8.31.2010

Another non-environmental wonder

Thanks to Casper ter Kuile, I now know Seth Godin is capable of delivering a total gem--and one that's actually good. Here he spotlights the faulty logic behind deflecting responsibility within organisations:


"Corporations don't have a conscience, people do. That means that every time you say, "It's just my job," or "My department has a policy," or "All I do is work here," what you've done is abdicated responsibility--to no one."

Thank you, Seth Godin. You have added [some] light to a day that would otherwise be filled with pithy, antagonistic looks towards the policy and investment communities. Not to mention glares cast upon the reams of unintentional satire that continue to coast unabated into my inbox. Like this.

Gem of the day

Incredible.

8.29.2010

Gem of the day

In the latest installment of The Corporate Thought Leadership Wars, I discovered the Philips CR microsite today: Because Better Cities Make Better Lives. It's clearly a direct response to IBM's Smarter Planet initiative--which I love--in which Smarter Cities feature prominently.

Both initiatives are highly commendable. They represent an excellent use of corporate resources--read: core products and services, in this case technological expertise and tools--to tackle global challenges. But they're essentially redundant. And sorry Philips, but IBM was first. Let's see some intra-industry collaboration already. The next decade will require a superhero approach to leveraging corporate resources to make smarter, better cities, not competing thought leadership.

8.27.2010

Bonus gem

Wait for it:

"“I said: ‘What the hell do you mean you’ve lost the cofferdam? How did you lose it? Don’t give me that!’ ” Mr. Lynch, a BP vice president and a leader of the effort to kill the well, recalled. “This thing has taken off like a damn balloon.""

Thank you, New York Times.

Gem of the day

In the latest installation of BP: Beyond Preposterous, we get this gem delivered today:

"BP Executives Say They Didn't Know Who Had Control of Oil Rig Before Blast"

Truly extraordinary. Can you say, lack of risk management? I don't know what's worse, the potential for this to be misconstrued testimony or the potential for it to actually be true.

Here's what they said:

"Kent Wells, a BP senior vice president who started working on the oil-spill response two days after it began, told a federal panel yesterday he never looked into who might have been at fault because he was focused on controlling the well. Another manager, David Sims, said he failed to read an e-mail about cementing procedures because it was difficult to see on his Blackberry."

8.26.2010

Gem of the day

Having just been exposed to this underwhelming wonder, I propose a full ban on the corporate use of 'eco' to describe environmentally friendly products.

Thanks in advance.

8.25.2010

Gem of the day

Remember when BP was removed from the Dow Jones Sustainability Index in June? Here's the reasoning, according to a press release from DJSI, behind the action:

"The extent of the oil-spill catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico and its foreseeable long-term effects
on the environment and the local population – in addition to the economic effects and the longterm
damage to the reputation of the company – were included in the analysis leading up to
BP’s removal."

So 'damage to the reputation' factors in at the same level as 'long-term effects on the environment and the local population'? Can somebody please explain this to me?

8.24.2010

Another non-environmental wonder

Sarah Palin delivers us another phenomenal gem. And yes, that was a real 'tweet', briefly, before she deleted it.

Please note innovative melange of the words 'repudiate' and 'refute' into the masterpiece that is 'refudiate'.

8.23.2010

Gem of the day

The Wall Street Journal wow us--again, I should add--with a phenomenon of an article. I'll let the title speak for itself:

"The Case Against Social Corporate Responsibility"

So you can get an idea of the level of depth we're dealing with, here's the introductory sentence:

"Can companies do well by doing good? Yes—sometimes."

Sounds good! So what's the thesis of his 'case' against CSR?

"Very simply, in cases where private profits and public interests are aligned, the idea of corporate social responsibility is irrelevant: Companies that simply do everything they can to boost profits will end up increasing social welfare."

Nice and simple. I can see the linear correlation of the graph now: economic growth = increased human well-being. Sounds great. The author moves on to cite various harmonies of profit-seeking business and social welfare--the usual suspects of energy efficiency, fuel-efficient vehicles, healthy food--and delivers this whopper based on his narrow selection of evidence:

"It is the relentless maximization of profits, not a commitment to social responsibility, that has proved to be a boon to the public in these cases."

