Search

Higher supermarket prices for eco-friendly palm oil could help save endangered species, according to University of East Anglia (UEA) research.

Palm oil is used by the food industry as a cheap substitute for butter. But the conversion of tropical forests to oil palm plantations has had a devastating impact on a huge number of plant and animal species including tigers, elephants, rhinos and orang-utans.

The new research reveals that a willingness among consumers to pay more for sustainably-grown palm oil would incentivise producers to engage with conservation projects.

Lead researcher Prof Ian Bateman, from UEA’s School of Environmental Sciences, said: “International governments have failed to stem the environmental damage caused by oil palm plantations. We wanted to find a new way of halting biodiversity loss that actually becomes profitable for private companies.”

An international research team of economists and ecologists looked for ways to make conservation profitable. The research was led by UEA, in collaboration with the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), the University of Vermont (US) and the World Wildlife Fund (US).

They focused on Sumatra – an Indonesian island and biodiversity hot-spot which has seen tropical forests replaced with plantations, resulting in a rapid decline of species.

The research team carried out biodiversity surveys across palm plantations, nurseries, forest and cleared land in central Sumatra. They also obtained access to company financial records to see how setting aside land for conservation affects biodiversity and company costs.

The research shows that the location of conservation areas had a major effect upon both the effect on wildlife and the impact on company profits. By taking both of these factors into consideration the researchers identified areas which provide the best balance between promoting biodiversity and reducing costs to companies.

Prof Bateman said: “Consumers’ willingness to pay for sustainably grown palm oil has the potential to incentivise private producers enough to engage in conservation activities. This would support vulnerable ‘Red List’ species.

“Combining all of these findings together allows us to harness the power of the market and identify locations where cost-effective and even profitable conservation can take place."

Prof Brendan Fisher, of the University of Vermont’s Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, said: “We face two potentially opposing forces. One is increasing demand for food, fiber and fuel products across the globe. The other is the absolute imperative to stop the loss of biodiversity from the planet. This work here shows how important it is for industry and scientists to work together and find potential win-wins, or at least to mitigate the trade-offs between conservation and agricultural production."

 

 

Picture credit: Dreamstime.com

At this year's Sustainable Brands conference in San Diego we were challenged by Janssen Pharmaceuticals to ask leaders at the conference what the word "innovation" meant to them. Then, more specifically, we asked how innovation may or may not drive advancements in sustainability. We got a terrific range of responses which we've got documented in a series of short video interviews. You can follow along here.

In this interview, Ron Cotterman of Sealed Air shares his answers:

Although women make up nearly half of the workforce, several metrics indicate that a gender gap persists, but is narrowing over time. Qualified women are often passed up for promotions and make 84 cents on average for every dollar a man earns.

"There are many talented women from diverse backgrounds and experiences that have a great deal to contribute," says Alice Korngold, president of Korngold Consulting and author of the book, "A Better World, Inc.: How Companies Profit by Solving Global Problems...Where Governments Cannot."

"The world needs all the great people to contribute in various ways, especially as we are looking to tackle important social, economic, environmental issues," she continued. "We can’t leave out half of the population. We want to include all the people that we want to contribute."

Many organizations are missing out on women reaching their full potential by hindering their contribution. What can aware men do to remove leadership hurdles for women in the workplace? Certainly raising awareness is one of the first and most important steps, and a recent campaign is designed to address this.

The HeForShe initiative was developed by women to engage men and boys as advocates and is full of answers in what it refers to as a "solidarity movement for gender equality." The program seeks to raise awareness of global issues and creates a call to action. As of the writing of this post, 322,000 people have taken the HeForShe commitment globally.

A one-year pilot initiative called the HeForShe Impact 10x10x10 engages 10 governments, 10 universities and 10 corporations across the globe to drive top-down change. PwC is a founding Impact corporate champion. The company is asking all its people to join the movement, and it aspires to have  80,000 staff members join over the next three years.

It is encouraging to see such workplace initiatives, as corporate cultures often don't consistently support women's advancement. Aware men can serve as major assets in the advancement of women. Despite the narrowing gender gap, women may still be considered to be riskier appointments for certain roles.

"Another important step to removing barriers is for aware men to speak up, especially around other men," says Korngold. "In groups of decision-makers that are discussing promotions and salaries, men can say, 'Excuse me, we just talked about the three men that are in line for a promotion, but we didn’t talk about the two women.'"

