Search

Here be dragons?

Primary Category
Content

An unexplored territory to many, Keith Crane looks at how foreign companies are approaching CSR programmes in China and discovering that businesses need to ‘reverse the support circle’ to make things work.

China’s new president, Xi Jinping, didn’t waste any time in creating a phrase to sum up a view for his next 10 years in office – achieving the China, or Chinese dream. It has inevitably been discussed as to what it actually means; can you can compare it to the American Dream, and how do Chinese people themselves see it.

Vast improvements in lifestyles, poverty reduction and education have been made in China in the three decades since Deng Xiao Ping opened up the country to reform, and western investment. So where is the country heading under its 12th five year plan, and its new leadership?

There’s also one thing to make clear, while China may have a new leadership, its policies have also been agreed collectively well in advance… China plans its future 10 years at a time. And while President Xi and Premier Li may be taking over, they inherit plans already agreed for 2011 to 2015.|

Many commentators in the west are fraught at the fact China’s growth has slipped to single, but still impressive figures. But they miss the point – that’s what the Government has decided, for a more sustainable future. It wants a more balanced, customer-led economy.

So where does CSR fit in with all of this? Key experts from the British Chamber of Commerce and British China Council addressed the issue in a forum earlier this summer.

They were led by Clare Pearson, a China veteran of eight years who leads DLA Piper’s corporate responsibility, and Daniel Wang, publisher of Charitarian Magazine. To say they work closely together is an understatement. They’re more like a double act, second-guessing each other’s next sentence as they describe where the country is now, and where it’s going.

So if the economy is slowing, does CSR have a future, when budgets are tight and margins are slipping? The message is clear. Companies that want to succeed in China need to think about CSR – but differently from the way they do in The West. NGOs and government have to work together. First the government oversees about 90% of the economy, and has a built-in resentment of overseas intervention.

Reversing the support circle
Pearson has reversed the circle how companies offer support. Rather than a bank say, writing a cheque and asking their Beijing office to spend it, say on a school, that may be built in the wrong area and ultimately closes, you need to ask the government where they need help, and fill in the gaps they can’t meet. That means identifying the areas the government can’t reach, which these days mean bringing the western inland regions up to the standard of the highly developed east coast. Wealth redistribution, narrowing the income gap, is this government’s key priority, and if you work with it, you will shine out Pearson says.

“Start with the ‘Five year plan’, and select a social issue that is of current concern such as unemployment, climate change, education or health care. If you tackle one of their priority issues, they will ensure your profile, as the government is the media.”
Daniel Wang says companies need to be aware of what is happening in the country, with regards to the increase in income, and reduction of poverty across the China.

One of his first slides showed the Gini-co-efficiency scale, comparing the GDP per capita across the country. While Shanghai and the Yangtze Delta may still be leading, the inland cities of Chengdu and Chongqing are increasingly important to overseas employers as labour costs in The East rise. They’re building factories there and increasingly building sub-headquarters, or even moving lock, stock and barrel.

He also addressed who benefitted after the last five year plan, and is confident, that while yes, the rich have got richer, farmers, still from a very low base, have benefitted from recent government policies, including the removal of taxes, new subsidies and pension rights.

I checked this with a Chinese friend, whose father farms in north-western Shanxi province, and himself is one of the rural migrant workers now in the capital, Beijing, if he agrees? He does. Does his father have any complaint with the government? No.
So, where you may ask, does CSR come in?

One of Pearson’s pet projects, now in its sixth round, is E3, equal education for everyone, in conjunction with Nord Anglia and working with the British School of Beijing , which trains 100 teachers a year from rural areas of China about modern study methods.

“This project helps the rural teachers to broaden their horizons, receive new and advanced education ideas and gain exposure to different teaching methods. It also helps to balance the education standards between the city and the countryside. One teacher can influence the future of 10,000 rural children,“ Pearson says.

But it’s the approach that matters, she stresses.

“It’s all about training people without them realizing they’re being trained. We want them to feel comfortable. It’s not the British school telling them what to do – it has to be seamless.”

