Bonus gem

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.

Gem of the day

Well kids, the FT reports today that a moment of reckoning is finally here for offshore drilling:

"A plan to create a safety organisation for deep-water drilling is being drawn up"

But wait--who's in charge of organising the initiative?

"Leading oil companies...in an attempt to restore public confidence in the industry"

Right. Potential conflict of interest? Here's where it gets really, really good though. A debate is emerging over whether the new organisation should be part of the American Petroleum Institute or not. That's right, API--as in the same folks who lobby Washington for decreased regulation in the oil industry. The same folks who declared a few weeks ago that the industry should be able to drill anywhere, anytime in the U.S.of.A. The FT, in its characteristically diplomatic way, delicately notes the awkward conflict of interest guiding the API as an organisation, since in addition to representing 400 oil companies it's also responsible for setting the technical standards for the industry. Which is probably why those standards are so inadequate.

So who's involved in the debate? You might be sensing a pattern here:

"A working party of executives and advisers, chaired by a senior manager from Royal Dutch Shell, Europe’s largest oil company by market capitalisation"

The worst gem in this situation by far is the conclusion the FT inserts in the middle of its analysis:

"It is becoming increasingly urgent for the industry to restore confidence so it can restart deep-water drilling."

Is this terribly mistaken logic of step 1: PR, step 2: business as usual and step 3: regulation, possibly, just a given way of working in today's profit-obsessed economies? 'Increasing public confidence' is actually the last thing that needs to be done in the wake of the official Deepwater Horizon report recommending increased regulation on offshore drilling.

Memo to the industry, the media and regulators: if there's a lack of confidence, it's justified.

Gem of the day

This may come as a surprise, but apparently uptake of CSR in Russia has been slow. Thanks to a blog post from CSR International, we now are blessed with the groundbreaking revelation that...

"CSR in Russia is most developed in the following areas: personnel development, workplace health and safety, corporate philanthropy and related PR-support."

Hmm. So giving a little to charities and making sure employees don't perish unnecessarily. And--barring that--PR to cover the track.s

And where--take a guess--is CSR in Russia lacking?

"The most neglected areas of CSR are environmental policies, clean manufacturing, resource conservation, supply chain responsibility and ethical consumerism."

Right.

Bonus gem

Here's a title you never thought you'd see: Newt Gingrich, Sustainability Communications Professional. 

"Gingrich told attendees — including Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, a key figure in the state’s first-in-nation Republican presidential caucuses — that the EPA should be replaced with a new “Environmental Solutions Agency.”

Genius, Newt, genius.

Gem of the day

I love skimming the FT column Lexington ("Lex) for its total discounting of anything sustainability related. Witness this gem of a post today discussing the oil industry and how it needs to change--not in the way you might be thinking, though. The introduction is promising:

"The integrated oil majors sail serenely on, as supertankers tend to do. Yet BP’s calamity in the Gulf of Mexico, a rising regulatory burden, stubbornly high costs, and relatively poor shareholder returns suggest the sector could do with a dose of innovative thinking."

The conclusion, however, leaves much to be desired:

"The sector is actually ticking the right boxes in pursuit of returns for shareholder...How about some radical ideas this reporting season to accompany those rivers of cash?

Right, because clearly the most material issue for the oil industry right now should be restructuring in order to 'boost returns'.

Another non-environmental wonder

Bill Keller has an extraordinary story today in the NY Times, describing his paper's involvement in Wikileaks and what it took to write the stories they did in conjunction with Der Spiegel and The Guardian. It is a must-read.

Of all the gems buried inside it, however, this is one of my favorites:

"I have vivid memories of sitting in the Oval Office as President George W. Bush tried to persuade me and the paper’s publisher to withhold the eavesdropping story, saying that if we published it, we should share the blame for the next terrorist attack. We were unconvinced by his argument and published the story, and the reaction from the government — and conservative commentators in particular — was vociferous."

Yeah. Here's to 2011.