And therefore:

"Still, the fact is that while companies sometimes can do well by doing good, more often they can't. Because in most cases, doing what's best for society means sacrificing profits."

His solution? Government regulation, with 'self-regulation' as an alternative. It's been awhile since I've read something in a major news outlet that is not only this reprehensible, but also fundamentally illogical and ignorant. If we're going to reduce the idea of CSR to a simple business proposition, it's certainly not a 'financial calculation'--it's managing short and long-term risks.

These are risks that every shareholder faces because, at the end of the day, every shareholder is also a stakeholder. It's about the health risks of pollution and poorly manged corporate supply chains. It's about justice and equity in the developing world--and the developed world, for that matter, as anyone who's ever paid a wee visit to, say, Detroit, would know--it's about the risks to delivering core products posed by declining ecosystem services. Etc. And, of course, it's about climate change.

When you realize that all corporations depend on the planet, and the many, many natural services it provides for free, to go about the very business this author is claiming is jeopardised by CSR 'obligations', you just have to laugh. Or cry.

Dear Wall Street Journal, please stop publishing pure B.S. coursing out of business schools that still teach business methods from the 1950s. Thanks!

Another non-environmental wonder

Billed as a "retirement party for John McCain," Hayworth's big applause line of the night was: "What we are saying is . . . Thank you for your service, Senator McCain. Welcome home to a well-deserved retirement."

Zing!

8.22.2010

Gem of the day

Today, The New York Times delivers us an unusually lengthy examination on reputation, disasters, and what it all means. Leaving aside obvious trepidation, fear and loathing at the idea of calling Deepwater Horizon a 'fiasco', which is what the article's title seems to suggest, here's what's going on. 

PR king Howard Rubinstein on the 'reputational impact' of disasters on BP, Toyota and Goldman Sachs this year:

"They were real reputational implosions...In all three cases, the companies found themselves under attack over the very traits that were central to their strong global brands and corporate identities.”

Christ. And here's the analysis the New York Times offers up to support this article:

"The calamities have served up a lifetime supply of case studies to be mined for lessons on best practices, as well as pitfalls to avoid when disaster arrives." 

So we have here two extraordinarily misguided points of view. Rubinstein delivers The Usual for his industry, entirely neglecting to examine the substance of the crisis itself, and The Times seems to suggest that we as the public and corporations themselves should expect disasters on the scale of Deepwater Horizon to happen occasionally.

Luckily it doesn't end here. The ingenious, sassy minds at The Times finally get around to asking this incredibly obvious question:


"Are some crises so dire that public relations victory is simply not on the menu? And, if so, what’s an embattled company to do?" 

Rather than take an opinion themselves--this is a newspaper, after all, fit to print 'only the finest' objectivity--at this point another 'expert' is summoned to weigh in. This time we get Eric Dezenhall, who--wait for it--worked as a communications strategist for Reagan. As The Times paraphrases, Dezenhall "argues that the standard playbook is useless when the facts are sufficiently distasteful. (He would know. He once represented Michael Jackson after allegations of child molestation.)"

Right. But he goes on to say the following: "The goal is not to get people not to hate them. It’s to get people to hate them less.” Cringe-worthy.

Here's where it really gets interesting, though. The Times takes us through a very bpgulfcsr.com inspired journey examining BP's environmental record in tandem with its Beyond Petroleum greenwash--oh sorry, I meant 'rebranding.' But time and time again, the article fails to capture the reality of the company's greenwashing and total disregard for compliance. 

In fact, by framing the article itself as an analysis of 'lessons learned' from BP in crisis management and crisis communications, The Times is simply contributing to the normalisation of the crisis as a modern corporate 'mistake' which has been vilified by the media and the public due to a series of PR 'missteps'. Last but not least, as a final gem to exemplify this failure, here's a 'parody' phrase The Times delivers:

"Mr. Hayward opened the gates to Sound-Bite Hell. Gangs of reporters deployed to the spill now had a cartoonish narrative to lean on, instead of the discomfiting mélange of scientific conjecture that had been their story before: Here was the evil corporation, headed by an unfeeling rich guy with a fancy accent (no matter that Mr. Hayward wasn’t born to wealth and attended none of Britain’s patrician schools)." 

