Search

New inquiries are now being conducted by the Department of Justice, the US criminal investigation agency, into allegations that JPMorgan Chase manipulated energy markets.

JPMorgan Chase, ranked as the world’s biggest bank by assets, has already agreed to pay $410m (£262m, €306m) to settle a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission investigation into the allegations.

The bank had been accused of market manipulation in California and the Midwest to obtain tens of millions of dollars in overpayments from energy grid operators. However, it paid the settlement without admitting or denying any wrongdoing.

The Department of Justice investigation is being conducted by US attorney Preet Bharara, known for getting tough with Wall Street offenders.

Bharara leads another action under which two JPMorgan Chase traders at the bank’s London investment office have been charged with fraud. This case cost the bank more than $6bn last year.

Altogether the bank faces six investigations by regulators.

A recent accusation is that in China it gained government-related contracts by giving jobs to the son of a former banking regulator who now chairs a state-run finance company and the daughter of a now disgraced railway official. The Securities and Exchange Commission is examining the evidence.

JPMorgan Chase fears it will face a bill of nearly $7bn in legal costs and fines if all the cases are proved.

It has declined to comment on the latest Department of Justice investigation, announcing only that it is striving to “strengthen business practices and address regulatory concerns”.
 

It wasn’t meant to be a busman’s holiday but once inveigled in the world of CSR there is no escape it seems.

My summer destination this year was Brittany, a part of France I’d not visited since I was child. For most of the time I oohed and ahhed over all the things that my parents had delighted in all those years ago – which I, at the time, had mocked (as did my children to me – a traditional Breton festival deemed to be “meh”. Plus ça change… )

While my laptop was safely under lock and key and WIFI (the French keep the abbreviation but pronounce it, rather charmingly ‘wiffy’) practically non-existent, my eyes couldn’t help but be attracted to all things CSR.

The first part of the journey was by Euroshuttle – where huge posters reminded me that I was crossing the Channel with the most environmentally friendly cross-Channel operator.

The Channel Tunnel and its rail transport system have a number of environmental advantages: a fully underground link that prevents any interaction with the marine environment; electric locomotives that generate a low level of atmospheric pollution and only marginal greenhouse gas emissions.

Fortunately it is also rather good value, takes only 30 minutes and is eminently suitable for those whose sea legs deserted them for life after a particularly rough P&O experience (reminiscent of that early scene in the recent Life of Pi movie).

Apart from the daily trip to the ‘poubelles’ and recycling centre at the camp, one company’s CSR policy was regularly before my eyes. Bret’s is a local crisp manufacturer which trumpets it corporate and citizen engagement policy on its packaging.

As one munches, one learns that it partners with 200 Breton farmers to ensure quality, traceability and to reduce the overworking of agricultural land. The brand specializes in lots of interesting flavours including locally inspired ones like Marine (oyster-y) and Caramel au Beurre Salé (sweet and savoury at the same time, bizarre but moreish) but this is countered with its nutritional commitment that it uses 100% sunflower oil, no preservatives, no artificial colouring and no flavour enhancers. The on pack copy also promotes its approach to the ecological impact of its products and its use of water. It also flew the flag for low food miles, which has become another preoccupation of mine.

Unfortunately Bret’s approach is not yet standard practice as we are all too aware. The local supermarket did in fact – and rather ironically – sell garlic from Argentina (which I nobly shunned for the local, distinctly purple variety which was three times the price). It did redeem itself however by selling the most wonderful local strawberries and of course its total lack of free plastic carrier bags.

This is one green initiative that the French have well and truly embraced. Plastic carrier bag use actually rose in the UK last year. Why we’ve not followed Wales, NI and Scotland for charging for the darn things is beyond me. Roll on EU legislation for a EU wide levy on plastic bags. It’s one of the relatively small steps that can make a big, big difference.

A group of biotech companies have launched an online forum to combat mounting opposition to genetically modified foods.