That means participatory events of getting to know each other, and just getting down to basics, where the UK head teachers sit down and paint, play ping-pong, alongside their Chinese colleagues. Creating former President Hu Jintao’s “harmonious society”, without ever mentioning the word ‘harmonious’. But it’s not always so, as Pearson demonstrated at the forum which showed a situation probably unique to China.

Taking the teachers around Tian’anmen Square proved less than harmonious as their photographer, a former paparazzi, noticed they were being followed and videoed.

They were stopped and asked to produce their papers by the ever-vigilant Chinese plain clothes security personnel – another reason Daniel Wang’s presence was essential.

“You need a local face. I didn’t believe it when he told me, but then we got stopped. And we needed Mr Wang to show them we had the right papers and were not doing anything wrong.”

Mr Wang is Pearson’s local face. They work hand-in-hand, as Pearson says, they need to.

“You can’t just come into China and tell people what to do. It’s the complete reverse of The West.”

So her CSR cycle begins with asking the government what needs to be done and filling the gaps it can’t do.

And while people in The West sit at computers and wait for meetings, the Chinese are far more active.

Need for action
The forum was held just weeks after western Sichuan suffered its second major earthquake in five years (but thankfully without the severe loss of life in 2008). Disaster response is one of the areas the government has identified for CSR, but western firms need to react quickly, there’s no time to wait for a board decision.

“Look at the earthquake response… the Chinese were on their mobiles straight away, they weren’t sat at a desk on a computer, waiting for a decision miles away, they were getting things done standing up. These are people who have been through hardship and complete change in their lifetimes, they don’t need to go through a change management programme, they’ve already been there, done it.”

She highlights the philanthropy now of China’s millionaires and billionaires, who, like Bill Gates now see their roles as giving something back.

“They’ve seen hunger and hardship, and we wonder why they want to make a fortune? They’re less interested in raising flags now, more in raising awareness.”

And this is where companies need to focus, she says, not in major banner-waving of projects, but ones that get to the grassroots, ones that make the most difference to the most people.

“Foreign firms count less than immediate social priorities to the Chinese government. They must literally give away some intellectual property to help the rural regions. Look at Microsoft. Millions of poor students copy their software but it doesn’t go after them, but it will certainly sue corporate offenders. Instead it focuses on computer training for unemployed migrant workers.”
So, back to where we started, where does all this fit in with the Chinese Dream?

Pearson frets a little about the future. “I think the world is at a tipping point, it’s going to be a complicated century, as everywhere becomes more urbanized, with climate change and potential water shortages, how can you deny people access across borders if they have no water?

“But China is trying to do things that have never been done before, but in a very pragmatic way. As it becomes a superpower it will have a huge influence on individualism and collective responsibility. Just by the sheer number of Chinese, how they grow up with each other means they have a second sense of knowing what’s going on around them, which means they’re not so combative on the international stage.

“They can work out in minutes somebody’s character, and what needs to be done, and that gregarious environment breeds political and economic empowerment.” But does that empowerment mean more freedoms?

“They’ve grown up through floods, famine, baking hot winters and freezing winters and they’re too busy working to build a successful future to worry, or have time to worry about the things we do in the west, like human rights. They haven’t got to the point of having leisure time yet to think.”

It’s a salutary statement that means no-one should come into China, corporately or personally, thinking they’re on a mission to change. As Daniel Wang reminds us, China is a country which has lifted 600m people out of poverty in 30 years, and now educates 99.8% of primary-age schoolchildren.

So what’s the message? Please do come, but we’ll tell you how we’d like you to help us, thank you, it seems.  

Prime
Off
Newsletter Sent
Off

Ethics & economics are stacking up against fossil-fuel investment

Primary Category
Content

“Coal is a dead man walkin’,” Deutsche Bank global head of asset management Kevin Parker told The Washington Post in January 2011. “Banks won’t finance them. Insurance companies won’t insure them. The Environmental Protection Agency is coming after them... and the economics to make it clean don’t work.” Over two years later a growing number of investors are beginning to exclude carbon-intensive fossil fuels from their portfolios on both ethical and economic grounds.

