CSRHUB

CSRHub's Cynthia Figge to Attend Future in Review

2012-05-22T16:09:45-04:00

CSRHub COO and Co-founder Cynthia Figge will be attending the 10th Annual Future in Review (FiRe) Conference in Laguna Beach, California on May 22-25, 2012. The Economist calls this "the best technology conference in the world." This conference of global thought leaders will focus this year on the power of integration."From cars to clouds to computers, the major steps we'll take in the next few years will flow from brilliance in integrating known technologies, even as we invent the new,” says Mark Anderson, FiRe chair and Strategic News Service CEO, founder and publisher. FiRe presents new ideas on the future in technology, including the global economy, cloud computing, biology and medical diagnostics, policy, netbooks, space travel, sustainability and other fields that contribute to technology outcomes. Figge has served on the FiRe advisory board for 10 years.

The Truth Will Out: The Power of Employees

2012-05-16T13:39:22-04:00

The following post is part of a CSRHub series focusing on 10 trends that are driving corporate transparency and disclosure in the coming year. To follow the discussion of each trend, watch for posts on the CSRHub blog every Wednesday.

By Karen Dam

Do you want to work for a socially responsible company? Do you care if your employer’s social and environmental performance is consistent with your values? Insisting on a job that respects your moral commitments as well as your paycheck is a prominent trend in today’s workforce, especially with younger workers. As companies assess the challenges and benefits of effective sustainability and/or CSR efforts, employee preference, retention, and engagement is an increasingly important element.

According to a 2011 PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) study, 88 percent of graduate students and young professionals factor an employer’s CSR position into their job decision. And 86 percent would consider leaving a job if their employer’s CSR performance no longer held up.

Similarly, the 2010 Corporate Social Responsibility Branding Survey revealed that almost half of respondents between the ages of 18 to 24 would choose a position with a socially responsible company, even if they had to take a pay cut.

People simply want to work in a good company – a company they can believe in. Apparently, when employees believe in their employer’s stance on important social and environmental issues, a study by Hewitt Associates’ 2010 Best Employers in Canada showed that employees are more engaged.

A highly engaged workforce gives you employees who are committed to your vision and your success. It also gets you employees who fight to get in your door and who want to stay. It means higher productivity, ingenuity, and innovation – all of which drive business growth and profitability. In fact, companies with high levels of employee engagement generate total shareholder returns that are 29 percent above average, while companies with moderate levels of engagement produce returns that are only 1 percent above average (Hewitt Associates study).

Business leaders are well aware of these benefits. “Higher or sustained employee engagement” is ranked as one of the top three benefits of investing in CSR activities and policies (Hewitt Associates study). That may be why companies with well-established employee engagement programs such as those at Adobe Systems, Enbridge, and the Campbell Soup Company, also rank relatively well on CSRHub.

Of course, a business must be able to track employee engagement to measure and promote its benefits. Fortunately, new tools are being introduced that do this. For instance, Gallup’s employee survey helps organizations measure engagement levels, as well as design and implement employee engagement strategies. Happiily’s app tracks and anonymously aggregates employee reactions and morale, so that managers can address employee dissatisfaction in real time. AngelPoints’ integrated sustainability tool motivates and educates employees to set goals and track their progress in the workplace and at home.

A company may benefit from a committed and engaged workforce not just on key business metrics, but also in its longer-term reputation as an employer. A strong track record of employee engagement and CSR not only retains the most committed talent, but also entices new recruits. That is why at CSRHub we have incorporated “best places to work” lists, such as Glassdoor.com Top 50 Best Places To Work, Computer World 100 Best Places to Work in IT, and Working Multicultural Women 2011, into our ratings.

A company’s ranking as a top employer and caretaker of its employees is an important part of the umbrella of social benefits they provide their workers. Employees are powerful drivers of a company’s CSR performance. This power will likely increase as the highly engaged workforce of tomorrow comes of age and demands its companies to be CSR leaders.

Karen Dam is a data analyst at CSRHub. Karen completed her Bachelor of Science in Environmental Sciences at the University of Guelph, and a Master of Environmental Science at the University of Toronto Scarborough. She has enthusiastically filled research roles in the public sector. Karen has experiences in project management and research, including data collection and data management, analysis and synthesis. Karen actively volunteers with NGOs, including conservation authorities, to contribute to ecosystem protection, advocate environmental sustainability and of science literacy. Her hobbies include cycling, reading, and painting.