8.20.2010

Another non-environmental wonder

Frank Rich serenades with this astounding flowery gem:

"To many progressives, Obama’s too-cool handling of the disaster was a confirmation of a fatal character flaw—a professorial passivity that induced him to prematurely surrender the sacred “public option” in the health care debate and to keep too many of his predecessor’s constitutional abridgements in place at home and at Gitmo."

If for some strange reason you're interested in reading more, it's here.

UBER GEM

Watch out: here it is, Lowcarboneconomy.com. Yes, that's right--a project by 'The Low Carbon Economy, Ltd'. More unintentional satire hitting us right in the face. And their slogan?

"Let's make it happen!"

Incredible. The site readily spotlights corporate partners who include--wait for it--Shell UK, of course. Not to mention other stalwarts of the CSR imposter scene, including Siemens. Good times.

So what is the site for, exactly? Let's examine their magical 'About Us' section:

"We are The Low Carbon Economy Ltd, a company established to help accelerate the transition to a resource efficient low carbon economy."

And what value do they bring to the sustainability scene?

"Our unique drive and resources together with more than 18-months of additional development have enabled us to create an exceptional company uniquely positioned to deliver a truly useful online resource which has the potential to help millions of people and businesses across the globe."

Wow, 18 months! That's a whole lot of low-carbon lovin' in a brief period of time.

So essentially the site regurgitates popular sustainability headlines from mainstream media sources, runs your standard incoherent discussion threads--my favorite is "BP to deep drill off Scotland!!!"--includes basic tips 'n' tactics--read: turn off that light when you're done reading your comics, buster--and last but not least, has already allowed itself to be co-oped by an oil industry 'partner'.

No further comment.

Bonus gem

A member of the Greenpeace climate team on current messages circulating in the policy arena:

"Low-carbon economy sounds f***ing tedious."

Gem of the day

ClimateCounts has released their annual scorecard, and guess who's on top? AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company which earned 79 points out of a possible 100.

Let's take a step back and review the methodology of the scorecard. Which industries does it cover? "An updated evaluation of 47 of the top companies in the pharmaceutical, home and office furnishing, toys and children’s equipment and large appliance sectors." Strange. How does measuring performance across these industries incentivize competition? Does a pharmaceutical company really care how an office furnishing company is doing on reducing their carbon footprint?

And then there's the criteria. "22 criteria that measure companies’ efforts to assess their own climate footprint, reduce their emissions, support (or block) progress on major climate legislation, and communicate their efforts to consumers." That's all? It's entirely based on carbon reduction numbers and corporate stated efforts to not lobby Congress, essentially.

Dubious.

8.19.2010

Gem of the day

Harken! The Future of Mobility has arrived. And it's...wait, what? The Ford Explorer? Ah yes, once again our friendly commentators at industry rag TriplePundit have delivered us a true gem--a celebration of the newly 'sustainable' Ford Explorer. The features? Truly a triumph of incremental innovation, and yes, this is their own incredibly vague language:

  • More recycled fiber in the interior
  • Recycled steel in certain exterior parts
  • Fuel economy at least 25 percent better than the current model
  • Sustainable materials like soy foam seat cushions
  • "Other eco-friendly features we will detail soon,” said Amy Marentic, group marketing manager
Amazing. But wait for the bonus gem, an unintentional reference to climate change:

"Soy foam is just the tip of the iceberg in the development of vehicle materials from natural resources,” said Debbie Mielewski, Ford polymer technical leader.

Another non-environmental wonder

 More revelations from the terrifying vortex that is American politics.

"A new national survey by the Pew Research Center finds that nearly one-in-five Americans (18%) now say Obama is a Muslim, up from 11% in March 2009. Only about one-third of adults (34%) say Obama is a Christian, down sharply from 48% in 2009. Fully 43% say they do not know what Obama's religion is."