In April, the Uniting Church in Australia took the step to screen out shares in coal and gas companies – just as a number of investors exclude ‘sin stocks’ in the alcohol, tobacco and gambling industries – to become the first faith group in the world to take such action. Three months later, a group of US protestant churches announced a plan to divest fossil-fuel holdings over the next five years.

The financing of fossil fuel projects too is a big target for environmental campaigners. In Australia, Friends of the Earth offshoot Market Forces is running a campaign to persuade customers of banks ANZ, Westpac, Commonwealth, and National Australia Bank to move their money elsewhere because it is helping the big four banks finance coal and gas projects in the resource-rich country. The campaigners say the banks are complicit in the destruction of national icons such as the World Heritage-listed Great Barrier Reef.

Perhaps sealing coal’s fate once and for all, the powerful World Bank last month said it will no longer fund coal-fired power stations in poor countries because a 2°C rise in average temperatures would leave millions of people trapped in poverty. Evidently there are many ethical reasons to get out of fossil fuels. Now UK-based Impax Asset Management has shown there are some very good economic reasons to eliminate fossil fuel holdings. Taking the MSCI World Index as a benchmark, Impax found that the strategy of excluding fossil fuel holdings yields a small positive return of 0.5%, with a tracking error (a measure of how closely a portfolio follows the index to which it is benchmarked of 1.6%). Importantly, much of the economic effect of excluding fossil fuel stocks could have been replicated with “fossil free” energy portfolios.

While coal is evidently on the way to its own ‘death row’, prospects for clean energy investments have never been better. The outperformance of low-carbon energy investments over fossil fuel stocks in the last seven years tracked by Impax was delivered in an economic climate that is far from conducive to large-scale renewable energy uptake or wider investment in environmental protection. Just think how much better they would have done with a global market for carbon emissions and policy-making tilted away from providing subsidies to polluting fossil fuel companies.

Oliver Wagg is a journalist & leading SRI commentator  

Prime
Off
Newsletter Sent
Off

New president at IBE

Primary Category
Content

The Institute of Business Ethics (IBE) has appointed a new president. Tim Melville-Ross CBE, Chair of HEFCE, succeeds Sir Robert Worcester, founder of Ipsos-MORI, who has served as IBE President since 2001.

Chris Moorhouse, chairman of the IBE, welcomed the appointment: “Tim has given excellent support and encouragement to the Institute as a member of its Advisory Council. I am delighted that his advice will continue to be available to us in his new role.”

Tim Melville-Ross commented: “I have been involved with the IBE since 1994 and over the years, much has changed. A globalised economy, a diverse workforce, a public more alert to ethical issues has meant that businesses cannot be complacent when it comes to business ethics. Calls for greater trust in business miss the point – trust needs to be earned. A culture change is called for, to educate tomorrow’s workforce so that they consider the ethical dimensions of any business decision. I look forward to working with the IBE team in encouraging greater debate about how trust can be regained.”

Melville-Ross began his tenure as president at the beginning of July. Prior to joining HEFCE, Melville-Ross chaired the Council of the University of Essex and chairs Royal London Insurance and the Homerton University Hospital NHS Trust. He has been a member of the IBE’s advisory council since 1994.
 

Prime
Off
Newsletter Sent
Off

CRS is the real thing at CCE

Primary Category
Content

Joe Franses is director of corporate responsibility and sustainability (CRS) at Coca-Cola Enterprises. He tells Ethical Performance how he works across the business’s network of experts


Q CSR impacts broadly on a business – how wide is your remit?

It’s a wide remit, which we capture through our sustainability plan; Deliver for Today, Inspire for Tomorrow. The plan sets sustainability targets across seven areas that are central to our business, the environment and society, and sets out a roadmap for how we will reduce the carbon footprint of the drink in your hand by one third, by 2020.


Q What are the key CSR areas for CCE?