GMO Answers.com is funded by the members of The Council for Biotechnology Information – which includes BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto Company and Syngenta – and is designed as a “central online resource” for information on genetically modified organisms and their use in agriculture and food production.
Supporting partners include the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Seed Trade Association, American Soybean Association, National Corn Growers Association, and National Cotton Council.

The website is part of a broad campaign by the biotech industry to counter growing calls for GMO food labelling and for tighter regulation in the US.

The website admits: “the biotech industry stands 100% behind the health and safety of the GM crops on the market today, but we acknowledge that we haven’t done the best job communicating about them – what they are, how they are made, what the safety data says.”

Biotech corn, soybeans and other crops are used in human food and animal feed around the world, and biotech companies say they are heavily regulated and thoroughly tested.
 

The UK government is urging the country to ‘get behind fracking’ in a bid to ensure energy self-sufficiency for decades to come. Every day the newspapers are filled with stories about fracking, yet why is there so little mention of the implications of hydraulic fracturing on climate change?

A recent Royal Society report on shale gas extraction looked specifically at the risks associated with seismic activity and contamination of water supplies. We’ve all heard the horror stories of ‘earthquakes’ near Blackpool, and the toxic, radioactive and flammable tap water in parts of the US. However, the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing and its potential impact on climate change were not analysed in the report, nor do they seem to have been considered generally by the government. And yet many scientists suspect that the rapid exploration of unconventional gas deposits, such as shale and coal bed methane, could result in such huge methane releases that it could potentially tip the planet into an ‘alternative climate system’.

The extraction and use of shale gas produces huge amounts of carbon dioxide and methane. Most of the methane losses come from leakage during drilling as well as during flowback of the fracking fluid. Further losses occur during compression of the gas and during pipeline transport. The extraction and use of shale gas produces huge amounts of carbon dioxide and methane.

High concentrations of natural gas were detected in routine air sampling in Denver, Colorado and were subsequently linked to emissions from a nearby hydraulic fracturing site. The results of the initial research released in February 2012 indicated that leakage rates from the wells were around four per cent of the total gas production. Most scientists are in agreement that any leakage above two per cent in gas production makes the fuel a dirty source of energy and at least as problematic as coal.

Despite the findings of this research, shale gas is being heralded as the cleanest form of fossil fuels, since it produces less carbon dioxide on burning when compared to oil and coal. Furthermore, some academics and the gas industry have branded the findings as exaggerated, but scientific data on the effects of fracking is scarce and there is no evidence to the contrary. Further studies are clearly necessary to validate the initial results and are currently being conducted by the NOAA, the UC as well as by the Environmental Defence Fund and other academic and industry parties.

The Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) website advertises the government’s moves to create a more efficient low-carbon economy to meet legally binding targets, including reducing UK greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. On the website though, there is very little reference to shale gas.
In summary, it is contingent upon the government to use scientific evidence to develop a better understanding of the possible climate implications of fracking before pushing ahead with these plans.

Julie Carter, senior environmental consultant, Argyll Environmental 

Bribery and corruption remain ongoing issues for businesses worldwide, especially for companies that are doing business in developing economies, where corruption is more commonplace than it is in the West.
Patricia Mansfield-Devine reports. 

Corruption legislation is tightening across the globe, including in the developing regions, with many looking to the UK Bribery Act 2010 (put into action in July 2011) to see whether it should act as a flagship for other countries trying to stamp out corruption.

Corruption as a definition includes not only illegal acts but also unethical behaviour, according to Philippa Foster Back, director of The Institute of Business Ethics. What is important to note, she says, “is that bribery is illegal everywhere, though this may not necessarily be enforced.”

In the UK, bribery legislation applies not only to British-registered companies, wherever in the world they are doing business (the UK authorities have extra-territorial reach), but also to overseas-registered companies doing business in the UK. It covers not only the bribing of officials, but also corruption between companies, and fines, says Foster Back, are now on a much larger scale than they used to be and director-level personnel can be jailed.