Ultimately, corporate culture needs to change to harness the full potential of women, which is not a quick fix. Many organizations are not flexible enough to offer women the work-life balance they may seek. The needs of women in the workplace vary and may not be met by many corporations, especially if women choose to have families.

"The problem is that some women in my generation opted out of working when their children were younger because there weren’t many good options that made it possible to balance career and family," says Korngold. "When they’ve tried to get back into the workplace, it’s been difficult to enter in a position that is suitable.”

Sponsorship is another tool for narrowing the gender gap and can help qualified women advance and achieve what they might not have otherwise. Although it sounds similar to mentorship, where advice and feedback are shared, there is one key distinction: Sponsors use their influence with powerful people to encourage advancement.

Korngold explains: "Sponsoring, not just mentoring, women involves using influence and relationships to create opportunities for women of all backgrounds to access jobs. When you are introducing the right person for the right job, the employer might consider highly qualified candidates that wouldn’t otherwise be considered. The person you recommend might then get the job, because they are qualified."

Korngold is not alone in her assertion. A Harvard Business Review article states, "Our interviews and surveys alike suggest that high-potential women are over-mentored and under-sponsored relative to their male peers — and that they are not advancing in their organizations. Furthermore, without sponsorship, women not only are less likely than men to be appointed to top roles but may also be more reluctant to go for them."

Certainly mentoring programs can be helpful, but they're not a replacement for a sponsor. Some workplace programs match high-potential women with qualified sponsors to assist them in reaching their potential. It is especially helpful to have sponsors trained in gender-related and leadership issues, and to continue sponsoring women as they transition to new positions for a few months to boost their effectiveness.

Organizations that successfully remove hurdles in women's leadership can gain a strategic advantage by having greater access to talent. "Employers would be smart to offer better options to women who are trying to balance work and family," says Korngold. "That way, they could attract and retain some of the most highly capable people in the marketplace."

Image credit: /Fanzango

When the CEO of Royal Dutch Shell talks up the importance of renewable energy as part of the globe’s future power mix, one might wonder what that’s about.

Has Ben van Beurden finally seen the light, powered by things other than fossil fuels? It’s possible he is thinking about the future in a way that’s perhaps more refreshing than simply rhetorical. Or not.

Speaking this month at an OPEC’s 167th meeting in Vienna, van Beurden said traditional energy sources should integrate and work together with clean technologies to provide sustainable and economically-sensible power for the future.

An article in Blue & Green Tomorrow quoted van Beurden as saying, “In a world where, as we heard recently, Saudi Arabia has ambitions to become a ‘global power in solar and wind energy’, the vision of a long-term future powered in the main by renewables is one none of us can ignore. It’s also a vision I would encourage all OPEC members to take seriously. Not least because I believe twenty years from now, if we don’t act, global public opinion will be unforgiving.”

He also said the global system is transitioning from coal to a low-carbon model, where natural gas, renewables, and carbon capture and storage play a key role.

According to the International Energy Agency, as the world’s population increases, energy demand will rise by 40 percent, he continued. Meanwhile, the challenges posed by climate change will require a drastic reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. “In essence, we need to provide more energy, with far fewer emissions, [and] to tackle poverty and climate change at the same time,” he said.

Shell is among the major energy firms — in Europe at least — that have called for a strong climate agreement ahead of United Nations talks in Paris later this year. In a letter published in the Financial Times, CEOs of European major energy firms called for an effective carbon pricing system.

Van Beurden also said, “The energy transition is not about one system replacing another. It’s about finding a way of integrating the old and the new systems. The two evolving alongside each other – and complementing each other.

“The final thing we need to do – and by ‘we’ I mean governments, business and civil society – is to learn to work better together.”

But probably, and crucially, without the cooperation of U.S. oil majors, according to a recent Bloomberg article. ExxonMobil and Chevron Corporation put the kibosh on the prospect of joining their European counterparts in forging a common stance on climate change, with ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson saying he doesn’t intend to “fake it.”

Whatever that means. But did you expect anything different from Exxon and Chevron? And are van Beurden’s statements more than, as Hamlet says, “Words, words, words” playing to a largely inattentive audience?

Image credit: Shell Oil Vintage Sign by Karen Blaha via Flickr CC

General Mills announced earlier this month that it is investing $50,000 in the Canada-based Prairie Organic Grain Initiative (POGI), a multi-year program with the goal of building resiliency and stability in the organic field-crop sector. The primary focus of POGI is to address the shortage of organic grain growers through programs designed to attract conventional growers to transition to organic farming.