We have commitments across seven focus areas and want to demonstrate best practice across all of them, but we believe we can make the biggest difference in two specific areas: Energy and Climate Change and Sustainable Packaging and Recycling. Our commitment to “reduce the carbon footprint of our products by one third by 2020” is central to our plan, particularly as it will require action to reduce carbon emissions across our entire value chain. Our target to “recycle more packaging than we use” is also critical, as our packaging represents just under half of our total value chain carbon impact. Both targets are a significant stretch for our business and we recognise that we won’t be able to find all the answers on our own.


Q You’ve just published your CR & sustainability report in a new format and for the first time online, what triggered this new approach?

The key thing about sustainability reporting is that it needs to be easy to understand, accessible and engaging. As a business, we’re conscious that reporting can also be very technical and data driven, so through our virtual town we’re telling a story that is engaging and enables users to dip in and out of the areas that are of interest to them.


Q What would you say are the main highlights of the report?

In 2012 we made strong progress towards our sustainability plan goals with significant achievements in carbon reduction, water usage and packaging recycling. Achieving an absolute 15% reduction in our operational carbon footprint versus 2007 and reaching our lowest ever water usage ratio have been particularly significant.
Later this year we’re looking forward to sharing the findings of our recently launched research study with the University of Exeter, where we’re working with 20 households in Great Britain and France to observe and learn from at-home recycling behaviours


Q Given your 8-year tenure at CCE, what have been the main changes you’ve seen?

Our sustainability agenda is led from the top, which means that sustainability is genuinely at the heart of day-to-day business and embedded into everyday decision-making. With the launch of our sustainability plan, we acknowledged that our carbon footprint can no longer be considered as resulting only from our core business operations, but instead we must take responsibility for the impact across our wider value chain. Recognition of this throughout the business has required a significant change in mindset and has been highly significant changes.


Q What are the main challenges in CSR & sustainability today?

Sustainability never stands still, and expectations evolve rapidly, as does associated policy. You continuously have to think further outside your business, and consider the impacts related to your entire value chain.
Raising awareness and understanding of sustainability among our employees is also critical, and just recently we trained our procurement professionals on how to embed that mindset into their day-to-day relationships with suppliers. Further to that, over 150 senior leaders have undertaken a specialist sustainability leadership course with the University of Cambridge’s Programme for Sustainability Leadership, to learn more about the sustainability challenges our industry faces. 


Q What has been your most successful CSR initiative so far (and why)?

The development of our sustainability plan (Deliver for today; Inspire for tomorrow) has been the most critical initiative that I’ve been involved with. It is central to how we are growing our business, while building a more sustainable future. Within that, it has been really important to acknowledge that we don’t have all of the answers. We will only be able to meet our goals by working in partnership with others and by collaborating to solve not only the challenges facing our business, but the industry at large. rather than the “why” or “what” of corporate responsibility. Indeed, not so much is it relevant or applicable in business but how it should be driven, governed, managed and implemented.


Q What competitive advantage does having an active CSR programme give CCE?

Our sustainability plan is important to our customers, their consumers, and increasingly investors, so isn’t something any business can afford to ignore. It is also of high importance to our own employees who continue to encourage us to move forward on our sustainability journey. For CCE, it is also about ensuring that we are able to reduce our reliance on natural resources. As such, it is central to the long-term commercial success of our business, and the health of the wider economy.
 

Prime
Off
Newsletter Sent
Off

Roger Aitken, analyst, interprets the August data:

Primary Category
Content

Among UK Funds it was Guinness Alternative Energy C, a £1.96m fund, which secured the yellow jersey over the last one year to 30 June 2013 with a cumulative return of +39.76%. However, it compares poorly to its -26.04% over the past three years. Effectively the fund swapped places over last 12 months with the £146.37m Robeco New World Financial Eqs D EUR fund with a +39.63% return. This mirrored solid double-digit percentage performances over three and five years of +30.12% and +23.21%, respectively. Sarasin Sustainable Equity USA B, a £18.34m fund, came third top with +39.12% . Bottom once again was SUNARES but with a deteriorating -31.82% over the prior month. This exceeded the second worst performer - Robeco Natural Resources Equities D EUR - over the past year with -4.65% vs -25.94% for the past five years.