And a bonus nugget of true delight:

"The Republican Party continues to be more widely viewed as friendly toward religion than the Democratic Party. However, both parties are facing declines in the percentages saying they are friendly to religion."

8.18.2010

Another non-environmental wonder

The best headlines of the New York Times today, file under the category 'because they can':

Bonus gem

Here's a thought: what does the twisted world of CSR reporting look like with more than 20% of the world on the Internet? 50%? 80%? 95%? What's original, what's redundant, and what actually matters?

To be continued...

Gem of the day

Don't miss it: an exclusive interview with Greta van Susteran of Fox News, husky huffer extraordinaire, and Sarah Palin. And not just Sarah Palin--her husband Todd too.

The subject? Flyin' over ANWR to determine, once and for all, if there's any nature worth saving there. Their conclusion? Guess.

VAN SUSTEREN: You know, Todd, it struck me that it's quite flat and there's not a lot of -- I didn't see a lot of animal life or anything. How far south is it like this? What's the terrain like?

SARAH PALIN, FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR, FOX CONTRIBUTOR: You can look about 60 miles south and still see what we're seeing right now. So yes, as Todd's suggesting, the fund-raiser pictures and the Web sites that show waterfalls and moose and mountain ranges and Dahl sheep climbing along shell (ph) -- that's not the real ANWR.

So just because there aren't charismatic glimpses of biodiversity, there's 'no animal life'? Right. I know what you're thinking: it can't get any better than that. But oh yes, it does. Witness:

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, let me -- let's -- let me compare for a second, though. If -- right now, there's drilling in Prudhoe Bay...
PALIN: Yes.
VAN SUSTEREN: ... in that area. That -- that's actively going on. That is on -- that's onshore.
PALIN: Right.
VAN SUSTEREN: And then there's some offshore.
PALIN: Right.
VAN SUSTEREN: But different from the Gulf of Mexico in that it's not very deep.
PALIN: Oh, different -- way different than the Gulf of Mexico, where those are unprecedented areas that they're drilling in, miles and miles under water, far offshore. No, Alaska is engaged aggressively and very responsibly in the onshore and shallow water off.

8.17.2010

Bonus bonus gem

Massey Energy CEO Don L. Blankenship continues to deliver us gems, and not just by having a body size which is roughly correlated with the impact of the environmental disasters his company causes on an annual basis.

Here's one of the gems he delivered in an inane interview with the New York Times on Sunday:

"Some people believe in CO2 so strongly it trumps every other thought that they’ve got, so we wouldn’t expect them to favor coal mining,” Mr. Blankenship said. “Some people believe that the country should be socialized so they are opposed to free enterprise. I mean, you have to have your own beliefs, your own core beliefs, your own strengths and do what you think is right. You can’t do what others believe is right, you have to do what you believe is right.”

Ingenius.

Bonus gem

More breaking news: Paul Jenson, high-flying chairman of the North American corporate practice at Weber Shandwick and author of the unintentionally hilarious 'PRWeek Insider' column, helps us in "revisiting CSR and the idea of a 'good company' [yes, he put 'good company' in quotes]".

The catalyst for this conversation? BP and the Gulf of Mexico, of course.

And the centerpiece of this masterful reflection on the meaning of corporate responsibility? The Economist's 'controversial' feature five years ago, “The Good Company: A Sceptical Look at Corporate Social Responsibility.”

Here's what he ends his two-minute post with:

"In an environment of increasing transparency, and closer relationships between companies and their stakeholders, does this sweeping condemnation of CSR still hold true? It's a discussion worth revisiting."

Thanks Paul--I'll definitely keep that in mind this week, at least.

Gem of the day

Breaking news: According to this year's global survey of CEOs by the UN Global Compact and Accenture, us folks in the CSR and sustainability industries can pack up and go home. Why? Because of this wondrous key finding:

"81% of CEOs – compared to just 60% in 2007 – stated that sustainability issues are now “fully embedded into the strategy and operations of their company."

Sounds good, everybody! Turn up the Jimmy Buffett, light a cigar, and relax.