The reason why General Mills is investing in POGI is in “pursuit of further enhancing the quality and availability of organic grains by 2018,” Tom Rabaey, principle scientist and agronomist at General Mills, told Triple Pundit. He added that POGI “represents a unified effort to increase access to organic grains for General Mills.” He described the program as a “collaborative effort bringing together several public organic organizations and companies to consolidate efforts and make meaningful change.”

Earlier this year, the company announced that it will almost double its natural and organic sales by 2020. Jeff Harmening, executive vice president and CEO of General Mills, told investors that the company’s goal is to “build a $1 billion natural and organic business by 2020.” He pointed out that consumer interest in natural and organic products is expected to drive double-digit industry sales growth over the next five years.

The U.S. organic food market is expected to grow by 14 percent from 2013 to 2018, according to a 2014 report titled "United States Organic Food Market Forecast & Opportunities, 2018."

General Mills has grown its natural and organic brands since 2000 by acquiring brands such as Cascadian Farm, Muir Glen, LÄRABAR, Food Should Taste Good, Immaculate Baking, Liberté and Mountain High. Last year, General Mills acquired Annie’s, making it the fourth-largest U.S. natural and organic food producer and among the top five organic ingredient purchasers in the North American packaged foods sector.

Investing in POGI is part of General Mills' commitment to organics. Or as Rabaey said, the company is “committed to continuing to expand our natural and organic business and we believe this program is a significant step in securing the pipeline of natural and organic ingredients we’ll need."

As consumer interest grows in organic farming and as General MIlls grows its organic business, it needs organic ingredients to meet its customers’ needs, Rabaey pointed out. “By investing in this initiative and partnering with like-minded organizations, we are ensuring a long-term sustainable supply,” he said. “This is only the beginning in our journey to build our capabilities and pave the way for General Mills to become an industry leader in natural and organic.”

Image credit: Flickr/jayneandd

With an increasing number of U.S. farmers turning toward non-genetically modified crops, bioengineering giant Monsanto seems to be looking for a new home -- and a new investment.

The GMO pioneer has renewed efforts to purchase the Swiss chemical company, Syngenta, for some months with a takeover offer that could conceivably help the media-embattled company expand its global reach. It's offered to pay $45 billion for the merger that would see it claim ownership to a host of agribusiness, farm and garden products sold in the U.S. and abroad, and reduce its competition in the agrichemical sector.

And it would give the American corporation a makeover of sorts, by allowing it to open a new, potentially stronger company in the United Kingdom. Recent offers by U.K. Chancellor George Osborne to lower the U.K.'s corporate tax to 20 percent has elicited interest from the corporation, which continues to be faced with a wary consumer base and a U.S. corporate tax rate of more than 30 percent.

But so far, Syngenta stockholders aren't biting. At the top of their concerns, it seems, are the "regulatory risks" that go along with creating a company that challenges anti-trust laws and would require Monsanto to likely sell off portions of its competitor, but could ultimately solidify the new company's hold in the soybean market.

To garner interest, it has offered Syngenta $45 billion, or 43 percent premium on stock value. It's also attempted to sweeten the pot by offering a $2 billion "break-up fee" if the merger should not go through.

But this week the corporation faces new challenges as well. Should the sale and move to the U.K. go through, it will be facing a ban on its star product Roundup at its closest border. On Sunday June 14, France's Ecology Minister Segolene Royal banned the sale of Roundup in response to environmental groups who expressed concern about United Nations statements that it may be carcinogenic.

It isn't the first time that France has taken steps to block the sale of GM products on its soil. In March 2014, France banned the sale of Monsanto 810 corn, which has also been banned in other European countries.

But Monsanto's admission that it is looking to move to the U.K. is telling in other quarters as well. With the increased scrutiny and criticism by the U.S. federal government of companies like Google and Microsoft, which have opted to place their tax base outside of the U.S., Monsanto's announcement indicates that it is less concerned about its image and more concerned about its business. And as Monsanto no doubt knows, those two issues often go together. Apparently, it's also less concerned about the new federal rules that govern such inversions, which may be just the kind of regulatory twists and turns that have dampened the enthusiasm of Syngenta stockholders.

Image of Monsanto President, Chair and CEO Hugh Grant: Mortiz Hager/World Economic Forum

Image of Syngenta field: AnRo0002

Image of Operation BumbleBee, Syngenta: Kate Jewell

When it comes to communications, perhaps worse than preaching to the choir is being preachy. Period. This is true whether you’re communicating about sustainability or your product or service. No one wants to be sold to or patronized, so why not lighten it up with a little humor?