The Three Rs of Green Living – Revisited

2012-05-11T14:30:00-04:00

This post is part of an ongoing collaboration with Gia Machlin, president and CEO of EcoPlum, an online green shopping rewards site. Watch for her contributions to the CSRHub blog on eco-friendly products and green living ideas. For more on EcoPlum, or to follow the EcoPlum blog, visit www.ecoplum.com.

By Gia Machlin

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. So cliche. Yet so ignored. Dare I say that it almost goes against what we are taught from day one in our consumer driven society? Poopy diaper? Throw it out! Make a mess? Clean it up with paper towels and wipes. It’s your birthday? Let’s get you a shiny new plastic toy! It seems that from the moment we are born, we are programmed to Use, Dispose, and Buy new. It doesn’t sound as catchy as Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, but it’s how most of us live our lives. Even well intentioned eco concious families, such as mine, often choose convenience over conservation because, well, we live in the 21st century, and most of us don’t plan on living “off-the-grid” any time soon. But just because we can’t wipe out our carbon footprint, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t all try to minimize it, every day.

I’m guessing the reason that “Reduce” comes first in the saying, is that it is the most important piece of the equation. Reducing consumption alone could solve many of our environmental woes. But reduction is the hardest part to do. Believe me, I try every day. For example, while I no longer buy Ziploc® bags, I haven’t found a really suitable replacement for them. Tupperware and deli containers are bulky, and cloth bags just don’t hold in the moisture, and it is a pain to wash and dry the bags for reuse.

Which takes us to the “Reuse” part of the saying. While easier than reducing, reusing is still more difficult than number three: “Recycle.” So I think we should reword the saying in order of ease: Recycle, Reuse, Reduce. People need to tackle the easiest part before they can move on to those steps that require a little more of a change in lifestyle. And since we are only recycling a fraction of what we could be recycling right now, let’s try to do better! Let’s challenge ourselves to be more conscious in our recycling habits.

Here is a clip from my appearance on Cafe Mom Studios’ Mom Ed: Green Living show in which I talk about recycling. I hope you find it informative.

For more information on what and where to recycle different types of materials in your location, please check out our recycling widget from 1800recycling.com. Also, please see this post about recycling with some great ideas from our readers.

Did you learn anything new about recycling today?

Gia Machlin is the president and CEO of EcoPlum, an online green shopping rewards site with eco-friendly products and green living ideas that make it fun, easy, and rewarding to go green. EcoPlum aims to inspire a community of people to be conscious of ctheir daily habits, purchases, and impact on the world's limited resources. Prior to founding EcoPlum, Gia was president and principal of MMC 20/20 Systems, Inc. and co-founded Plan Data Management, Inc. She has also worked with MachlinConsulting Group, Deloitte & Touche, AT&T, and Unisys. She received her MBA with honors from Columbia Business School and her BS in Industrial Engineering/Operations Research with honors from the Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. She makes her home in New York with her husband and two children.

The Truth Will Out: Government Regulation

2012-05-09T09:03:51-04:00

By Karen Dam

“There is no time for a regulatory business-as-usual approach. After decades of voluntary laissez-faire reporting, the time is ripe for stronger regulatory action.” With this statement, Mervyn King, former Chairman of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), called for a more robust regulatory environment at the ESG Disclosure Workshop in 2010. More governments seem to be hearing the call and the trend towards government regulation in CSR appears to be growing.

As noted in the 2010 Carrots and Sticks report by KPMG, the public, NGOs, and investors are demanding that governments take a greater role in sustainability reporting. “Mandating sustainability reporting is a strong signal, sent from regulators to the business community, about the long-term goals and objectives of the country as whole.” (See “The Consequences of Mandatory Corporate Sustainability Reporting”).

Many groups do not trust companies’ ability to regulate themselves. A solution to these questions about voluntary reporting standards would be binding, third party, government standards. These standards could allow stakeholders (and particularly stockholders) to more confidently assess a company’s sustainability, CSR, or ESG efforts. A frontrunner in this regard is the EU, which has consistently emphasized CSR and enhancing economic competitiveness by building trust between business and society.