Robert Barrington, executive director of Transparency International UK, agrees that the legislation is becoming more serious. “There are standard definitions of corruption,” he says “but these are not very helpful, so businesses tend to stick to legal definitions.

“Bribery is the most frequent definition in the legal sense: it’s clearly defined and businesses could take the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention as a starting point.”

There are, of course, other forms of corruption beyond bribery that affect businesses, he adds, such as conflict of interest, lobbying, cronyism and nepotism but people aren’t really looking at that at the moment. “The line shifts a bit as legislation changes and even bribery has often been ignored,” he says.

Surveys on corruption and whether it’s getting worse are contradictory, adds Barrington. “A survey in July said it was worsening but public opinion is not always accurate. However, if you look at direct experience, when asked in July 2013, 27 per cent of companies had paid a bribe in the past year, which is about the same as three years ago.”
However, the UK, Brazil, Russia and China have all instituted new laws in the past two or three years and enforcement has gone up.

“From the compliance point of view, bribes are uncertain – you’re quite likely to be caught,” says Barrington.
“The best policy for a firm to adopt is that anything you do will become public in the next five years because there will be whistleblowers etc.”

There’s also a minefield about who might prosecute the crime, he adds: “It might be the US with their huge fines and jail terms, or it might be the Russians, which is very scary. It’s in companies’ self-interest not to pay bribes.”

A range of damaging effects
But other than the simple fear of getting caught, corruption has other damaging effects in that it is also inherently bad for business, says Foster Back.”It eats away at trust,” she says. “Once you’ve said yes once, it’s hard to recover from that. You have to say no from the outset.

“It’s a sort of cancer. Corruption saps the energy of an organisation. People are less happy in their jobs and less productive if they’re constantly looking over their shoulders.”

Barrington too believes corruption is fundamentally bad for a company’s soul.

“Bribe paying is unethical and it has consequences for your company culture,” he says.
“No company wants a culture in which payments can be made and hidden – it can slip from one-off into serial fraud.”
And there can also be other business consequences. Shareholders have not paid much attention to the issue yet, he says, but they are becoming more aware, not just about the fines, but about the disruption, legal costs and also about risk appetite.
“A company might become risk averse if it’s had a bribery case,” he says, “and the admin burden is huge in legal fees and auditors. Corruption has an opportunity cost.”

There are particular industries that face greater risk for corrupt practices, and they include construction, engineering, mining, utilities – and pharmaceuticals, as seen in the recent GlaxoSmithKline case, where personnel from the company were detained by the Chinese authorities for allegedly channelling bribes to Chinese health officials.
“It tends to be the big infrastructure-type businesses,” says Foster Back, “or where businesses are selling through intermediaries. Such business is an opportunity for those who sell the permits, and companies have to be more circumspect about using third parties now.”

Barrington says he feels that construction is the highest risk area. “You can make money from vast government projects,” he says, “but there are also inherent elements of the industry which are prone to corrupt practices, such as an informal labour force.”

In terms of geography, the most corrupt countries are often those in conflict or post-conflict zones, while stable Western democracies tend to come out better. And there are also conditions that help to prevent corruption.
“Peace helps,” says Barrington, “and democracy, along with open government, a free press and a strong rule of law. But what is also important to note is that corruption happens everywhere – if you’re in the wrong place at the wrong time you could encounter it in the UK or Scandinavia. For instance, lots of firms undertake lobbying inappropriately, but in Afghanistan, you’d have bribes rather than lobbying.”

Transparency Internationals’ Corruption Perception Index, which takes note of worldwide beliefs about corruption, ranks the Scandinavian states as the least corrupt nations, and post-conflict states as the most, along with North Korea, Myanmar, the ‘Stans’ and Somalia. But all is not necessarily as it seems.

“Chinese and Russian firms will pay bribes more often than other countries,” says Barrington, “but that they’re bribable is a dangerous thought to have – as recent events in China with GlaxoSmithKline show.