Click to view UK Registered Funds chart

 

Top among US Mutual funds was Eventide Gilead N on one-year with a +35.61% return versus a whopping +92.77% over the past three years, from Great-West Ariel Mid Cap Value Init fund (top last time) at +34.07% in second place (versus 76.94% over the past three years) and Calvert Small Cap A fund (+33.45%). Bottom ranked in this 198-fund sector was again GuideStone Funds Inflation Prtctd Bd GS4 with -4.80% .

Click to view US Mutuals chart



LSF Asian Solar & Wind A1, a European OE equity alternative energy fund, scooped the top spoils once again for the past year among the universe of European funds with +46.88%, beating Robeco GTAA D with +41.43% and Incometric Global Valor B fund (+35.74%).

Click to view European Funds chart


Top ranked in the UK Pension funds sector was as previously, Skandia/Ecclesiastical Amity Europe Pension, over the past one-year horizon with +33.86%, although a tad lower than the +42.80% in the prior month to end May 2013. The fund just pipped Standard Life Ethical UK 2 Pen (+33.82%) and Aviva/ATSF European Growth inet Pen (+33.58%) . The top five funds were tightly bunched on the 1-year performance and separated by only 0.37% points. ReAssure NM Deposit Pension fund ranked bottom with just +0.34% over the last 12 months. This sector exhibited the best peer group average of all five sectors (+20.99%) for the past year.

Click to view UK Individual Pensions Funds chart


Within the UK Insurance Funds sector Skandia performed well with its Skandia/Ecclesiastical Amity Europe Life fund once again coming top from 122 funds with +32.98% over one year, followed by Skandia/Premier Ethical Life (+29.61%). L&G/Life Neptune Green Planet was bottom ranked over one-year for the second month running but with -6.61% this time.

Click to view UK Insurance Funds chart

 

Prime
Off
Newsletter Sent
Off

ICT companies need to take human rights seriously

Primary Category
Content

In June, Apple, AOL, Dropbox, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, PalTalk, Skype (Microsoft), Twitter, Yahoo! And YouTube (Google) were accused of allowing intelligence services to access their servers to retrieve data about users, through the monitoring programme (PRISM) endorsed by the Obama administration.

All over the world, companies in the Information & Communications Technology (ICT) sector face increasing government pressure to comply with domestic laws and policies in ways that may conflict with the internationally recognized human rights of freedom of expression and data privacy. In the last decade, ICTs, have opened new channels for the free flow of ideas and opinions, thereby promoting democracy and human rights. Companies’involvement in ensuring the respect of these rights is crucial.

The UN Guiding principles on Business and Human Rights do not leave this in any doubt: under the “Protect, respect and Remedy” Framework, it is not only States have the obligation to protect the human rights of their citizens, but also companies that have the responsibility to respect these rights.

The PRISM case shows that the extent to which a company protects customers’ private data (‘data privacy’), in addition to informing them of their rights and the companies’ own legal obligations in terms of providing information to legal authorities is becoming increasingly important. It is one of the main responsibilities for companies to ensure that the privacy of data exchanged in their networks is ensured.

Human rights violations, including violations of privacy of data, represent a reputation risk, given the strong media attention. Privacy breach cases can also expose the company to legal action, damage claims and fines. On the other hand, companies that adopt explicit and appropriate human rights principles and goals along with mechanisms for their implementation and reporting might be better prepared to prevent human rights abuses and to deal effectively with allegations of wrongdoing that may arise.

Awareness within ICT companies has grown, and interesting initiatives undertaken. The Global Network Initiative (GNI) has created a collaborative approach to protect and advance freedom of expression and privacy in the ICT sector. By signing the GNI’s principles, companies commit to respecting the human rights of freedom of expression and privacy.