A number of governments are raising their regulatory bars. In the 2010 Carrots and Sticks report, more than 140 national instruments on ESG reporting were identified, of which about two-thirds are mandatory standards. For example, the Danish Government’s Financial Statements Act of 2001 requires both state-owned companies and companies with revenues over 38 million euro and more than 250 employees to report on their corporate responsibility. The accompanying guidance documents refer to and encourage the use of GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the US also formally refer to the GRI G3 guidelines in their regulations. Governments are implementing a mix of voluntary guidelines or codes, incentives, and endorsement of GRI guidelines to mandate at least a minimum level of ESG disclosure.

Not only are governments mandating ESG disclosure, they are showing greater support of CSR activities as a “consumer.” In most countries, government is the single largest individual purchaser of goods and services, so public procurement processes can help advance targeted environmental, social, and governance goals.

For example, the Canadian government via Canada’s Policy on Green Procurement targets specific environmental outcomes where procurement can effectively be used to mitigate the impact of environmental issues such as climate. A number of other governments have initiated ethical and/or green procurement programs that focus on a variety of goods and services including the EU, Japan, New Zealand, Switzerland, the UK, and the US.

With governments taking on a greater role in the CSR field we can expect more ESG disclosure from companies. CSRHub will continue to translate this information into performance ratings so that corporate managers, consumers, and government agencies can make informed decisions about how to improve the sustainability of their society.

A Better Idea for Branding Public Transit

2012-05-08T08:39:20-04:00

By Carol Pierson Holding

An Atlantic Cities blog posed a question that consistently bedevils environmentalists: How do we break Americans’ love for the automobile? A love enhanced by auto makers who have used design and advertising to reinforce the link between sex and cars.

The blog was inspired by a new book, Making Transit Fun! How to Entice Motorists from Their Cars (and onto Their Feet, a Bike, or Bus), in which designer Darrin Nordahl proposes that we apply “the power positive emotion wields over a person’s choice” to transit, just as has been done with cars. Nordahl believes that good design and branding will make this change happen. He gives concrete examples such as the gorgeous new terminal building planned for San Francisco and the names and logos developed for bus routes in Boulder – names like Hop, Skip, Jump, Bound, Bolt, Dash, and Stampede. These are fun names that give personality to the experience.

And planners point out that the new generation is rejecting car ownership anyway in favor of renting through businesses like Zipcar or car sharing services. This younger cohort is primed for a message that will make transit more attractive and remove any lingering stigma that the older car-addicts have applied to transit.

But I would argue that transit’s sensory experience will never come close to driving’s magical sense of power, freedom, control, — and yes, sex. It’s often the first experience of its kind that a young adult encounters. And names that bring to mind speed like “Bolt” won’t work either until transit really is reliably faster than taking a car, as it can be in New York.

So if a car’s experience is so fundamentally different than riding transit, what parallel experience can we plumb for joyous attributes?

I would propose we look for a model to long-distance trains and their sense of possibility and romance, not the raw sex of cars. Throughout the last century, trains have been rich sources for stories of adventure and romance. The tight space generates dramatic tension that has special appeal for filmmakers. From Brief Encounter to North by Northwest to last year’s The Tourist, where Angelina Joli seduces Johnny Depp on a train, trains have been the stuff of dreams.

My chance encounters on trains have never been quite that romantic or fraught with peril, but they’ve been memorable nonetheless.

To some degree, the New York subway shares the dream of immediate and risk-free contact that long-distance trains enjoy. But given the unromantic image of buses and subways, contact between passengers is generally acceptable only in a crisis. Several years ago when I was riding the Broadway local uptown, the train broke down just north of the West 125^th Street stop. I struck up a conversation with a Honduran woman, expressing my admiration for her ability to keep cool despite the summer heat and humidity. Over the course of our conversation, she told me about her autistic child. Our intimacy was immediate and intense, if not romantic.

And yes I’ve experienced joy. On that same line but closer to 42^nd Street, a Motown singing group interspersed their songs with such irreverent humor that we all cheered as we put our dollars in the hat. As the lead singer exited the train, he caught my eye and said, mimicking an actor’s angst, “But what is my motivation?”

Building modern transit stations that match the glory of Grand Central is a wonderful idea. I just hope their creators include a recognition of the adventure that comes from sharing a compact space with strangers and the romantic possibilities. And who knows, someday lovers might boast about their tender meeting on a city bus. Makes a better story than meeting online.