This was the focus of the FunnyBizz Conference on June 11 in San Francisco. If you can’t tell from the name, the event featured amusing presenters making the case for humor in your workplace, in your branding and in your life.

It seems like a no-brainer that people would prefer to work in offices with fun environments, but it’s by no means largely reflected in work culture. According to Andrew Tarvin of Humor That Works, 81 percent of employees say a fun workplace would make them more productive. Startups caught on to this but took it to a laughable (not in the good way level) with all the perceived fun; colorful offices filled with pool tables, bean bag chairs, branded hoodies and Instagrammed dogs exist mostly to distract employees from how bummed they are that they never get to go home. But it is evidence that the new wave of business has caught on to this inherent desire for “fun” in workplace culture. Tarvin also noted that 97 percent of professionals believe it’s important that managers have a sense of humor and 98 percent of CEOs prefer job candidates with a sense of humor.

These high percentages are promising but only a small percentage of people likely think they have managers or employees with senses of humor at all, let alone ones that don’t make them cringe (see dad humor). As a result, some of the most cathartic laughs come from making fun of office boredom and lame office culture. On her blog The Cooper Review, Sarah Cooper recently published a widely shared post titled, “10 Tricks to Appear Smart in Meetings.” She attributes its success to the adage, “it’s funny because it’s true.” What I personally appreciate is that instead of just writing about annoying things people do in meetings, she frames it as tips to appear smart, thereby making it light and amusing rather than snarky and mean-spirited.

We’re a naturally playful species (case in point: your childhood), so who decided we had to put “work” and “play” in two separate buckets? Probably the same people who decided that brands should make you feel badly about yourself, and then swoop in and save you from your ensuing self-destruction.

Jonah Sachs, co-founder and creative director of Free Range Studios, reminded us how brands used to position themselves as heroes with products that would improve you, but that paradigm is no longer relevant. In the words of comedian Rita Rudner, “There’s nothing funny about a confident person who’s doing well.” We all want to see the underdogs succeed so brands should clue into that and in so doing, they’ll uncover more opportunities to use humor.

But what if you think your brand is too serious or important to use humor? DJ O’Neill, CEO of Hub Strategy & Communication, will ask you if your business involves the possibility of your customers crashing to their deaths from 40,000 feet. And even if it does, he’ll tell you that’s no excuse to avoid humor. Virgin America is a perfect example of a brand that takes risks and wins people over. The company even uses humor in the one piece of content that’s technically the most risky - the safety video. Their original video acknowledged that airline passengers tune out these uninspired information dumps because, well, seen one, seen them all … until this one. It entertained, amused and put itself in our jaded shoes. The fact that they’ve released another innovative safety video to six million online views — not on-plane views — is proof that their approach is working.

As presenter Kathy Klotz-Guest suggested, “safe is the new risky.” So here are a few tips from the FunnyBizz Conference speakers to help you lighten up your brand:

• Mash It Up: Combine two things that are unexpected and people will be amused. Sarah Cooper likes to say, “Boring + Exciting = Funny.” She puts this into practice with her entertaining piece, “If Your Coworkers Were Rappers.” Dan Ilic, an Australian comedian working for Al Jazeera Plus (AJ+), also uses this formula to bring attention to social issues, like in this parody video featuring Guantanamo prisoner David Hicks on an episode of MTV’s Cribs.


• Play With Contrast: Incongruities can be funny. If you understand the norm, how can you invert it? Jason Miller, LinkedIn’s Senior Manager of Global Content Marketing, Marketing Solutions, likes to play in this space. Prior to LinkedIn he worked at Marketo at a time when companies were all about releasing white papers to drive lead generation. Instead of joining the ranks, Miller took the unexpected route and co-created the “Big Marketing and Advertising Activity Coloring Book,” proving that humor works in B2B marketing, too.


• Hire Professionals: Most importantly, don’t try this yourself! Sharp wit is a weapon that requires practice and skill; if used improperly, you can impale yourself on it (like I did right there). Hire pros like the FunnyBizz speakers to do the job right and learn from them along the way.

Renewable energy advocates got a shot of encouragement this past week when Amazon Web Services (AWS) – the world's largest provider of cloud computing-data center services – announced it will invest in what is to be Virginia's largest solar energy farm.