Another non-environmental wonder

Just in case anyone intentionally missed Cato Institute's take on the State of the Union speech--in a nutshell: 'not by a Republican so it automatically is worthless'--here's what one of their geniuses had to say about it:

“Maybe these gestures will lead to a nationwide surge of oxytocin — the togetherness hormone — healing partisan rancor across the fruited plain. But that's highly unlikely”

Hmm. What? But wait--there's far more wonders to be had in the reactions being deployed to Obama's speech. Here's T. Boone Pickens' take:

"We want jobs and then you say you're going to tax the oil industry and that's going to cost you jobs."

Bummer. On the other hand, as the Wall Street Journal found:

"Mr. Pickens, 82, admits that he slept through much of the speech, waking up to his wife elbowing him when the President mentioned energy."

Even more hypocritical is API's take on the speech, delivered by our friend Jack Gerard:

"Producing more oil and gas at home, which most Americans want, could create hundreds of thousands of jobs, reduce our deficit by billions, and enhance our energy security."

There it is, folks: Jack Gerard's magic 25-year plan. What happens after 25 years? Don't ask. Oh, and you know what else could reduce our deficit by billions--for a long, long time? Phasing out oil and gas industry subsidies...

Gem of the day

 Who says this guy doesn't know how to use Excel? If that graph isn't proof, I don't know what is.

For context, his name is Patrick Michaels, he's a fan of infinite profit and free unregulated markets, probably thinks there is some kind of unassailable objective truth in the world, is heavily funded by the oil industry, says accepted science is stupid and lies frequently to Congress. If you haven't already figured out that this guy is a Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies for the Cato Institute, I can't help you.

Anyway, he's in trouble now. Democrat Henry Waxman is on his case for allegedly--I'd rather say 'obviously'--misleading Congress in 2009 when testifying against the sad excuse for a climate bill which was passing through. Read the entirety of Waxman's masterpiece of a letter to Fred Upton here.

Michaels told the House energy and commerce committee in 2009 that only 3% of his $4.2 million in funding came from the oil and industry. But several months later in a CNN interview--ay, there's the rub--that figure blossomed into a far more magical 40%. Funding is such a grey area, isn't it? If only he had an advanced educational background and professional experience to prove he was capable of doing basic math--oh wait:

"The curriculum vitae that Dr. Michaels submitted with his written testimony is lengthy, listing over one hundred publications and speaking engagements before audiences ranging from the United States Congress to academic institutions to local Rotary Clubs and high school students."

Strange. My favorite part of Waxman's letter is the part where he basically calls Michaels a liar, it's beautifully worded:

"It is difficult to reconcile what Dr. Michaels reported to the Committee on his CV with the estimate of his industry funding reported by Politico."

You better go call the Koch brothers, Dr. Michaels. It's gonna hurt.

Something that's actually good

Aside from his unfortunate claim that clean energy could generate 'countless jobs', Obama let loose one of the best combination smack-down-and-call-for-action statements I've heard for a long time in last night's State of the Union:

"I don't know if you've noticed, but they're doing just fine on their own," Obama said about oil company profits. "So instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's."

To reiterate, here's Obama's key thought: what else could we be doing with the $40 billion we're currently wasting on lame subsidies to the oil and gas industry, which continues to enjoy record profits? Does ExxonMobil really need our help when it makes appr. $90,000 a minute? (as in the giddy heydays of 2008)

Re-framing the path forward as a challenge, based on powerful logic, opportunity and a touch of humor, is a much-needed step for climate and energy communications in the US-of-A right now. Clean energy economy, green jobs and their close friends are tired and worn out pieces of branding. I'm increasingly a firm believer that if more Americans actually knew how much money the government throws at oil companies they would want to do something about it. Or at least complain enough to make it an issue. Or at least embrace the power of clicktivism on a larger scale. Good times.

Bonus gem

I'm always up for hearing about--that's right, I didn't say touting--a groundbreaking corporate commitment to transformational, sustainable change. Hence why I gave Ford's new sustainability report the time of day, or at least a good 10 minutes, this afternoon. The intro sounds like a huge step towards acknowledging the kind of innovation a company that manufactures, essentially, CO2 spewing machines and is part of a dying industry in America, would need to take:

"Climate change has the potential to affect all parts of our business and is interconnected to other important issues – from water availability and energy security to human rights and mobility. Ford has developed a comprehensive, science-based global strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and processes while working cooperatively with the public and private sectors to advance climate change solutions."