The PRISM case shows that the corporate responsibility of preventing the violation of human rights and the privacy rights of company’s customers does not arise only in authoritarian regimes, but also in democratic countries. Companies must respect ‘the right to know’ of their customers and at least inform them in a clear and intelligible way that their communications can be observed and monitored by public authorities.

Fouad Benseddik, director of methodology & institutional relationships, Vigeo 

Prime
Off
Newsletter Sent
Off

Measuring the Value of Stakeholder Engagement via Twitter

Primary Category
Content

Submitted by Guest Contributor

By Danna Pfahl, VP, Stakeholder Engagement, Future 500

NGOs and corporations often don’t see eye-to-eye on a number of issues, and so the opportunity for the two parties to publicly engage in civil discourse is rare, especially on social media, where strongly charged sentiments often prevail.

While it is tempting for corporations to bury their head in the sand, delete negative comments, and avoid contact with adversarial stakeholders, such actions have consistently proven to increase risk, not deter it. On June 18th, CSRwire partnered with Triple Pundit to host a live Twitter chat with Nestlé Waters North America to show how one of the biggest bottled water companies is creating “shared value."

The online discussion, which attracted its share of critics and advocates, covered prepared questions in the beginning, leaving roughly half an hour for questions and feedback from the audience. The hashtag #SharedValue reached more than 560,000 Twitter accounts and was included in over 1,000 tweets between June 11-18th.

Engaging with Critics:

But it's not just about the numbers. The audience acknowledged Nestlé Waters’ progress, but also shared differing perspectives.

Nestle Waters TwitterSome tweeters pointed out that clean tap water is not available everywhere, while others noted that places where most bottled water is sold tend to also have clean drinking water from the tap and water fountains available.

Besides the availability and conservation of water, Nestlé Waters also brought up the importance of collaboration “across industry, government, municipalities, NGOs and nonprofits.” Other topics included:

Reuse:

Nestle Waters Twitter

Health:  

Nestle Waters TwitterNestle Waters Twitter
Drought:

Nestle Waters Twitter At the end of the hour, it was appreciable to observe that rather than ignoring critical comments or becoming defensive, the company used the feedback to engage in a meaningful conversation and clearly explain the brand’s approach.

Since there wasn’t enough time to answer all the individual questions during the chat – over 50 – Heidi Paul, EVP, Corporate Affairs, responded to them in a blog series on Talkback, thus closing the loop on the many issues that came up during the dialogue.

Value of Stakeholder Engagement Via Twitter

So why did the company choose to use an open forum like Twitter to invite and answer its boldest critics?

Because, Twitter chats are a great way to have an organized conversation with a company’s most emboldened stakeholders. The company can present a new idea or strategy, develop its community network, and address issues of concern early on. Other key benefits include:

  • Feedback loop in real time: Understanding concerns now, not tomorrow, will keep the company ahead of the curve. Twitter uniquely fills this need.
  • Humanize the company: Authentic and transparent responses to stakeholders shows your human face. Follow-up from specific staffers can take it to the next level.
  • Decrease conflict: The company can diffuse tension by quickly, directly, and genuinely engaging those campaigning against them.
  • Make friends before you need them: Often companies look for allies after they are attacked, which corners them into a reactive (rather than proactive) strategy. Early contact with activist groups and others can build trust before conflicts arise.
  • Engage internal stakeholders 

 

Nestle Waters TwitterAn Emerging Tool?

According to a recent study by Harvard Business Review, almost 80 percent of companies are either using or planning to use social media, but only 12 percent feel that they are using them effectively.

A look at the participants in CSRwire's recent chats – Nestle Waters, ARAMARK, Campbell Soup, Mars, Unilever, Walmart – offers a glimpse of an emerging list of commendable leaders in the area. They understand that social media is an exciting way to reach out to stakeholders and forge new, mutually beneficial relationships and have found that social media helps them listen to the concerns of their clients, customers and communities.

Unfortunately, a large percentage of companies are still hesitant to get serious about social media or thinks it’s a “passing fad.” "At the C-Suite level, they don't want to talk about social media because they don't understand it," as one executive admitted in the Harvard study.