And if you're wondering what's driving this progressive flurry of activity, look no further than this complementary finding:

"72% of CEOs cite 'brand, trust and reputation' as one of the top three factors driving them to take action on sustainability issues."

Thanks BP!

8.16.2010

Bonus gem

"Breaking news": Ernst & Young has deemed 'social acceptance risk and corporate social responsibility" as a combined issue worthy of the top 10 business risks for 2010. And how should businesses best manage this risk?

"Companies need to take account of public viewpoints and rather than dismiss them, work to better inform the public through transparent activities and careful PR management."

Gem of the day

More from the rock bottom of the GreenBiz barrel. Why?

"Belgium Considers a Greener Alternative to Cremation"

8.13.2010

Bonus gem

Three-in-one gem update on one of our favorite companies, Asia Pulp and Paper.

1. In response to recently amplified accusations from Greenpeace and WWF over its practices in China and Cambodia, APP has hired accounting firm Mazars to conduct an audit--it's called, without a touch of irony whatsoever, 'Getting the Facts Down on Paper'--which it says validates its claims. Mazars has signed off on it--but won't make it public. Interesting.

2. What APP says: "[The audit] demonstrates to the public — without question — APP’s absolute commitment to transparency and sustainability," Aida Greenbury, APP’s director for sustainability and stakeholder engagement. Aida's position: worst job ever?

3. APP has hired Ogilvy and Mather to "burnish its image as an environmentally-responsible company". The APP site now features lush images of forestry and bird sounds on it's homepage. This is the most extraordinary greenwash I have ever seen.

Gem of the day

In the latest installment of Multinational Corporations Investigate My Op-Ed, our friend Ken Cohen at Exxon Mobil has weighed in with a response on Exxon's signature CSR blog, "Perspectives". Not surprisingly, he disagrees with some of the key points I make. Here's his top-line arguments, and my take on them:

  • "The oil and gas industry’s primary social responsibility is to provide affordable, reliable energy that is essential for human progress...How sustainable would our society be without it?" This is a weird question. Firstly, it's an inversion of the word 'sustainable'. Yes, literally, at the moment we would not be able to 'sustain' our way of life without oil and gas. But in the longer term, using oil and gas is, well, not sustainable--environmentally, economically or socially. Indeed, the primary social responsibility of the oil and gas industry is fundamentally different today than it was 50 years ago: given record profits, most of which go untaxed, the industry's responsibility--and opportunity--should be in radically scaling up renewable energy solutions to ensure sustainability and security of our future energy supply. What's more affordable and reliable than powering our lifestyles with the natural cycles of sunlight, air and water? Drilling deep into offshore waters using risky equipment which sometimes results in seismic crises?
  • "We realize that we should be assessed not only on our ability to bring our product to market to meet these growing needs, but also on the manner in which we do so...ExxonMobil has a strong track record to share" Indeed, it's true that ExxonMobil has a better safety and risk management record--since Valdez--than any of its competitors. But this doesn't make up for the extraordinary environmental impact of the oil Exxon produces--from the volume of emissions to the implications for biodiversity, managing the basic safety risks posed by oil is hardly something to champion. It'd be like giving an award to Mattel for making sure its barbie dolls don't have mercury in them.
  • "To suggest that oil companies can’t operate responsibly – when the energy we produce underpins nearly every aspect of people’s lives and economies – is both incorrect and not a constructive way to advance the debate." Unintentionally ironic. Exxon Mobil wants to talk about a 'constructive way to advance the debate' after funding climate skepticism more than any other company in its industry for a decade? Furthermore, the logic of this argument is flawed. There's no link between operating responsibly and simply having a core product which underpins everyday life--in fact, what BP shows us, and what Exxon showed us in the '80s, is that a multinational corporation of that scale can quite easily operate with little respect for basic compliance measures--that is, irresponsibly--while offering a product which underpins everyday life.
I'm eager to continue this debate. It's a critically important one. But a debate is just a debate unless resources are brought to the table. I'm waiting to see them.