Photo published under Creative Commons license. Courtesy of Henry Bloomfield on Flickr

Carol Pierson Holding writes on environmental issues and social responsibility for policy and news publications, including the Carnegie Council's Policy Innovations, Harvard Business Review, San Francisco Chronicle, India Time, The Huffington Post and many other web sites. Her articles on corporate social responsibility can be found on CSRHub.com, a website that provides sustainability ratings data on 5,000 companies worldwide. Carol holds degrees from Smith College and Harvard University.

The Truth Will Out: Mainstream Media is Starting to Notice

2012-05-02T11:13:18-04:00

The following post is part of a CSRHub series focusing on 10 trends that are driving corporate transparency and disclosure in the coming year. To follow the discussion of each trend, watch for posts on the CSRHub blog every Wednesday.

By Ashley Coale

Sustainability and CSR are no longer confined to niche publications or blogs. While traditional green or sustainability related online news sources (such as Triple Pundit, GreenBiz, 3BLMedia) remain strong and growing, coverage of sustainability and CSR is becoming a key piece of mainstream journalism and reporting.

Increasing consumer demand has changed the expectation of business responsibility and social action, and has also pressured mainstream media sources for more information. Forbes, Huffington Post, Bloomberg, Fast Company, and Yahoo are all examples of mainstream sources that have come to include a full section or blog on sustainability, green issues, and/or CSR within the last several years. This uptick in coverage is important for the CSR field not just for pure quantity, but also the legitimacy that stems from coverage in highly respected mainstream and business publications.

Similarly, businesses have used the release of sustainability reports or the implementation of sustainability initiatives as a PR opportunity. PR Newswire routinely covers the release of sustainability reports, and has even recognized companies with its PR News CSR Award and Hall of Fame (this coverage of Campbell’s provides a great example as does this coverage of SAP).

Unilever’s upcoming ad campaign is another great example of sustainability coverage hitting the mainstream. The campaign will highlight Unilever’s sustainability plan and its efforts to reduce waste. The campaign communicates to consumers Unilever’s sustainability efforts and how they can join with Unilever to make a difference. And these consumers are not those that would seek out “green” news, but very mainstream consumers that might not read about Unilever’s sustainability leadership otherwise.

It is not just business-to-consumer communication that has changed CSR/sustainability coverage, but a shift has also occurred within business journalism. The Wall Street Journal has an increasingly significant amount of CSR coverage (including this controversial piece on the concept of CSR that continues to get traffic and commentary almost two years later). Similarly, the Harvard Business Review devotes coverage of CSR and sustainability in its magazine and blogs. As CSR has become a challenge for business, more businesspeople are looking to standard industry publications to help explain best practices, challenges and opportunities, and to learn from trendsetters. Business publications also help illustrate how CSR and sustainability help answer some of today’s big-picture business challenges: governance and transparency, the Occupy movement and the all-time low of public trust in corporations, innovation and global competitiveness.

The mainstreaming of CSR and sustainability news reflects its increasing acceptance. As most studies place consumer demand for pro-social and environmental action by business at somewhere around 75%, (read Edelman and Cone), it’s not surprising that mainstream media would start to notice.

Ashley Coale has a long-standing passion for business sustainability and the impact that strong, effective communications campaigns can have in catalyzing change. As the Social Media Editor, Ashley manages social media and communications outreach at CSRHub. She is responsible for crafting and implementing content and strategy. Her communications experience includes a wide range of causes including international development, human rights, and federal and municipal sustainability policy. She holds a bachelors degree from Wellesley College and a Masters degree from the London School of Economics. A native of Portland, Oregon, she now makes her home in Brooklyn.

It’s Biodegradable, I Swear!

2012-04-27T08:48:13-04:00

By Gia Machlin

The following was originally posted on the EcoPlum blog in two parts.

So after years of making fun of dog owners in the city, I became one myself: a city dweller with a canine friend. Meet Pepper. Of course now I think having a dog in the city is the best thing since sliced bread, but I still feel somewhat ridiculous picking up after Pepper does her business on the sidewalk. Luckily we have those tidy little poop bags to help us out and keep the mess to a minimum. I realize that using an old newspaper is probably more eco friendly, and I may just switch to that, but as I was getting used to this dog walking concept, using the bags just seemed much less disgusting.