But it when it comes to the details of what Ford has actually planned, things get awkward. Here's the key elements of the strategy:

• Reduce CO2 emissions from U.S. and European new vehicles by 30 percent by 2020 (relative to 2006 baseline)
• All new vehicles will be best in class, or among the best in class, for fuel economy in their segment
• Expand the number of alternative vehicles on offer, including five new electric vehicles in Europe by 2013 and USA by 2012

Ignoring the second target--which is the definition of incremental innovation if I've ever seen one--let's look at the first one. 30% is certainly something. But note that this is for U.S. and Europe--the geography where Ford clearly anticipates there will be regulatory action on emissions. Nothing here about China or India, which will be the new focal markets for any car company over the next few decades--Western countries are already saturated and demand is static.

As for the lame attempt to introduce a few new electric vehicles, this hardly scratches the surface of what's needed to incentivize the rest of the industry to work with government and create the infrastructure for widespread electric vehicle usage. Nor does it address the question few seem to be asking in this whole arena: are electric vehicles even sustainable if they are charged with conventional sources of electricity? Can they be scaled up realistically in the time necessary to combat emissions from fuel usage? And can we ever envisage a world that goes beyond driving and the urban sprawl our Western culture of driving has created?

The worst part about this report is the carelessness with which Ford abuses the term 'sustainable mobility'. If they're actually committed to realizing this term--which I would define as nothing less than a radical transformation and rethinking of how we get from place to place in the modern world--they need to be doing a heck of a lot more to change their business model and their industry. Until then, I'd suggest they take it down a notch to reflect what they're actually planning on doing: staying one step ahead of compliance and making better cars.

Gem of the day

So the numbers are in, and it's official: despite what is inevitably stiff competition from other major players in the energy industry, Chevron comes out on top again as the highest spender on lobbying in the good ol' US-of-A for 2010. That's a cool $2.9 million spent pressuring Congress and regulatory agencies to look away awkwardly while the company attempts to evade responsibility for the multi-billion dollar ecological catastrophe it has caused in Ecuador.

Here's a taste of the argument from plaintiffs in the court case which is currently closing on the entire situation:

"Chevron's complete disdain for Ecuador, its courts, and its citizens was captured perfectly by a Chevron lobbyist who told Newsweek: 'We can't let little countries screw around with big companies like this -- companies that have made big investments around the world.'"

Ah, capitalism.

Another non-environmental wonder

Andrew Ross Sorkin has a great article in the NY Times today examining the cost of entry to Davos--literally. Wondrous gem #1: 

"This year, all “Strategic Partners” are required to invite at least one woman along as part of an effort to diversify the attendee list." 

'Strategic Partners' are the high-rolling attendees that plan to bring entourages of up to 5 people with them. The price tag for that qualification is $527,000. Which brings me to the next gem:

"At the moment, the forum says they are not accepting applications to become “strategic partners” unless the company is from China or India and must be one of the 250 largest companies in the world."

Someone's been reading The Economist lately.

Bonus gem

Monsanto's heady thirst for high-profile thought leadership never fails to amaze me. But their new 'America's Farmers' campaign is truly exemplary, a greenwash tour-de-force.

As a writer on Grist points out--using the cute term 'farmwashing--the grizzled, weary, classic profiles of the campaign's protagonists share many similarities with the infamous Marlboro Man. Beyond that hilarity, though, I find it difficult to imagine a statement more unapologetically wrong than the one in the ad above:

"Few industries have shown such respect for the environment."

It literally doesn't get any more disturbing than that. Adding to the infinite host of problems posed by this campaign is the reality that megacorporations like Monsanto have latched onto the economic benefits (read: jobs, jobs, jobs). These are the kinds of progressive messages that had been touted by the sustainability industry over the past five years to incentivise everything from  climate legislation to saving forests to scaling up renewables. They're quickly becoming meaningless-green jobs, anyone? clean energy economy?--for their overuse. And at the same time being killed by the very industries they were intended to counter.

The official website for the campaign is ingeniously titled America's Farmers, if you can handle it. Word to the wise: you probably can't.