8.12.2010

Gem of the day

Brace yourself: our esteemed colleagues at the International Bottled Water Association and its consumer arm, Bottled Water Matters--such an amazing title--are amplifying their push to extol the benefits of bottled water on YouTube, of all places.

According to an unintentionally hilarious press release, the first video 'gives consumers an inside look at the process of producing safe, quality bottled water.' It's 'an insightful look at the numerous (and fascinating) steps involved in producing bottling water—both single-serve and home and office delivery (HOD).'

Both single-serve AND office delivery? Mind-blowing!

Watch 'The Real Story of Bottled Water', if you dare. Personally I don't recommend it. And if you have five minutes of your time to utterly waste, and are looking to see some nauseatingly bad graphic design, peruse their official fact sheet. My favorite statistic, which is intended to support their claim that bottled water is 'environmentally conscious', is this one:

  • "The amount of water used for bottled water production accounts for less than 2/100 of a percent (0.02%) of the total ground water withdrawn in the United States each year."

8.11.2010

Bonus gem

As the Wall Street Journal so sassily reports:

"U.S. energy companies are steaming about a disclosure rule added at the last minute to the new financial regulation law requiring companies to disclose their payments to foreign governments."

And what is the rule, exactly?

"The provision in the Dodd-Frank law compels companies to reveal royalties, bonuses and other payments to governments for the 'commercial development of oil, natural gas or minerals.'"

A basic, much-needed step towards acknowledging the profoundly global impact of American energy companies. So what's the problem?

"The companies say complying with the rule could hamper business."

Wow.

Gem of the day

I'll be clear: fashion is the last industry I would ever expect to deliver an appropriate--let alone any--response to the BP disaster. But deliver a response they have, and it looks like this. Plus, here's a highlight of their explanation:

"In the face of this dramatic, catastrophic stalling, the images of Steven Meisel make up a precious reportage that delivers an artistic impact. Unforgettable images, created purposely to unnerve the viewer, capture the reality of the situation."

In a phrase: oh no they didn't. Thanks, Vogue Italy. It's unreal.

Another non-environmental wonder

A total parody of communications agencies: probably the greatest satire of all time, or at least the most extensive. Accompanying gems include this 'interview' in PR Week with "Chief Executive Strategic Knowlegation Officer" Laura Heishman and a wondrous 'official' Twitter feed.

8.10.2010

Bonus bonus gem

Tom Bower, Guardian columnist, on how they roll in the energy industry:

"You don't get to the top by being an angel."

Zing!

Bonus gem

The cover of Provident Bank's 2009 CR Report, which arrived in my inbox today:
a pile of grey rocks.

Why?

Gem of the day

In today's news, an extraordinarily twisted op-ed comes to us, courtesy of the Huffington Post:

"In Defense of BP"

I could just leave it at that, but the author makes some intriguing points. The highlights are:

  • Corporations are created to make money
  • It doesn't matter if they [corporations] act in the public good, to the public detriment, or in ways that are unethical, or underhanded, or downright dirty.
  • It is vogue for corporate CEO's and their public relations mavens to talk about "social responsibility."
  • BP is not to blame. 
I'd like to take a moment to state my plea: no more 'in defense' articles on BP. Yes, they make headlines and drive some kind of debate by raising controversy. But it's not worth it. Essentially, all the article above is trying to say is that the BP disaster is but one example of systematic issues with regulation, capitalism, and public awareness. And I wholeheartedly agree, to an extent.

But the title of the article does it in.

8.09.2010

Gem of the day

This one comes to us, as usual, courtesy of GreenBiz:

"How Does Your Diet Affect the Gulf of Mexico's Dead Zone?"

It opens with this whopper:

"It's that time of year again for the Gulf of Mexico: Dead Zone time."

Content of the article aside--it's actually quite interesting--this is total gem territory.

And for something that actually has to do with the major Gulf of Mexico story--yes, that's BP--let's read this. I can't decide how I feel about it.