“Chinese companies are affected by laws outside China and they don’t want to be caught breaking them, but there is also a strong internal drive against corruption driven by concerns among the Chinese leadership about being undermined. They’ve seen the Arab Spring and angry citizens overthrowing their corrupt governments.”

China has a strong public sector with little transparency, he adds, so corruption was able to thrive in the past. This gives the country a poor score on the corruption index, but nowhere near as bad as Russia.

“With Russia you might say the fish rots from the head,” he says. “Corruption is intrinsic to Russian government and the public sector - though it’s hard to say if it’s worse than it used to be, as information from the Soviet era is hard to come by.

“Now some of the post-communist countries want to make fundamental changes and clean up corruption but Russia has slipped backwards – public officials are involved in corruption, so they’re incentivised to keep it and accountability mechanisms such as a free press have been utterly repressed. But many Russian citizens are aware of the situation and repelled.”

Since this problem affects the developing markets, firms need to know how to handle the issue if they do business in these regions.

“As with all aspects of doing business in emerging markets, knowledge and research are key,” says Sarah Boumphrey, an analyst at Euromonitor, who recently blogged about the issue.

“Businesses should develop a deep understanding of the market, operating environment, regulations and cultural nuances and develop good working relationships with suppliers.”

Internal affairs
For corruption to be avoided, a company’s culture must also prevent it within the ranks.
“The tone has to be set by the top,” says Barrington.

“From the ceo downwards it must be clear that the company won’t do it and won’t tolerate it. It needs to be an utterly clear, rigorous and regularly repeated message.”

Training can play a big part in this, he says, but so can making sure that targets set by the firm are realistic and that people don’t feel they can only achieve their targets if they pay bribes. “And companies shouldn’t remunerate people on financial targets alone,” he says. “They should also reward people for meeting ethical targets.”

How you deal with corruption when you find it is also an important issue. “Historically, companies have hidden it and hoped it wouldn’t happen again,” says Barrington. “But that is no longer satisfactory because it WILL come out. It’s sensible for a firm to admit internally when corruption is happening and undertake a thorough investigation into how widespread it is and who’s involved, etc. And then they need to go to the authorities and position themselves in the best way possible.

“It’s in their interests to self-report but companies have often not seen why they should – but now, for instance, the authorities are offering discounts on fines for self-reporting.”

And once corruption has been found, it needs to be dealt with severely, he says: “Firms need to punish the individuals involved, no matter how senior, and give evidence to the authorities for them to be prosecuted.”

“A zero tolerance policy is key in my opinion,” says Euromonitor’s Boumphrey, “and this policy, which should come from the top, should be well known internally and externally.

“I would go as far as to say that before entering a new market, companies should do a thorough assessment to ensure that it is possible to operate in that market without engaging in corrupt practices. The potential risks and costs are too high to do otherwise.”

In the end, it’s always possible that a company will just have to walk away.  

Institutional investors may be sophisticated enough to model the effect that accelerating global warming has on their portfolios, but generally struggle to assess which green investments work and which don’t.

Most asset owners (83%) consider the extent to which managers integrate climate change into their investment process and ownership activities and 69% indicate that it influenced their selection decision, according to the third Global Investment Survey on Climate Change by Mercer for the Global Investor Coalition (GIC) on Climate Change.
While 50% of asset owners and 52% of asset managers say they have exposure to low-carbon assets via developed market equity investments – making this the asset class with the highest level of reported low carbon exposure – few were “able to quantify the value of low carbon exposure via equity with confidence”.

Nathan Fabian, ceo of Australia-based GIC member the Investor Group on Climate Change (IGCC), tells Ethical Performance: “It’s difficult to duplicate [low-carbon investments] if you don’t understand which investments are working well for you and which ones aren’t, mostly because pension funds invest through fund structures and at arm’s length.”

The industry is exploring ways to improve the situation through a number of initiatives, such as the recently announced GIC Low Carbon Investment Register along with potential partnerships with data and research provider Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the OECD and UNEP-FI.

