste). There are already paper packaging solutions to keep food and drinks fresh for many months - even years - even when there are aren’t any opportunities to store in fridges. This type of packaging does well from a life-cycle perspective as it performs extremely well in environmental terms. A new technique called Fibre Form is also very interesting as it offers more flexibility than any material previously. We are as well very focused on developing our energy efficiency, so there are huge investments in that area. More generally speaking I find the broader scope for taking responsibility in the value chain is of importance for sustainable development.

What's the biggest challenge you're faced with?
For me personally it is to work efficiently enough to be able to deal with all the important aspects of sustainability. As BillerudKorsnäs merged only one year ago, there are still many activities to structure, start up and develop. To make that happen we have now set up an internal network on the environment, which includes all the environmental managers at the mills. Within these organizational challenges there is a number of performance challenges, eg how to eliminate all fossil fuels from our industrial processes and how to eliminate work accidents. We also should strive to be better in communicating what we achieve in terms of sustainability and to perform really well we have to have continuous development. Actually many activities beside the operational ones shall be initiated or coordinated by me.

What are some of your short-term goals?
Our short term sustainability targets for 2014 shall be set in quantitative terms very soon. They cover product innovation, supplier evaluation, energy efficiency, CO2-emissions from the industry, certification of private forest owners, work accidents, equality and competence. One interesting new target will be about setting up a more comprehensive model for giving youth the opportunity of getting introduced to working for a living. We hope to trial this around our mills in an effort to lower the unemployment rate. To arrange this in a proper way we will start with one mill during 2014 and then scale up the model in the coming years to cover all eight production sites.

And long term?
In the long term we shall eliminate fossil fuels in our production processes as well as work accidents and absenteeism. 2020 targets are set for a 20% reduction of fossil CO2. In product innovation, the percentage of new products in our portfolio, will be 20% by 2020. When it comes to internal organizational development there shall be 100% performance reviews in line with a specific routine between managers and employees. A traditional difficulty in our sector is to achieve equal proportion of men and women as number of employees, but our target for 2020 is to have at least 30% female managers at that time. When it comes to competence we shall by 2020 have at least 60% employees educated to degree level.

Does sustainability ever feel unachievable?
I guess sustainable development by definition never is finalized. As science expands we will find new ways of developing. New knowledge will show us what we have to do to avoid damage to the environment. Globally new needs and restrictions will be defined. So maybe we shall not see it as if we are running for a finishing tape. It´s the way we choose to go that makes sense and that´s enough for me.

What sustainability statistics at BillerudKorsnas are you most proud of?
I would say the way BillerudKorsnäs has reduced the fossil CO2-emissions is remarkable. The statistics for the period 2008-2012 says the total emissions were decreased by 30% and as the paper production is increased the emissions per tonne of product is even better. During 2013 a huge investment in a Combined Heat and Power plant at the Gävle mill will show excellent performance in contributing to decreased use of fossil fuels. As well a new evaporation plant, to better take care of the production residues, in the mill Skärblacka will have a huge positive impact on the energy consumption and the use of fossil fuels. As far as I see it our sector is on the forefront by using renewable material for the production and by using an extremely high proportion of bioenergy in the production, actually more than 95% of the fuels used in our industry is based on bioenergy.

Where can improvements be made?
Well, to improve is always possible in all areas. But our focus areas and sustainability targets point out important areas. What I think will be increasingly important to us when we are expanding is to adapt our mindset to that and to have more of a global perspective in our ambitions. I think we have to be better in collaborating along the supply chain to strengthen our product. Improvements can be made when it comes to e.g. the use of fossil fuels in transport and in the production of raw materials as chemicals. When possible we have to have a life-cycle perspective in our assessments. We are on the track as we have started to produce environmental product declarations covering the whole chain, but we can do more.

Is collaboration a big part of sustainability in forestry/the paper industry?
Collaboration is already a big part when it comes to customers and the work to develop products meeting high environmental and sustainability standards. But as mentioned above I think collaboration is an increasing need to strengthen the overall performance of our products.

If you could influence one major thing in sustainable business practice, what would it be?
My wish should spontaneously be to have all corruption globally eliminated. Corruptive structures where the money finds the wrong pockets are extremely negative for business development and for people depending on sustainable development for the future.