8.06.2010

Bonus gem

In today's bonus gem, a magnificent manipulation of statistics by pro-fossil fuels advocacy group American Energy Alliance. It comes courtesy of the group's ingenius campaign site, http://www.saveusenergyjobs.com

Here's the top-line finding:

"New Poll: Americans Support Energy Production, Oppose Unfair Taxes by a 3-1 Margin"

And here's the question, with predictable results, which was asked of these innocent bystanders:

Gem of the day


Lately, it feels like approximately 75% of the information that passes before my eyes is unintentional satire. Case in point here, as an author on industry news hub Triple Pundit delivers this gem of an article:

"Sustainability for All: Three Cheers for McDonald's"

No, this is not a joke. The article uses McDonald's as a case study to examine this mind-blowing question: "What about the CSR initiatives at corporations that have bad reputations, make questionable products and are late to the CSR game? Is there room for them?"

Here's the key points the author provides to, essentially, answer "yes" in the case of McDonald's:
  • "The company...provides an impressive 71 page 2009 sustainability report on its website"
  • "McDonald’s suppliers are required to maintain codes of conduct and standards with regards to fair labor and equitable working conditions"
  • "The company also hopes to work with its suppliers on environmental impacts of the supply chain"
  • "McDonald’s in Wal-Mart locations participated in the World Wildlife Fund’s Earth Hour in March" 
So let's review these points of accreditation. One of the biggest companies in the world is lauded for having an extremely long PDF report that is probably prohibitive to read, due to said length, maintains basic policies and codes of conduct, has aspirations towards *maybe* working with suppliers on the massive environmental and social impact of its global supply chain, and took an hour out a busy day to participate in a one-time-only energy efficiency initiative?

Right.

8.05.2010

Bonus bonus gem


 More revelations of corporate attempts to 'brand the planet' and associated terminology today. Prepare yourself for this one, it's a whopper: cement industry heavyweight LaFarge copywrites 'Sustainable'. Yep, that's right: SustainableTM.

I have to say, this initiative is second only to Bank of America's 'Commitment to Sustainable Business', which superimposes the bank's logo over an image of--ah yes--the planet.

Something that's actually good

Phew. Now for something that, as I enumerate above, is actually good news for once.

The Department of Energy has launched its own blog. Whilst it remains to be seen what kind of content will live there, and how useful it will be, it's a step towards open government which even a jaded professional like me must roundly salute.

And for those diehard fans out there, yes he is on Facebook.

Gem of the day

Newlyweds: TBD.

8.04.2010

Bonus gem

Sometimes you come across a company attempting sustainable products and services that just stops you in your tracks. This is one of those companies. Welcome to the nauseating and twisted world of Refreshing Ventures, LLC and their newest company, h20.

Their value proposition:

"Refreshing Ventures, LLC is proud to introduce earth-friendly 'h20'--natural spring water in an award-winning, renewable, aseptic package."

Why is h20 in quotes? Is it not really water? So many questions, so little time. But wait, there's a heavy call to action too:

"Much more than a product. It's starting a movement!"

Gem of the day

True story: I received a call from Monsanto UK's head of Corporate Affairs yesterday in response to my op-ed in Ethical Corporation. I had mentioned Monsanto's placement at #581 (read: dead last) on one ranking and #31 on another in the same year, as an example of how useless ethical indices and CSR rankings have become.

We had a productive and intriguing dialogue which covered the following issues:

CSR rankings and ethical indices
-Monsanto argued that coal and oil companies should remain on ethical indices, as there are ways to generate those products in 'less worse' ways and we should reward those companies who are making improvements.

-I argued they should in fact not remain, for two reasons. Firstly, I can't think of any companies who are actually making impactful progress towards being 'less worse'. If anything, these companies are showing us right now that they have no intention to become 'less worse' in their responses to the BP disaster. Secondly, the extraordinarily small window of time we have to scale up renewable energy solutions means we can't give these oil companies the benefit of the doubt that they will become 'less worse'. It also means incremental innovations--that is, improvements towards being 'less worse'--ain't gonna cut it to drive an energy revolution. We need transformational solutions.

Monsanto's CSR approach
-Monsanto pointed out their CSR reporting objective is to reach out to their stakeholders, and that they have strict policies in place which guide their CSR strategy and are communicated through their CSR reporting. He also called attention to the positive impact Monsanto has on raising quality of life in developing countries, especially India.