Something the industry may not be able to work out is flagging government support for climate change policy and action. In the UK for instance, investment in clean energy projects has tumbled to just $1.7bn in the three months to June from $4.2bn in the three months to September 2010.

Meanwhile in Australia, the prospect of a new Liberal-National coalition government after the September election is likely to usher in significant cuts to both clean energy and low-carbon investment.

“The flow of capital towards low-carbon solutions and away from carbon-intensive technologies risks being undermined by inadequate, inconsistent and halting policy efforts by world governments, especially in major greenhouse gas emitting nations,” the GIC said. But as a responsible fiduciary, an institutional investor must match its practices to the underlying risk of climate change, not just overt policy signals, Fabian notes. In an encouraging development, investors are engaging with companies on their capital investment in fossil fuels. With Carbon Tracker’s “unburnt carbon” scenario in mind, “investors are having a much closer look at holding fossil fuel companies and whether or not holding those companies adds sufficient returns to warrant the risk,” Fabian adds.

Oliver Wagg is a journalist & leading SRI commentator  

Daniella Vega is head of responsibility at BSkyB’s CSR department, aka The Bigger Picture, and is also this year’s recipient of 2Degree’s Sustainability Champion of the Year award.

Q Were you surprised to win the 2Degrees accolade?
A Yes! Someone suggested I enter and I was amazed when I was shortlisted because I think the majority of members of 2Degrees come from a more traditional sustainability background.

Q What’s your background?
A I’ve worked at BSkyB for 10 years joining as head of CSR and prior to that I was at Channel 4 working in its programme information department as part of its Public Service Broadcasting unit. However, I started out as a wildlife documentary maker. 

Q How wide is your remit at BSkyB?
A I look at sustainability across the business and the key areas of materiality: Sky as a responsible business from the sustainability of our set top boxes to online safety (because we are supplier of broadband) and to the diversity of our content.

Q 2Degrees highlighted the success of the Sky Skills Studios programme. Tell us more about it.
A Sky Skills Studio is for young people and it’s about building life skills. Aimed at 8-18 year olds and focused on Key Stages 2, 3 and 4 of the curriculum, it’s a half day experience for 30 children who come into Sky and learn how programmes are made. They have a tour of the Sky studios and we base the visit on ‘make, shape and share’ so that they leave with a really broad view of TV production.
The Sky Skills Studio was made for young people and uses the latest technologies, such as drag and drop edit boards. There are four separate studios where they make their programmes. Prior to the visit, they’ll pick a topic in the classroom – there are 42 topics mapped to the curriculum (based on citizenship, maths and English), such as The Rubbish Equation (an environmental theme). Then they’ll write, shoot and edit their own piece. They take their finished news report home with them on a USB wristband. We are very transparent about the creation of our social impact programme. Return on investment is key. It is brand building and allows customers to look at the brand in a different way.

Q How long has the programme been running?
A We launched last September, so we’re just coming up to our first full year. A lot of time was spent in its development and we see this as a long-term capital investment. Within a month of its launch, we were booked out for the entire academic year. We’ve now revised our booking system as a result and do it on a termly basis.

Q How many schools have taken part so far?
A 200 – and we’re well on track to meet our target of 12,000 young people in Year 1. [At the time of the interview the total was already 11,500.]

Q Isn’t the geographical reach of the project limited?
A We do only have the one studio site in West London but we did research how far teachers were willing to travel for such a project. It’s not just a fun day out. It has to have real social impact. And we discovered up to 2 hours was considered ok. We’ve also had schools from as far away as Birmingham and Scotland take part.We’re always looking at options though. We could go mobile with it, but that would change it and we don’t want to dilute the experience. Potentially we have studios in Scotland and Ireland so there are possibilities there too.

Q How do you measure the success of the social impact?
A Young people’s life skills scores are assessed before and after the programme where teachers rate them out of five. Teachers also rate them three months later. We find that gives tangible results and that they are sustained. We have found consistent rises in students’ life skills so they’re becoming more confident and gaining better team work and communication scores. Their knowledge of the range of jobs within media is also significantly higher.

