Home » How We Think » Three Ps » Sustainability Communications
The sustainability report may go out of style at some point. But sustainability reporting is probably here to stay.
Each year, thousands of companies issue sustainability reports. They can be comprehensive, data-driven labors of love designed to highlight successes, measure progress, engage stakeholders, and respond to skeptics. Unfortunately, many are too long, too complicated, not timely, overwhelming, underwhelming, or whatever. They can be expensive – financially and environmentally – to design, print and ship. All that effort and cost, and many go unused and underappreciated.
The search for the right tool to report on sustainability is ongoing – with the annual report, Web portals, and factsheets and “dashboards” all growing as viable options. One interesting iteration is the new McDonald’s 2011 Global Sustainability Scorecard, a 16-page pamphlet covering Nutrition & Well-Being, Sustainable Supply Chain, Environmental Responsibility, Employee Experience, and Community. Yes, all that in 16 pages, with a QR code for smart phones to link to the sustainability section of AboutMcDonalds.com.
McDonald’s has scrapped the full-fledged printed report in favor of this scorecard format. They say it’s a matter of “less is more,” and I don’t see anything wrong with that. In more ways than one, it sounds like a sustainable solution to me.
The inbox fills up much faster than just about anyone's ability to keep up with it. A lot of it is junk - I'm sure glad it doesn't come to me in paper form! But some of it is really useful, eye-opening and thought-provoking. Here is some recommended reading from a wide variety of sources since the beginning of the year:
Ohio fracking: A balanced Reuters story (January 13, 2012) about the use of fracking in shale drilling in Ohio. Another good versus evil story – earthquakes and the environment versus jobs and domestic energy production.
Megatrends: Bill Roth, The Triple Pundit guest blogger for January 3, 2012, highlights "five megatrends creating 2012's trillion dollar global sustainable economy." The list consists of energy efficiency, greening of the supply chain, local food, the rise of the "smart" consumer that won't be swayed by greenwashing, and Hispanic green leadership. An unusual grouping, for sure.
News from Apple: Apple has released a list of its major suppliers for the first time and published its supplier responsibility progress report. The January 13, 2012 New York Times article is a complete read on this topic. The transparency is good for Apple, even though some of its suppliers' business practices are going to come under fire. For that reason, the January 17, 2012 “cry for help” follow-up by The Triple Pundit guest blogger Tina Casey is also interesting.
Redefining the triple bottom line: In a January 13, 2012 CSRwire Talkback post, David Wilcox laments only incremental improvements in corporate responsibility. He argues that companies need to do more to scale from "do less harm" to "do more good." He also says they should work toward a "license to grow," not just a "license to operate."
Socially responsible investing: A January 10, 2012 post by Rory Sullivan for London-based Ethical Corporation speaks to the “uncomfortable truths” about socially responsible investing (SRI). In the wake of Henderson Global Investors’ decision to close it its highly regarded socially responsible investing team, Sullivan wonders whether SRI incentives and drivers are really as strong and real as proponents say they are. Or are they just rhetoric?
Walmart’s sustainability blog, The Green Room, is less than a week old. And the conversation is in full swing. The January 3 announcement of the blog drew more than 70 comments – mostly positive, but, as far as I can tell, even the not-so-flattering comments are being accepted and responded to.
Some might say that the creation of the blog and the regular postings by Andrea Thomas, Walmart’s SVP of sustainability, already show leadership. But that’s just the beginning – the outbound communication.
The openness to incoming communication, respond to the comments and eventually act, where appropriate, on the feedback, are, and will be, the bigger issues. Early indications are that this blog is not just about communication, but conversation. And transparency. And ideas that can be put into action. Good luck to The Green Room.
The vast majority of transnational companies do not report on their sustainability/corporate social responsibility efforts. Sure, some are inactive and really have nothing to talk about – and they should want to “walk the walk” before they “talk the talk.”
But there are a lot of others who are active and moving forward, and still not communicative. How and when will they ever get over their “greenblushing”?
Here’s a suggestion: For public companies, there are already a format and schedule in place just waiting to be tapped for sustainability/CSR reporting. It’s the annual report.
I hope you will read “All Together Now: Why sustainability reporting and the annual report should be combined,” an article from the March/April issue of Corporate Responsibility Magazine. I am pleased to have the opportunity to co-author this article with Don McGrath of Eaton Corporation, which is a pioneer in using the annual report to communicate its sustainability efforts. This article has just been added to our website for you to download.
In a nutshell, there are four big reasons for integrating sustainability/CSR reporting into the annual report:
-
Transparency – just like financial results, sustainability is becoming an important measure of corporate performance
-
Socially responsibility investing – $3.07 trillion and counting
-
Business strategy – sustainability, energy efficiency and serving the energy industry are part of the growth story for many companies
-
Efficiency and cost effectiveness – one book, one project is better than two
It works for Eaton and it will work for many other companies that are looking for a way to report on their sustainability/CSR efforts. We look forward to your comments.
Supporters of Earth Day have called for people around the world to pledge to commit “a billion acts of green” today, April 22, Earth Day 2011.
Small, individual acts are welcome – so mine is to do this blog post, after several weeks of not having time to add to this site. Sure, it’s symbolic, but, in the end, I suspect most of the acts will be.
For example, I see that green lifestyle expert, journalist and TV host Candice Batista, through Twitter @candicebatista, has pledged that she is “buying NOTHING….NADA….zip….give a try too.” Probably just symbolic – I’m sure she either stocked up or will wait until the weekend to buy what she would have bought on Friday.
And that’s the best-case scenario: If she actually decided not to make up for her spend-free day, and millions or billions of people followed her lead, April 22, 2011 would go down in history as one of the worst economic meltdowns in history. It may be green, but it sure isn’t sustainable (People, Planet, Profit).