So I walked into the pet store and asked for biodegradable poop bags, and the clerk pointed me to some bags hanging in a display case. On the packaging, there was a picture of the earth with some recycling arrows around it and the words “earth friendly.” If I didn’t happen to be in the sustainability field, I might have taken this information at face value and bought the bags. But I didn’t recognize the symbol as representing a reputable eco-label and I looked further. Nowhere on the packaging did the product claim to be biodegradable, compostable, or made of renewable materials. In fact, the bags were, as far as I could tell, no different than any other plastic poop bag. But I’m sure the manufacturer fooled a few customers into believing their product was “greener” than the next. How is this possible?

It’s possible, because there is very little regulation around what companies can claim as “green,” “eco friendly,” or “earth friendly.” Not that there isn’t any regulation – in 1992 the Federal Trade Commission came out with the Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claimsalso known as the “Green Guide“. This regulation has been updated several times, and in October 2010 the FTC proposed major updates to this section of the Federal Register (the proposed updates have yet to be finalized). So this is all good, and the FTC has started to enforce these rules, but the rules are new, and in some cases unclear, and the door is still open for all the “greenwashers” and their claims for now.

So, as a consumer, knowing that the door is still open for marketers to make all kinds of green claims, how do you know what’s green? Well the first thing to know is that nothing is truly “green.” Everything we buy has some kind of environmental footprint. A product’s footprint is calculated using many factors: the material used to make it, the energy used tomanufacture it, the gasoline used to transport it, the electricity needed to operate it, and the waste created when ultimately disposing of it. But a product can be “greener” than another. (The most environmentally friendly option is not to buy anything new at all and reuse what’s already out there!) So how do we know what’s “greener?” Currently, we at EcoPlum believe the best option is to buy products that have are made of recycled materials, have been certified green by independent organizations or that have earned a reputable eco-label.

Now, how do you know which Eco-Label is reputable? That’s the topic of Part II of this post. But, for now, here is a list of eco-labels we have found be run by independent non-profit or government third parties that appear to have no vested interest in the products or companies they certify.

###

Last time I wrote about how easy it is for marketers to “greenwash” by claiming their products are “eco friendly,” “green,” and “natural” with very little regulation and enforcement around these claims. I introduced the importance of the ecolabel: a “seal of approval” that is given by a government agency, a non-profit or an independent third party when a product or company meets certain predetermined environmental standards. With over 400 ecolabels floating around out there, how do you know which ones to rely on for your purchasing decisions? Which ones seem to be the most reputable and unbiased? Of course, as with most things in life, it is hard to know if any of these organizations are truly “independent” and have no vested interest in making the claims they make, but the best we can do is rely on their transparency, track record, and reputation. So, with this caveat, please read more about those ecolabels that, at least based on my research and experience, seem to be the most worthy of consumers’ trust.

One can categorize ecolabels in a number of ways: who issues them, whether they apply to the entire company or just specific products, and whether they are general or industry specific. Let’s start with the type of issuing organization.

Are they issued by the government, a non profit or another third party organization?

Two of the most well known ecolabels are the USDA Organic and Energy Star logos. No doubt you have bought some food labeled USDA Organic or an appliance with the Energy Star seal of approval. These are government issued labels that require adherence to very specific standards, carry hefty fines for misuse, and require certification and testing of operations and products by an accredited certification agent. Other government issued labels include: the Green Vehicle Guide, Design for Environment, and WaterSense programs from the EPA, the USDA BioPreferred program, and the Canadian EcoLogo program.

Non-profits and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also play an important role in ecolabeling. Some of the better known NGO labels are GreenSeal, Green America, Fair Trade USA, Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, EPEAT, and the US Green Building Council’s LEED certification program. All of these programs have rigorous standards that products and companies must meet prior to earning the use of the seal or label. In some of these cases, the companies “self report” their compliance with these standards to the NGO, and there is little to no verification by the NGO. While this may make some people nervous, there is not a lot of room for abuse, as the NGOs monitor the companies closely for customer complaints and their reviewers are quite experienced in spotting the shadier applicants. Some of these organizations run random audits and site visits to maintain integrity.

Of course, this wouldn’t be America if we didn’t have our share of for profit companies in the ecolabeling space! The leader right now is probably UL Environment (ULE), with their 2010 acquisition of TerraChoice, a sustainability consulting firm and manager of Canada’s EcoLogo program. Another well known one is Cradle to Cradle, from MDBC, another sustainability consulting firm, although in 2011 the actual certification responsibility was transferred to a new, non-profit entity called the Cradle to Cradle Innovation institute, so technically they are part for-profit and part non-profit. These companies all require audits and verification of standards, and also provide the advice and consulting services to bring their clients into “compliance” with their standards.