-I discussed the need for Monsanto to change three things about its CSR communications approach.
Firstly, they need to engage in the debate over the future of the world’s food supply. For an agribusiness giant that controls the vast majority of the world's seeds, participating in this debate is not an option. It's about managing risk in their business and educating consumers about where their food comes from. After all, if Monsanto doesn't, projects like Food Inc will--and are.

Secondly, they need to be more transparent with the data available regarding their social, economic and environmental impact throughout their global supply chain. This transparency will feed into engagement in aforementioned debate and is also quickly going to become necessary due to regulatory and digital pressures. Any company can talk about its official policies all they want, but until I see the data, I'm not convinced. A policy is a policy--at the end of the day, the ways in which it is implemented are what counts.

Finally, for a company as huge as Monsanto, CSR reporting must be all about communicating the trade-offs. By tradeoffs, I mean raising quality of life in India vs. emissions from growing Monsanto's business. By trade-offs, I mean the economic benefits to shareholders of growing Monsanto's business vs. social impacts of investigating and suing small farmers on a case-by-case basis to ensure Monsanto's products are being used correctly.

Again, an interesting conversation which I hope to continue in the future.

8.03.2010

Bonus gem

This is ingenius.

Gem of the day

Let's take a step back in time to review what Dudley said as the door slammed on Hayward on his way out:

"I am honoured to be given the job of rebuilding BP's strengths and reputation"

What he means: by focusing on rebuilding reputation, BP can regain its mandate to continue business as usual. Oil, oil and more oil.

And just for funsies, here's a few highlights from the most recent superficial commentary on BP's reputation (yes, it's still churning through the blogosphere):

-"Can BP kill their oil spill by Tuesday and save their reputation?"
"If BP, under new leadership, can finally put a stop to the leak it will be a great start to Bob Dudley’s new role and could see a marginal increase in support for the harassed oil firm."

-"BP Boss Hayward Treated As Spill 'Villain'"
"In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Mr Hayward said he did everything possible...BP's reputation-building in the US would take time, he thought. 'In America, the road back will be long but I believe achievable when the whole truth of the accident finally emerges and the Gulf coast is restored. BP can rebuild faster in America without Tony Hayward as its CEO', said Hayward."

-"Re-writing the CEO Job Description to Ensure Reputation Protection"
"The role of the CEO in reputation protection has been headline news as the BP crisis rumbled on and Tony Hayward excelled in the role of pantomime villain."

8.02.2010

Bonus bonus gem


Random CSR report of the week: Network Rail.

It floated into my inbox this morning. Besides being mostly average and abusing cartoons to provide a fruitlessly alternative way of communicating this average information, we're treated to the phenomenal highlight above--a snapshot of their white male workforce. I always feel automatic fear and trepidation when I encounter a diagram titled 'Equality and Diversity', but this one really takes it to the next level by delivering--well, the opposite of equality and diversity.

Don't worry Network Rail, I'm a professional. Here's two robust suggestions for amplifying the impact of that diagram's sub-header:

1. We want to attract the most talented white men to work with us
2. We are attracting the most white men to work with us

Bonus gem

Instant gem, courtesy of Solitaire Townsend: BP is hiring. The position? Director of Media Relations, Gulf Coast Restoration.

There's two highlights here:

1. They're looking for someone who has, amongst other traits, 'sense of urgency and resilience'
2. They spelled 'stake holder' incorrectly. Enough said.

Gem of the day



Flying into Heathrow airport last night, I was treated to the following smorgasboard of oil industry greenwash as I sailed into the baggage claim. Unbelievable--yet, unfortunately, all too believable. Imagine the impact on the thousands of people who come in and out of this airport, one of the world's busiest, as they are treated to these meaningless spectacles.

And yes, Total, I have indeed noticed you are running two [conflicting] ad campaigns at the exact same time. And no, I am not going to let you get away with your claim 'Our energy is your energy' in a climate change context whilst you also promote 'Our energy is your energy' to fuel car races.

The BP ad speaks for itself. Awkward.