Q Where do you go from here?
A At the end of Year 1, we’ll look at the whole process and see where and how we can improve. We have a strong presence in education and need to shout about it more and as a media company we certainly have the capacity to do that! I am hoping to look at some on air communication.

Q How advanced is sustainability as an issue in broadcasting generally?
A At Sky, we think about it as being core to the business. We feel we have a role to play in creating a sustainable future and I think that’s what differentiates Sky and our leadership from other broadcasters.  

International healthcare group Bupa has become the first healthcare company in the private sector to be awarded global Carbon Trust Standard certification.

The Carbon Trust assessed and certified Bupa’s carbon footprint over a three year period across 11 countries, looking at data from hundreds of sites in five market units. In total, almost half a million tonnes of CO2 were measured over the three years. Bupa has reduced its absolute carbon footprint by over 6,200 tonnes across the certification period, resulting in significant savings in energy costs around the world.

The certified reduction reinforces Bupa’s intention to reduce its carbon footprint by 20% by 2015.

Stuart Fletcher, ceo, Bupa (pictured above), commented: “Reducing the energy we use, and the carbon it generates, positively impacts the rates of asthma and other illnesses by reducing particulate pollution – which is crucial for us a healthcare company. 

“Achieving certification and reducing our carbon footprint are the result of more than £8m of investment in carbon reduction projects. By sharing environmental expertise across our offices, care homes, clinics, hospitals and other facilities worldwide, we have been able to make the right first steps, and we are committed to accelerating our progress over the next few years.”

Bupa is set to invest a further £10m in carbon reduction projects by the end of 2013. Key Bupa initiatives include installing new BEMS (Building Energy Management Systems), renewable technologies, boilers, insulation and energy efficient lighting.
 

International property developer EcoHouse Group has struck a partnership with SESI, Brazil’s Rio Grande do Norte state government’s education body, to set up a school to help its construction workers who missed out on basic schooling.

Statistics show that around 65m people aged 15 and over did not finish primary education and around half of those left school before the age of 10. With its head office in Natal, EcoHouse says it is well aware of the problem as more than half of the over 15-year-olds living in the region cannot read or write. ??

The Elilde Armstrong School, which has recently been officially opened, is free to attend and has elementary and middle school levels. Initially, 20 workers will be taught at the school during lunchtimes at the Bosque das Acacias construction site on the BR 406, which links Natal and Ceara-Mirim.

EcoHouse is well-known for its high-quality Minha Casa, Minha Vida affordable housing communities and serviced offices.
 

Submitted by Thomas Knowlton

By Tom Knowlton and Nadia Gomes

After laying out the framework and examining the fundamentals of strategy and integrated structure, our last post focused on the importance of “engaged leadership” as an accelerator for corporate citizenship. Now, we discuss the role and importance of the other accelerator – culture. 

All Around vs. Top Down

While there is much commentary on the concept of corporate culture, much of it revolves around its importance – often in engaging and retaining employees; and in conveying genuine values to all stakeholders. Further, in most forums, culture is also referenced as something fully dependent on leaders. 

Leaders are indeed the crucial driver behind the shaping and dissemination of culture, however, middle management and all employees need to play a role in helping it sustain and thrive.  So before exploring the importance of culture, it is important to define it - as a function that is influenced by, and that influences, all levels and facets of the company.

What Makes a Culture Strong?

The best corporate citizens understand the competitive advantage of having a strong culture, and the importance of aligning strategy and culture.

A survey recently released by Deloitte contends that organizations that instill a “Culture of Purpose” are more successful and have a history of strong financial performance., As Deloitte Chairman, Punit Renjen states in the research:

 “Exceptional firms have always been good at aligning their mission or purpose with their execution, and as a result, have enjoyed category leadership in sales and profits."