Next, you should know if the label applies to a specific product or to the entire company.

Company wide or product specific – there are pros and cons to each of these types of certifications. Examples of company wide certifications are Green America, B-Corporation, Fair Trade Certified, and in some cases Green Seal and ULE. When the entire company is certified, it often means that the issuing organization has looked beyond product attributes such as material, energy use, etc. Green America, for example, looks at the labor practices, fair trade practices, community involvement, transparency and communication, employee treatment, and charitable giving practices of the company. As a matter of fact, when EcoPlum first applied for Green America certification in 2009, we were turned down due to not having all these policies in place. (This, of course, made our obtaining Green America Gold certification in 2011 all the more coveted!) So, when you shop from a Green America Gold Certified company, for example, you know that the entire corporate culture is dedicated to sustainability and social responsibility. On the other hand, when labeling occurs at the product level, as with the Energy Star program, you know that the exact product that you are purchasing meets very specific environmental criteria, but the manufacturer may have sweat shops in China or be a big contributor to the coal lobby, just for example.

Finally, you should know if the label is specific to a certain industry or product type or if it is a general “green” certification.

Some of the ecolabels that cover a general range of products are Green Seal, Cradle to Cradle, Green America and EcoLogo. However, the majority of ecolabels are industry specific. So, if you are looking for safe cosmetics, then the EWG’s Skin Deep database is the place to go, but if you are buying a new car, check out the EPA’s Green Vehicle Guide. If you want a biodegradable cleaner, go to the USDA Biopreferred database, but if you want an eco friendly carpet, look it up in FloorScore. Yes, this is a TON of information, and if your head is not spinning yet, download our FREE GUIDE TO ECOLOBELS here!

[Note: the EcoPlum Online Boutique carries only eco friendly products that have been certified green, have a third party eco-label, or are made of recycled/upcycled materials.]

CSRHub provides access to corporate social responsibility and sustainability ratings and information on nearly 5,000 companies from 135 industries in 65 countries. Managers, researchers and activists use CSRHub to benchmark company performance, learn how stakeholders evaluate company CSR practices and seek ways to change the world.

CSRHub rates 12 indicators of employee, environment, community and governance performance and flags many special issues. We offer subscribers immediate access to millions of detailed data points from our 140-plus data sources. Our data comes from six socially responsible investing firms, well-known indexes, publications, “best of” or “worst of” lists, NGOs, crowd sources and government agencies. By aggregating and normalizing the information from these sources, CSRHub has created a broad, consistent rating system and a searchable database that links each rating point back to its source.

Supply Chain Leaders – Have You Discussed Sustainability?

2012-04-26T09:00:00-04:00

By Michael Koploy

A key part of any business operation to include sustainability considerations is examining its supply chain. In some ways, this external look can be more of a challenge as transparency, evaluation and the power to re-tool a practice, resource or product are more difficult outside the doors of the company. However, to truly understand the impact of a business service or product, we must take into account the practices and consequences of what goes into the product.

As part of my work on transportation management systems at Software Advice, I have been able to clearly understand where we need changes in supply chain management and what questions supply chain leaders need to ask themselves in the discussion. Here are the five questions that leaders need to start with to begin the conversation about sustainability:

#1 How can we make more sustainable products? Moving sustainability farther upstream will reduce costs through more efficient production and transportation. Look no further than cleaning companies to see corporations that have found a way to introduce sustainability into their product line – and use it as a marketing platform, as well. Take a walk down the aisle at the grocery store, and one will see many detergents are now 2 or 3 times (or even further) concentrated versions of the older formulas. This reduces the amount of product that needs to be processed, and reduces fuel consumption from reduced fleet shipments.

# 2 How can we instill sustainability into our suppliers? Over the years, technology within logistics and the supply chain has improved. However, many suppliers that haven’t been forced to upgrade or innovate are still stuck in their “old ways” – and these weaknesses are holding back the supply chain from becoming truly sustainable. Proctor and Gamble has made it their mission to help the Earth become more sustainable and they are doing so through asking their suppliers to care more – and requiring it, as seen by its Supplier Scorecard.