Responding to calls for it to power its cloud data centers with renewable energy, AWS announced it would craft and follow through on a plan to power all of them with 100 percent renewable energy. However, AWS management didn't offer up any target dates, and it hasn't been forthcoming with data regarding its energy usage or progress being made to achieve this goal, clean energy and environmental groups say.

AWS should do more, and it should be transparent about its energy usage and progress, they contend. Nonprofit organization Green America on June 11 launched an online campaign to raise the heat on AWS management to do just that.

Cleaning up AWS' dirty cloud

Internet and cell network data traffic continues to grow rapidly as use of mobile devices, access to wireless broadband services and machine-to-machine (M2M) connections proliferates. Coincidentally, more businesses are turning to third-party cloud data center operators such as Akamai, AWS, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft to host and manage their information and communications technology (ICT) infrastructure. As a result, the power needs of cloud-data center operators is rising rapidly as well, even as energy efficiency improves significantly.

The decisions regarding the type of energy consumed in cloud data centers will go a long way towards determining the mix of energy sources economies and societies rely on for decades to come. Meanwhile, the social and environmental, as well as strictly economic, costs of fossil fuel energy use are rising fast and becoming increasingly apparent. In spite of this, government subsidies are benefiting fossil fuel companies to the tune of a “shocking” $5.3 trillion, more than all the governments in the world spend on health care, according to a recently released study from the IMF.

Virginia is home to more AWS cloud-data centers than any other U.S. state. Though significant, AWS' decision to partner with Community Energy in developing the 80-megawatt solar farm in Accomack County on Virginia's eastern shore will meet only a small percentage of AWS' cloud/data center power needs in the state, much less across the U.S. and worldwide.

“No one should have to choose between using the Internet or protecting the planet,” Green America writes in launching its “Amazon: Build a cleaner cloud” online campaign.

Grassroots consumer campaigns put pressure on cloud-data center operators

Green America works to foster socially and environmentally responsible economic growth in part by organizing grassroots campaigns that enlist consumers in putting pressure on businesses to enact changes in line with these core values. Having worked on climate change issues for several years, Green America is extending its efforts by zooming in on the impacts of energy usage on the part of the world's largest cloud data center operators, Green America campaign director, Elizabeth O'Connell, explained in an interview.

"Amazon.com's Amazon Web Services (AWS) servers are some of the largest and dirtiest in the industry,” Green America highlights on in its online campaign launch page. “While other major technology firms have established data centers powered by renewable energy, like wind and solar, Amazon continues to build data centers in areas where coal and natural gas are the dominant power sources. The burning of these fossil fuels increases the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to climate change.”

"The environmental, and health, impacts of cloud-data centers are growing larger and larger every day. As the largest provider of cloud services, AWS needs to be held accountable and responsible" for the decisions it makes regarding energy supplies and usage," O'Connell said.

"AWS is dragging its feet with regarding its renewable energy commitment and overall transparency," she continued. "Google, Facebook and Apple have made strong renewable energy commitments. AWS has made a strong long-term commitment as well, but it has not set any firm date, and it hasn't been transparent when it comes to disclosing data regarding its energy usage."

Green America is calling on AWS to power all its cloud data centers entirely from renewable energy sources by 2020. "We think this is a reasonable time frame," O'Connell explained. "Apple has proven that it's possible to be 100 percent reliant on renewable energy sources today."

In announcing plans to build the Virginia solar farm, AWS, for its part, said it expects that 40 percent of all cloud-data center power needs will be met by renewable energy sources by the end of 2016. Management added that renewable energy sources already meet 25 percent of the power needs of its global infrastructure.

Earlier this year, AWS announced that it is investing in a wind power farm in Benton County, Indiana, capable of generating 500,000 megawatt-hours of clean, renewable energy per year.

*Image credits: 1), 3) Green America; 2) Amazon Web Services (AWS)

The Environmental Protection Agency took its first steps toward regulating the greenhouse gas emissions that escape airplane engines and pollute the atmosphere. The EPA intends to update the Clean Air Act, which was first introduced in 1963, to include jurisdiction limiting the emissions from these plane engines.

This “endangerment finding” as the report puts it, proves that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are exiting the airplane's engines and entering the earth’s atmosphere. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, gas emissions from aircrafts account for 11 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. transportation sources and 3 percent of the country’s total CO2 emissions. Airplanes also emit water vapor at high altitudes, birthing clouds that produce heat and further global warming. With aircraft emissions expected to triple by 2050 if there’s no legislation to curb the vertically-growing industry, airplanes could conceivably ruin lives and dramatically speed up global warming.

