[Nasional-e] Businesses acquire the latest fashion accessory: a conscience

Wed Sep 18 12:12:02 2002

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_01E0_01C25EF9.ED7487E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Outlook / Businesses acquire the latest fashion accessory: a conscience =
/ Felicity Lawrence

Businesses acquire the latest fashion accessory: a conscience

Comment Felicity Lawrence

Felicity Lawrence

Recent wet weather and the heat generated by the Earth summit in =
Johannesburg have proved the perfect breeding conditions for a new =
species of corporate creature. Suddenly, hatching out like fashionable =
butterflies at every seminar on development are directors of corporate =
social responsibility - or CSR, as they might write it on the T-shirt.
The must-have accessory for the CSR pack is a newly published company =
report on their social performance, dressed up with colour photos of =
happy poor children in the developing countries where they do business, =
and arty close-ups of wild flowers, which they will most definitely not =
be endangering by their activities.
The vogue for social responsibility in business has been around for some =
time - wearing, in the main, environmental clothes. But just going=20
 green was so-o-o early 90s. The anti-capitalist protests in Seattle =
made companies realise that they would have to do more to preserve their =
reputations.
In the past year McDonald's, Rio Tinto, Nike, Nestle and British =
American Tobacco (BAT) have all produced "sustainability reviews" or CSR =
reports covering such issues as human rights, labour conditions and =
environmental impact. McDonald's chief executive, Jack Greenberg, in his =
company's first social report in April, shared his vision of "how =
McDonald's will make the world a better place". Not much mention of =
nutrition, but lots of litter initiatives.
Nestle's CEO, Peter Brabeck-Lemathe, says that his initial =
"sustainability review" is an effort to "describe our impact on the =
wellbeing of people and the planet". Sustaining turns out to be a key =
part of the Nestle business: "More than 1m jobs were sustained by the =
Nestle Group." Employment stats may not quite match your definition of =
sustainability, but how=20
 about this for a commitment to development? A large proportion of =
Nestle factories are in developing countries even though less than a =
third of its business is, the report boasts. (Does the phrase "cheap =
labour" spring to mind?) Nestle's statement on baby milk, meanwhile, =
reads like a list of promises not to do all the things campaigners have =
previously accused them of.
The trendsetters are bold enough to own up to their sins. BP, which has =
been ahead of the pack on CSR, wants you to know that it has killed five =
people in Papua New Guinea by mistake but that it "deeply regrets the =
suffering of all the people involved" and will not rest until it stops =
killing people by mistake.
A key part of CSR is to subject yourself willingly to the tirades of =
NGOs and campaigners. This is called dialogue with stakeholders. It may =
be painful, but you can always say you don't agree with them at the end. =
The most uncool thing is to have to admit that "UK stakeholder inputs=20
 cannot be described as fully representative", as BAT's first social =
report did in July.
The report declares "there is no such thing as a safe cigarette" and =
accepts "the popular understanding that smoking is addictive", but this =
fine display of self-flagellation came even though hardly anyone had =
spoken to its authors as there was "significant non-participation by =
government, pressure groups, health organisations and family and youth =
groups", it notes somewhat ruefully in a section on reporting =
limitations.
It is hard not to be cynical about this latest fashion. It is no =
coincidence that the list of companies leading the way with CSR =
reporting is similar to a roll call of the anti-capitalists' pet hates. =
But while some of it is clearly greenwash - sophisticated PR aimed at =
anticipating and then deflecting broader criticism - the notion of CSR =
reporting represents a genuine effort to consider the wider role of =
business in civil society.
And even if companies only start=20
 doing it because they see the writing on the wall, then if auditing =
their performance on the environment or equal opportunities, say, =
stimulates them into drawing up policies to improve that performance, =
should we dismiss it completely?
One of the problems is that CSR reporting is so random. Some of it is =
independently audited, some of it not. Some of it covers a whole gamut =
of issues, some highlights only the areas with which the companies doing =
the reporting can feel comfortable.
The UK Department of Trade is in the middle of a major overhaul of =
company law. Directors currently have a legal duty to put a business's =
shareholder interests first; any consideration of the social impact of =
its activities looks likely to remain voluntary. The government could =
take the opportunity to make CSR reporting mandatory. If it were =
universal and independently verified, there might not be so much =
temptation to pull the wings off the butterflies.

