Annual CSR and sustainability rankings are an awkward, awkward thing. Inevitably they get some scores right, and others fundamentally wrong. Inevitably this mash-up of success and failure is driven by questionable methodologies that rely heavily on data and testimonies produced by the rated companies themselves, with mushy key indicators like 'has a sustainability director on board'.
One of my favorites is produced by the random organisation Corporate Knights. It's unabashedly titled 'World's Most Sustainable Companies 2010' and is timed to coordinate with the World Economic Forum in Davos each year. So who better to turn to for a little tepid analysis than our friends at Forbes?
This year's results are especially confounding. Witness Forbes struggling to reconcile the top company--an oil company, Statoil--outranking some CSR industry stalwarts like Nokia and GE:
"The list's most sustainable company comes from the oil and gas industry--a counterintuitive pick. The Norwegian oil and gas producer Statoil leads the list, thanks in part to improvements in its water productivity. It's also a healthy contributor to Norway's coffers and has a diverse board."
Thank god water productivity is being improved--I was really worried there for a second. Let's take a step back to a gem on the ranking methodology, courtesy of Toby Heaps, Corporate Knights' editor-in-chief:
"Transparency is a prerequisite. Also, how are companies squeezing more wealth from the resources that they use? How are they doing a better job of respecting the social contract, like paying taxes or having diverse leadership?"
Paying taxes--the essence of corporate sustainability, right? Not to mention...profit.
No comments:
Post a Comment