#3 How can we better measure sustainability? While not inherent, measuring consumption-reduction projects is imperative to accomplishing sustainability goals. Without measuring these initiatives, leaders are unable to assign a value to them, realize their true cost-reduction benefits, and learn from their current projects and reintroduce the most successful initiatives throughout the rest of the business. Transportation management systems with route optimization, scorecard programs and other measurement applications are essential to tying results back to these projects. In addition to benefiting individual companies, proper measurement, visibility and accountability can positively impact business as a whole. That's why the work of CSRHub is important – as companies increase the transparency of their CSR actions, the corporations as a whole will become more socially responsible.

#4 How can we dissociate with socially-negligent suppliers? The pervasive thought among many supply chain leaders is sustainability and social responsibility are “indirect” concerns – they impact PR, but not the company’s bottom line. Mattel is proof this isn’t the case. In 2007, when it was discovered that Mattel’s tier two suppliers used unsafe levels of lead paint in its toys, the company had to spend over $100 million in product recalls alone. Because supply chains today are so extended, companies need to do more and complete their due-diligence to ensure they are not associating with irresponsible partners.

#5 Who can we trust to drive sustainability? Lastly, leaders need an individual to carry the sustainability torch. There has to be an individual assigned to integrating sustainability into the company’s DNA – from cradle-to-cradle – in order for sustainability to be realized throughout the supply chain the rest of the business. Practitioners have to step-up to the challenge as well – excited for the opportunity to make what in the past would have been viewed by many as a “horizontal move,” but as Schaffer Consulting’s Ron Ashkenas writes: these moves are necessary for both careers and corporations today.

Michael Koploy is a guest blogger for CSRHub. He works as a ERP Analyst at Software Advice – a consultancy firm that reviews transportation management systems. You can read more on this subject at the Software Advice blog or contact Michael directly on Twitter @SCMAdvice.

The Truth Will Out: The Power of Crowds

2012-04-25T09:06:36-04:00

The following post is part of a CSRHub series focusing on 10 trends that are driving corporate transparency and disclosure in the coming year. To follow the discussion of each trend, watch for posts on the CSRHub blog every Wednesday.

By Bahar Gidwani

If one consumer complains about a company’s social performance, it is a gripe. When a horde of them complain at the same time, it is a movement. Bottom up, crowd sources of sustainability information may soon become one of the most important drivers towards corporations becoming more socially responsible.

A surprisingly large number of companies maintain Facebook fan pages, monitor Twitter feeds, and otherwise engage directly with their outside stakeholders. A recent study by Burston-Marsteller showed that 79 percent of the largest 100 companies in the Fortune Global 100 are using at least one social media platform to communicate with their stakeholders. A similar study by The Center for Marketing Research at UMass Dartmouth reported that 90 percent of the leaders of the Inc. 100 group of leading smaller companies said that social media tools are important for managing their company’s brand awareness and reputation.

Early efforts to organize stakeholder pressure have already become an important part of the CSR universe. There are thousands of bloggers who write about sustainability and 179 Meetup groups on sustainability in the New York area, alone. GoodGuide’s smartphone app has been downloaded more than 600,000 times. It helps its users buy sustainable products and to gather data for GoodGuide on user behavior that can drive corporate product development and branding. By collaborating on Glassdoor, the employees of 161,402 companies can share salary information and express their opinion of how they are treated and how their CEO is performing. Services such as Tra.cx, StockTwits, and Hootsuite use Twitter and Facebook data to gage how investors and activists feel about a company. Tra.cx research shows that many opinion trends are driven by the views of a few well-connected opinion leaders.

Crowds have showed their power with the Arab Spring and the Occupy movement. They put pressure on Rush Limbaugh’s advertisers, News Corp, and CNN when they disagreed with their behavior. A number of the 150+ sources we use to generate our CSRHub ratings come from crowd sources. We expect to add more and to perhaps contribute to the power of crowds, by allowing our users to share CSRHub company ratings, search settings, and ratings profiles with each other.

Bahar Gidwani is a Cofounder and CEO of CSRHub. Formerly, he was the CEO of New York-based Index Stock Imagery, Inc, from 1991 through its sale in 2006. He has built and run large technology-based businesses and has experience building a multi-million visitor Web site. Bahar holds a CFA, was a partner at Kidder, Peabody & Co., and worked at McKinsey & Co. Bahar has consulted to both large companies such as Citibank, GE, and Acxiom and a number of smaller software and Web-based companies. He has an MBA (Baker Scholar) from Harvard Business School and a BS in Astronomy and Physics (magna cum laude) from Amherst College. Bahar races sailboats, plays competitive bridge, and is based in New York City.