The Guardian Weekly 19-9-2002, page 21

------=_NextPart_000_01E0_01C25EF9.ED7487E0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Trebuchet MS" size=3D2><BR><FONT face=3D"Times New =
Roman"=20
size=3D3>Outlook / Businesses acquire the latest fashion accessory: a =
conscience /=20
Felicity Lawrence<BR><BR><BR><BR>Businesses acquire the latest fashion=20
accessory: a conscience<BR><BR>Comment Felicity Lawrence<BR><BR>Felicity =

Lawrence<BR><BR>Recent wet weather and the heat generated by the Earth =
summit in=20
Johannesburg have proved the perfect breeding conditions for a new =
species of=20
corporate creature. Suddenly, hatching out like fashionable butterflies =
at every=20
seminar on development are directors of corporate social responsibility =
- or=20
CSR, as they might write it on the T-shirt.<BR>The must-have accessory =
for the=20
CSR pack is a newly published company report on their social =
performance,=20
dressed up with colour photos of happy poor children in the developing =
countries=20
where they do business, and arty close-ups of wild flowers, which they =
will most=20
definitely not be endangering by their activities.<BR>The vogue for =
social=20
responsibility in business has been around for some time - wearing, in =
the main,=20
environmental clothes. But just going <BR>&nbsp;green was so-o-o early =
90s. The=20
anti-capitalist protests in Seattle made companies realise that they =
would have=20
to do more to preserve their reputations.<BR>In the past year =
McDonald's, Rio=20
Tinto, Nike, Nestle and British American Tobacco (BAT) have all produced =

"sustainability reviews" or CSR reports covering such issues as human =
rights,=20
labour conditions and environmental impact. McDonald's chief executive, =
Jack=20
Greenberg, in his company's first social report in April, shared his =
vision of=20
"how McDonald's will make the world a better place". Not much mention of =

nutrition, but lots of litter initiatives. Nestle's CEO, Peter=20
Brabeck-Lemathe, says that his initial "sustainability review" is an =
effort to=20
"describe our impact on the wellbeing of people and the planet". =
Sustaining=20
turns out to be a key part of the Nestle business: "More than 1m jobs =
were=20
sustained by the Nestle Group." Employment stats may not quite match =
your=20
definition of sustainability, but how &nbsp;about this for a =
commitment to=20
development? A large proportion of Nestle factories are in developing =
countries=20
even though less than a third of its business is, the report boasts. =
(Does the=20
phrase "cheap labour" spring to mind?) Nestle's statement on baby milk,=20
meanwhile, reads like a list of promises not to do all the things =
campaigners=20
have previously accused them of. The trendsetters are bold enough to =
own up=20
to their sins. BP, which has been ahead of the pack on CSR, wants you to =
know=20
that it has killed five people in Papua New Guinea by mistake but that =
it=20
"deeply regrets the suffering of all the people involved" and will not =
rest=20
until it stops killing people by mistake. A key part of CSR is to =
subject=20
yourself willingly to the tirades of NGOs and campaigners. This is =
called=20
dialogue with stakeholders. It may be painful, but you can always say =
you don't=20
agree with them at the end. The most uncool thing is to have to admit =
that "UK=20
stakeholder inputs &nbsp;cannot be described as fully =
representative", as=20
BAT's first social report did in July. The report declares "there is =
no such=20
thing as a safe cigarette" and accepts "the popular understanding that =
smoking=20
is addictive", but this fine display of self-flagellation came even =
though=20
hardly anyone had spoken to its authors as there was "significant=20
non-participation by government, pressure groups, health organisations =
and=20
family and youth groups", it notes somewhat ruefully in a section on =
reporting=20
limitations. It is hard not to be cynical about this latest fashion. =
It is no=20
coincidence that the list of companies leading the way with CSR =
reporting is=20
similar to a roll call of the anti-capitalists' pet hates. But while =
some of it=20
is clearly greenwash - sophisticated PR aimed at anticipating and then=20
deflecting broader criticism - the notion of CSR reporting represents a =
genuine=20
effort to consider the wider role of business in civil society. And =
even if=20
companies only start &nbsp;doing it because they see the writing on =
the=20
wall, then if auditing their performance on the environment or equal=20
opportunities, say, stimulates them into drawing up policies to improve =
that=20
performance, should we dismiss it completely? One of the problems is =
that CSR=20
reporting is so random. Some of it is independently audited, some of it =
not.=20
Some of it covers a whole gamut of issues, some highlights only the =
areas with=20
which the companies doing the reporting can feel comfortable. The UK=20
Department of Trade is in the middle of a major overhaul of company law. =

Directors currently have a legal duty to put a business's shareholder =
interests=20
first; any consideration of the social impact of its activities looks =
likely to=20
remain voluntary. The government could take the opportunity to make CSR=20
reporting mandatory. If it were universal and independently verified, =
there=20
might not be so much temptation to pull the wings off the=20
butterflies. The Guardian Weekly 19-9-2002, page=20
21 </DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_01E0_01C25EF9.ED7487E0--