While companies' wariness about engaging on social media platforms due to the perceived risks associated is understandable, they – especially consumer facing brands – must accept the reality: they can’t control attacks on their brand anymore. The companies that understand this fact and adapt will set themselves apart from their competitors and be more successful as conflicts arise. It is definitely better for a company to be involved in the conversation, than to let it happen unmonitored and unanswered.

You may not win everyone over in the process, but you will be respected for being transparent and tackling difficult issues.

Nestle Waters Twitter

Companies like Unilever, Nestlé Waters and Walmart have begun to forge shared solutions to the challenges that face not only the public, but also private corporations in the 21st century. There will always be criticism of the private sector, but companies must use social media as an opportunity to help communicate more directly. Show that its values align with those of many different stakeholders, even those with whom it may not agree.

About the Author:

Danna Pfahl is the VP of Stakeholder Engagement, supporting the development of strategic stakeholder relationships and core programmatic work at Future 500. She has a background in environmental policy and coalition building, working with Oxfam America, Global Exchange, Amnesty International and a handful of SF-based political consulting firms on environmental and social issues.

After working at the grassroots level, Pfahl wanted to explore ways to work within corporations in order to understand the hurdles and areas of potential alignment with the activist community. She currently works directly with some of the largest utilities and consumer brands in the country to advance market based approaches to environmental problems.

Prime
Off
Newsletter Sent
Off

ArcelorMittal abandons plans to build new plant in India

Primary Category
Content

ArcelorMittal, the world’s largest steel producer, has scrapped its project for a plant in Orissa state, eastern India, mainly because its attempts to acquire the necessary land have been continually obstructed.

The company, which makes about 6% of the world’s steel, had signed an agreement in December 2006 to build a $12bn (£7.8bn, €9.1bn) complex. Annual steel production from the site was due to reach about 12 million tonnes.

However, farmers whose land would have been taken voiced strong objections and complained they were being expected to sell at below the market rate.

ArcelorMittal’s offers to purchase hit legal blocks, and repeated approaches to R.K. Singh, the steel and mines minister, received no response. Another obstacle was the company’s failure to obtain a licence to mine iron ore at the site for use in its steel production.

ArcelorMittal’s pull-out troubled some senior figures. The Orissa Congress president Niranjan Patnaik protested: “The government stands exposed by the withdrawal of the ArcelorMittal steel project. Its tall claim of pushing industrialisation in the state over the last 12 years has fallen flat as none of the major projects have taken off yet.”

Former industries minister K.V. Singhdeo accused the government of a lack of vision and blamed its refusal to welcome big projects for driving investors away from Orissa.

The ArcelorMittal decision came a day after the Korean manufacturer Posco dropped plans for a $5.3bn (£3.5bn, €4bn) steel plant in Karnataka state, southern India, because it too failed to acquire the land and to obtain permission for iron ore mining.

Despite its disappointment, ArcelorMittal is continuing with two other factory projects in Karnataka and Jharkand state, located in eastern India.

The stubbornness of the Orissa farmers whose land was eyed by ArcelorMittal did not surprise Nitya Rao, professor of gender and management at the University of East Anglia international development school.

Rao recalls that Orissa has a recent history of rights activism, making its citizens more aware of injustice.

Large companies wishing to start up in India have always tried to obtain land on the cheap, she told Ethical Performance.

She wondered why corporations were prepared to spend heavily on building factories and to make deals with the government but would not offer, say, an extra $2m to the people whose land they took.

“They feel they can browbeat the poor,” she said. “These people have always had a bad deal.”

Another problem for farmers being displaced by industrial development was that many did not own their land and had no rights over it. 

Professor Rao called for a clearer law on land rights in India. 

Prime
Off
Newsletter Sent
Off

The challenge of making a stand for change

Primary Category
Content

When Shakespeare’s Juliet poses the question, “What’s in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet” she is alluding to the fact that what matters is what something is, and not what it is called. In the responsible business model what that something is has a heightened importance and in our brand oriented 21st century, what it is called is pretty important too.