Businesses all around the world are marking Earth Day by announcing major new initiatives. In fact, the announcements of new sustainability initiatives are so utterly overwhelming that Environmental Leader noted today that “this Earth Week we got far more news suggestions than we could possibly use. So reduce wasted press releases – email us at other times of year!” In other words, many sustainability efforts are going to go under-recognized because they are being announced on Earth Day.
Cheer up if you’re unclear about the impact of your sustainability initiatives. Even Earth Day isn’t sure what to do with sustainability.
In my new Emerging Trends article about sustainability communications, I make the case that “well-run organizations should be able to walk and talk – and clear hurdles – at the same time.”
Do you agree that you can walk the walk and talk the talk of sustainability at the same time, and that they can feed off of each other successfully?
Or is greenblushing – which I define as walking the walk but being too unsure and shy to talk the talk – too much to overcome? Are fears about greenwashing getting in the way of good communications and audience engagement?
I just completed a new Dix & Eaton “Emerging Trends” article about the need to initiate or expand two-way communications on sustainability with key constituents, particularly employees and key suppliers. It’s the conversation you can’t afford not to have.
But there are two recent announcements that I must share with you as you consider your options and join the conversations:
Greenwashing is assumed to be alive and well: Some industry analysts and researchers believe “talking the talk but not walking the walk” in sustainability is ubiquitous. Scot Case, of the environmental consulting firm TerraChoice, told Congress recently that 98 percent of 4,000 consumer products evaluated made false or misleading sustainability claims. In addition, more than two-thirds of Americans believe a “green” designation for a company is “just a marketing tactic.”
Standards lack standardization: More than 300 different organizations claim to certify organizations, products or services as “green” or “sustainable.” The alphabet soup of organizations and certifications seems to have no limits, as indicated by my “green certifications” Google search result that returned 4.5 million images.
That’s a whole lot of sobering, discouraging news. Fortunately, good sustainability communications strategy and leadership can still be a difference-maker.
Sustainability and the Three P’s (the concept, not the blog and @threeps Twitter account) seem to be suffering from a bit of an identity crisis.
For example, noted MIT professor and sustainability guru Peter Senge now says “sustainability” is at risk of losing its effectiveness as a term. He says sustainability or the lack thereof has become too closely linked to survival and fear of collapse. And, remember, the rise of “sustainability” came in response to concerns about “green” overkill.
Furthermore, the “Three P’s” are becoming ambiguous. Until very recently, “People, Planet, Profit” was the generally accepted long version. Now, some business organizations have changed “Profit” into “Profits,” and it’s becoming the first of the Three P’s in the triple bottom line. And if the Three P’s aren’t enough, sustainability also has the “Five R’s”: rethink, reduce, reuse, recycle, and report out on your achievements.
In the day-to-day development of sustainable products and practices and alternative energy, engineers and technicians don’t get hung up on what to call it. But, in communications, words matter; and the words, key messages and sound bites often determine success or failure in winning the hearts and minds of business leaders and the general public.
So the next time somebody says it doesn’t matter what we call it, think twice. What you do is still more important than what you say, but what you say and how you say it will be what people remember.
Environmental management, sustainability and alternative energy are highly technical, engineering-oriented fields, and I respect the heck out of the technical challenges and statistical analysis required in those fields.
So, once in a while, I ask myself, what’s a communicator doing in a place like this? In my view, communications fits in right here – promote understanding by key audiences, put the data in context, tell a good story so people will listen and remember, and so on.
A strong case is being built for sustainability communications. For example, in 2007, Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for the climate change movie “An Inconvenient Truth” – this prestigious award won for communicating, not for overcoming a mighty technical challenge.
“Sustainable communications” is now emerging as a distinct discipline. Diane Verde of the London-based sustainability and communications consultancy Clownfish highlights Four C’s for sustainable communications: credibility, clarity, consistency and conversation (dialogue instead of a monologue).
Social media, including the Web site and tools such as blogs, Facebook and Twitter, are primary tools for communications around sustainability. And, by the way, audiences are very suspicious about greenwashing. Yes, they want companies to do and say more about sustainability, but when they do, many people suspect or even assume greenwashing. The bar and the expectations have been raised.
The ability to communicate what you’re doing is critical to gaining support for your efforts in sustainability. On water issues, the time for action and communication is now.
Yesterday, Gov Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency to address California’s water emergency, after three straight years of drought and fearing two or three more years. Meanwhile, the depth of Lake Mead is falling so fast that Las Vegas may lose 40 percent of its water supply by 2012. And, in many parts of the world, a gallon of water costs more than a gallon of gas.
Water is regarded as a very clean, renewable source of energy and, yet, here we are: California has added 9 million new residents since its last major drought in 1991. In addition, according to an outstanding article on Bloomberg.com, China has 21 percent of the world’s people but only 7 percent of the water; and Las Vegas is paying homeowners $1.50 a square foot to replace lawns with gravel (which doesn’t have to be watered). In the United States, the battle for jobs and company relocations could come down to who has the water – Mississippi, Louisiana, Great Lakes, Finger Lakes, Land of 1,000 Lakes, etc.
The nations of the world have long fought wars over water – for drinking, commerce, military, etc. And it could get a lot worse. The most ominous prediction comes from Northwestern University professor Dipak Jain, quoted in the February 26 Bloomberg article by John Lippert and Jim Efstathiou Jr.: “Water is going to be more important than oil in the next 20 years.”
For companies, those that know how to manage their water – and communicate their actions to the public and regulators – will have a distinct advantage. Your economic viability is at stake, chemical companies, manufacturers, beverage companies, car wash owners, and so on. For individuals, even in Europe and North America, this basic human right doesn’t seem so basic anymore.
« Older Posts