EPA Protects West Coast Ports Besieged by Coal

2012-04-24T08:05:45-04:00

By Carol Pierson Holding

In a long-awaited move, the EPA has called in the Army Corps of Engineers to review plans for West Coast coal ports. Finally, alarmed environmentalists and frightened local residents are getting help from the Federal government.

In December, 2010, I first heard about a proposed coal port in Longview, Oregon and was so outraged that I wrote an article for CSRHub.com. It was so shocking, here, in the Pacific Northwest, a place that prides itself on clean energy leadership. Where just months later, amidst great celebration, Washington state announced it will close its last remaining coal plant.

The environmental arguments against the Longview coal terminal seem indisputable: the coal that would have been shipped from Wyoming and Montana was the lowest grade, a grade outlawed in the US because it is so toxic. The trains carrying the coal would go through the Columbia River Gorge and other environmentally sensitive areas, spreading adjacent land and communities with coal dust.

And when the coal finally got to China, the resulting clouds of black soot could have resulted in pollution so thick as to reduce visibility in West Coast communities, a “myth” that I witnessed several years ago in San Francisco.

That Longview port proposal was withdrawn in the face of consumer opposition and a state review. But as I just found out, a new plan was submitted in late 2011 that “dwarfs the size of the original.” The $600 million project would create a port that exports a staggering 44 million tons of coal per year, making it twice as big as the largest coal port on the West Coast, which is located in metro Vancouver.

The strange thing is that even moderate voices in the coal industry question the viability of new coal ports. David Gambrel, coal consultant with many years working in coal companies, cautioned developers in Coal Age to take a lesson from the past. In the 1980s, the Port of Los Angeles responded to the same frenzied level of Asian demand for coal, then from Japan and India. The port hosted a $150-$200 million consortium to build LATX for coal exports and in the early 90s opened a world-class facility. It exceeded environmental requirements. Even tough union problems were overcome.

But several years later, the demand from Asian markets failed to meet LATX’s minimum annual guarantee requirements and the project was shuttered.

The Port of Portland went through a similar saga, investing $25 million in its own export terminal only to find Asian markets to be unstable and unreliable.

And yet, here we are again. This time, coal prices are sky high and many more determined coal port developers are jumping in, including SAA Marine in Cherry Point Washington; the Longview facility which is co-owned by Ambre Energy of Australia and the US Arch Coal; Rail America’s coal terminal at Grays Harbor Washington; and three smaller ports in Oregon, including the Port of Morrow’s proposed development soon to be under review by the Corps of Army Engineers.

Even if Asian demand for coal does stay strong, there are many other uncertainties that make investments risky, including increased competition from Alaska and South America when the Panama Canal widening is complete in 2014, the arrival of larger New Panamax vessels which cut shipping costs but require deeper harbors, and the ability of railways to handle heavy loads and trains longer than 100 cars.

But the most frightening risk of all to the coal port developers is the environmentalists. As David Gambrel writes in Coal Age:

“Finding a site that meets all the physical requirements will be but a small part of the job. Global warming, climate change, and a host of other scare phrases will be used by people who now genuinely believe the Chinese will burn high sulfur coal and send their unclean stack emissions back to us. In many cases their fear is so great they will do everything in their power to stop any new development.”

How right Gambrel turns out to be. It’s those crazy residents and even crazier environmentalists devoted to stopping the coal port developments who pushed the EPA to pull in the Corps of Engineers. It’s amazing what a determined group of people can do, even in the face of the combined forces of coal, railway, and shipping industries. I sure hope they succeed.

Photo published under Creative Commons license. Courtesy of Rainforest Action Network on Flickr.

CSRHub has a Special Issue of Coal Involvement. The 51 companies on this list are involved in the coal industry either via coal mining, production of coal mining-related equipment, coal-based power production, or engineering services. Sources used: Coal Mining Engineer's List, Van Eck Global Coal, Power Shares Global Coal, Source Watch Carbon, U.S. Energy Information Administration Coal Producers, Yahoo! Coal.