I recently came across a story about a high school sports team in the US which has recently changed its name, a name that had been part of the local area’s DNA since 1926. The school in question, located in the northwest corner of Washington State, dropped the nickname ‘Redskins’, following similar moves by other districts to drop offensive names.

What I found interesting was that the school board made this decision despite overwhelming public opposition to the idea. The majority, it seemed, saw no harm in the moniker. (And of course the professional team, the Washington Redskins NFL franchise, is still the second most valuable club in the USA today.)

The story reminded me of the time when I was studying Ibsen’s Enemy of the People in which the lead character, Dr Thomas Stockmann, on discovering a huge community health risk, is shocked to find that he is not listened to. It always shocks me too to think that ‘the majority is not always right’, having been brought up on a diet of community and the basic principles of democracy.

One of the memorable quotes from the play is “the strongest man in the world is the man who stands most alone” which could describe the modern day whistleblower (depending on your viewpoint). Margaret Heffernan, the writer and business woman, knows a lot about whistleblowers. In her book, Wilful Blindness (which, by the way, I heartily recommend), she talks to quite a few to find out what drove them to stand up and be counted. She also calls them Cassandras – based on the Greek mythology of Cassandra who had the gift of prophecy but also cursed by Apollo to never be believed.

I was lucky enough to hear Heffernan talk at the Institute of Business Ethics’ summer event a few weeks ago. Both passionate and logical, she is an inspiring figure. She found that what all the female whisteblowers she met had in common was that they had grown up in small neighbourhoods/towns where there is a sense of “oh goodness, there’s trash in that vacant lot, better pick it up. There’s that sense that your actions matter. What you do matters.”

Another woman who helped inspire an audience in recent weeks about businesses making a difference, was actress Joanna Lumley. Perhaps in a lighter vein, but just as passionate, Lumley - a keen supporter of responsible business - was a co-host at the recent Business in the Community Responsible Business Awards. Admittedly she was preaching to the converted but her enthusiasm and her verve could not be reined in. Speaking about businesses being responsible and being sustainable, she advocated that businesses be “reckless”: “You know it’s the right thing. Just do it!”

liz.jones@ethicalperformance.com
 

Prime
Off
Newsletter Sent
Off

Governments need to heed call for action over bribery

Primary Category
Content

More than half the 114,000 people in 107 countries interviewed in a Transparency International survey believed corruption had spread during the past two years.

At the same time participants were convinced they could make a difference, and about 90% said they would act against graft.

The interviewers for Transparency International’s Global Corruption Barometer 2013, the world’s largest public opinion survey on corruption, found 27% of respondents had paid bribes when accessing public services and institutions in the past 12 months.

By contrast, two-thirds of those asked for bribe money had refused.

The extent of the corruption was reflected in findings that in many countries the institutions that should fight crime are not trusted.

Citizens in 36 countries viewed the police as the most corrupt institution, and in those countries 53% of people had been asked by the police for bribes.

People in 20 countries considered the judiciary was the most corrupt institution, and 30% of those dealing with the judicial systems there had been asked for bribes.

In 51 countries political parties were seen as the most corrupt institutions, and 55% of respondents there thought their governments were run by special interests.

Huguette Labelle, chair of Transparency International, said: “Governments need to take this cry against corruption from their citizenry seriously and respond with concrete action to elevate transparency and accountability.

“Strong leadership is needed from the G20 governments in particular. In the 17 countries surveyed in the G20, 59% of respondents said their government is not doing a good job at fighting corruption.”

Transparency International recommended politicians to lead by example by publishing asset declarations for themselves and their families. The political parties and their candidates were asked to disclose the source of their money and reveal potential conflicts of interest.

Public reaction, said the report, suggested that businesses, civil society and governments should engage more with citizens to beat corruption.

Labelle said: “Governments need to make sure that there are strong, independent and well-resourced institutions to prevent and redress corruption.

Too many people are harmed when these core institutions and basic services are undermined by the scourge of corruption.”
  

Prime
Off
Newsletter Sent
Off