Regulating emissions from airplanes is no new topic for environmental activists. Seven years ago, the Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth issued a petition against the EPA, calling for the country’s biggest protection agency to revise the Clean Air Act to include airplane emissions. The complaint went unanswered, but Earthjustice, an environmental law agency, pushed the absence of legislation and filed a lawsuit on the EPA. In 2011, a judge ruled that the EPA was legally permitted to start the process for crafting the regulations. Yet, three years after the judge’s ruling the EPA were still silent on the issue: until now.

Even with the opportunity to right its wrong from ignoring environmental activism calling for airplane emission regulation for years, the EPA failed to woo any organizations with its announcement that airplanes’ gas emission is, indeed, dangerous to human life. Instead of announcing its intent to immediately take action and create a standard for the regulation, the EPA deferred to a U.N. agency consumed by the issue.

The International Civil Aviation Organization, the Canadian-based U.N. specialization group dubbed with setting the standard, has been scrutinized for not delivering regulations on international airplane emission, despite trying since 1997. The group’s proven ineffectiveness in such a relevant field had a number of environmental organizations disappointed with the EPA’s decision to delegate its work to the group. Vera Pardee, an attorney for Center for Biological Diversity, told ThinkProgress that the ICAO standards will likely only be applicable to new aircrafts, which would target a predicted 5 percent of the world’s total airplane fleet by 2030.

While the EPA can take the backseat for the meantime, they can’t run and hide from the issue altogether. The protection agency will have to team up with the Federal Aviation Administration to draft standards. Although the two groups would face few limits, the EPA and FAA are required to set standards that don’t decrease safety or increase noise. The Supreme Court is on the EPA’s side: proving its support of the agencies’ power to regulate greenhouse gases as long as it determines those emissions dangerous to public health.

The EPA is expected to finish the endangerment finding next year which could be significant if the finding proves aircraft’s significant contribution to the carbon footprint. If it’s a positive endangerment finding, the EPA would be legally bound to writing emission regulations. Environmental activists hope the EPA will take further action than ICAO’s anticipated plan to only apply carbon changes to newly designed aircrafts.

Coverage from POLITICO said the aircraft rules could take years to write, and could face heavy opposition from airline industry lobbyists. The move to limit gas emissions from airplanes would greatly change the landscape of airline carriers, likely costing the industry billions of dollars in updating and maintaining the new energy-efficient engines.

While it will likely take a while for us to see the progress made from EPA’s discovery, it’s progress nonetheless and puts the world one step closer to improvement of air quality. The study and proposed changes would only apply to commercial aircrafts and wouldn’t apply to military carriers, turboprop planes or helicopters.

Image credit: Flickr/Andrew Malone

Allegations of corporate wrongdoing over the past 15 years have almost never resulted in companies being held accountable, a new analysis of cases has found.

OECD Watch's Remedy Remains Rare examines 250 complaints brought by communities, individuals and organizations under the national contact point (NCP) system, a grievance mechanism established by OECD governments in 2000. The system aims to resolve disputes between companies and the victims of environmental, labour, and human rights violations, which include deaths, injuries, displacements, land and natural resource theft, corruption, intimidation and pollution.

“The complaint process has tremendous potential to help advance corporate responsibility, but it is currently failing in its mandate. Far too many complaints are rejected outright, and of those accepted, the vast majority do not result in outcomes that end corporate misconduct, provide victims with remedies for harms incurred, or bring about changes to corporate behaviour,” said Dr. Joseph Wilde-Ramsing, coordinator of OECD Watch, the global network of more than 100 civil society groups and non-governmental organisations.

As governments gather in Paris for the OECD Global Forum on Responsible Business Conduct, OECD Watch is asking for a revision of the procedural guidance governing national contact points in order to bring about specific improvements to the way they execute their duties.

“We are calling on governments to strengthen their commitment to this system and to bolster its capacity,” Wilde-Ramsing added.

The network’s research found that the complaint system is often inaccessible for community groups due to procedures that add unnecessary complexity and expense. National contact points (NCP) often insist upon burdensome amounts of evidence and apply unreasonable standards of proof, even at early stages in the process. Also, many NCPs are viewed as lacking independence and impartiality, and operate without sufficient transparency, the report says.

Access the full study here.
 

Picture credit: © Bacho12345 | Dreamstime.com - Businessman On Meeting Is Commenting Document Photo