Evident in many top corporate citizens, such as Starbucks and its founder’s commitment to developing an ethical and responsible business model, Unilever and the company's focus on sustainability, and as we highlight below, Novo Nordisk and its focus on finding a cure for diabetes.

But according to the Deloitte survey, most employees and executives don’t believe their companies understand the value of building this culture:

“68 percent of employees and 66 percent of executives believe businesses do not do enough to create a sense of purpose and deliver meaningful impact.” 

Successful culture, therefore, requires that leaders not only define and communicate values but demonstrate them through actions and in the very way in which business is conducted. Engaged leaders, which we noted as the other “accelerator” in TCC’s framework, are critical to building and driving culture throughout a company and in engaging employees who will adopt and sustain the culture.  That's where the CEO plays an important role.

The CEOs at IBM, for example, have demonstrated the value of building a purpose-driven company through the Smarter Cities campaign. As Stan Litow, VP of Corporate Citizenship at IBM points out, “IBM thinks of it as a growth strategy. Our corporate responsibility and philanthropic activities are deeply connected to our core values.”

Building a Strong Culture: Pulling the Elements of the Framework Together

In companies like IBM, a “Culture of Purpose” is strong, and the business and its employees understand the role of the company in society. 

But what if a company’s culture of purpose needs development? What is the role of the corporate citizenship leaders in helping build that culture and how do they do it?

Here we refer to the other elements of the framework - components that fall within the overarching element of culture:

• Strategy: Citizenship strategy that is driven by stakeholder issues, and aligns with the company’s way of doing business, builds a culture that is credible and engaging.

• Integration: Citizenship strategy that integrates all units of the company, builds a culture that involves, and creates accountability within, the whole company.

• Leadership:  Citizenship strategy that is accelerated by engaged leaders, who believe in the core values of the company and lead according to those values, develops a culture of engaged, loyal, and contributing employees, as well as respect and reputation among external stakeholders.

The Novo Nordisk Way: Aligning Citizenship with Core Values

Since 1923, finding a cure for diabetes has remained Novo Nordisk's primary mission. Ninety years later, that almost singular focus on diabetes has come to be coupled with a strong commitment to the core values of the founders, exemplified in The Novo Nordisk Way Essentials – 10 statements that describe what the Novo Nordisk Way looks like in practice.

Serving as a “promise we make to each other – and to our stakeholders outside the company,” the statements are meant to help employees and managers evaluate how their organizational unit acts in accordance with the Novo Nordisk Way. And several allude to the corporate citizenship goals of the company, including: "We are accountable for our financial, environmental and social performance" and "We never compromise on quality and business ethics."

What makes these values different is not their articulation but their complete connection with the company’s ongoing business and its culture. 

Among its efforts to solidify this integration across the company, it conducts Novo Nordisk Way facilitations in which senior employees act as 'facilitators' and travel throughout the organization to interview employees, managers and internal stakeholders of the unit, reviewing documents and looking into local business practices - consolidated observations and trends from the facilitation process are reported to executive management quarterly and the board of directors annually.

This assurance not only helps safeguard the company's culture of responsible and sustainable business practices, it also keeps employees and stakeholders engaged and constantly challenged in the process.

Complementing the Novo Nordisk Way is the company’s Foundation, created in 1951 with a special governance model in mind: the company is “owned” by the foundation, creating a model that not only provides protection to the company but also ensures that it maintains its high ethical standards.

Developing a purposeful corporate culture is critical and a lot of hard work goes into ensuring its longevity beyond initiatives. For corporate citizenship professionals looking to further develop and improve corporate citizenship at their companies, the first step is to assess the company’s level of development in the four core elements outlined in our previous posts: citizenship strategy, integrated structure, engaged leadership and culture. 

Based on that assessment, focus on creating alignment among the four elements and developing programs consistent with those levels.

Previously:

Engaged Leadership: Going Beyond Vision & Values

Developing an Integrated Structure at Medtronic

Building an Effective Stakeholder-Led Strategy

Why Strong CSR Programs Don’t Always Lead to Successful Corporate Citizenship