Another non-environmental wonder

John Stuzinski, investment banker and Davos attendee, on why so many CEOs continue to attend (via FT)

"Davos had become a “self-help” group, where CEOs trade information and feel solidarity in a hostile world. 'It’s a bit like Weight Watchers,' he quips. 'A place where CEOs can get support.'"

Those poor, helpless CEOs--a tragedy of grand proportion.

Gem of the day

For anyone who has ever had the pleasure of immersing themselves in the Tesco consumer experience, you'll see why this headline is a gem:

"Tesco Installs Energy Monitors to Motivate Employees"

That's right, the megachain is installing touch-screen energy boards in 500 stores across the UK to 'empower' employees to monitor their store's consumption. Leaving aside the fact that the consumer giant has over 3,000 stores in the UK alone--making this installation effort a fraction of their impact--this kind of initiative is what I call the 'Wal-Mart faux-sustainability effect'.

Energy efficiency is important for Tesco, but not nearly as significant as the broader social and economic dimensions of sustainability which the company is distinctly lacking. Compare the impact of Tesco's carbon emissions with its wider impact on the UK: massive, a-human megastores blighting the suburban landscape, annihilating small businesses and steamrolling local communities, encouraging behaviours like driving, creating a plethora of extreme low-wage jobs.

So let's hear it for those monitors--ah, incremental innovation.

Another non-environmental wonder

I love it when the NY Times gets catty. Witness this evidence gem from an article today discussing Obama's plans (soundly in the footsteps of his predecessors) to hunt down all those federal government 'timewasters' (all those arcane, random regulations that make America look foolhardy to the average European):


"Those who complain about the prevalence of silly and outdated rules rarely cite specific examples. Several business groups asked to name specific candidates for the president’s project, including the United States Chamber of Commerce, never called back."


They didn't call back?? Wait! Maybe this guy can use the power of his invincible BlackBerry to help.

Bonus gem

This diagram from the same PwC report also deserves uber-gem status:

Gem of the day

Love this diagram from PwC summarising the journey to integrated reporting. It's a tossup which is the top gem here:

• The masculine, aggressive language. 'Hardwired'? Really?
• The idealised future state is one in which transformation is achieved to address 'the new business landscape'. Right, because that's what sustainable development and tackling climate change is all about for your average company--access to better business opportunities which occur within the current system we have, without any kind of wider progress towards a better world.

The only thing better is this choice quote in the accompanying report:

"Companies need to re-establish themselves as trusted sources of relevant and reliable information."


Thanks, PwC--your undying faith in The System is truly a pleasure.

Gem of the day

Ernst Ligteringen, director of GRI, on what integrated reporting means:


“Rewiring homo economicus, that’s what it is about."

Hmm. Even more puzzling is his explanation of why many companies are behind the times in considering sustainability as a long-term priority for core business:


“Many companies are still blind to the longer term, which is caused also by a lack of understanding of how to deal with the long-term impact of business operations. Furthermore some experts accuse companies of deliberately flying blind as disclosure of the long-term sustainability effects would raise questions that cannot be fully answered within the parameters today’s market conditions."

Isn't there a simpler way to say that? How about this:

• Companies don't know how to measure the social and environmental impacts of their products, services, operations and supply chains. Those that actually do have a pretty good idea--read: the extractive industries--aren't interested in telling the story because it would destroy their business models.

Another non-environmental wonder

He's back, everyone--our man John Bolton, former American ambassador to the UN who famously commented that removing one floor from UN headquarters at random wouldn't make a difference to the organisation. Ah yes: contempt, thy name is Bolton.


Not one to mince words, here's the first line of Bolton's op-ed in today's FT on China:


"Mao Zedong once said that 'all political power comes from the barrel of a gun'."


So it's China vs. US? I wonder who will win. Here's his diplomatic advice:


"China should take careful note: neither Mr Hu nor the PLA ought to assume that Mr Obama truly represents broader US public opinion. There could be a different president two years hence, ready to reverse his agenda of international passivity and decline."


Right, because passivity is clearly an agenda point for the Obama administration. Wait, where does Bolton work now? The heart of the think-tank machine in D.C., with friendly stalwarts Newt Gingrich et al. No wonder he's getting angry.