Page 35 – Sustainability Academy

Sustainability Trends in Silicon Valley

Are Silicon Valley corporations role models for sustainability? Given the high concentrations of Millennials, many believe Silicon Valley veers toward sustainability. Yet the likes of Google and Apple are noticeably absent from the top of sustainability indices such as the Dow Jones Sustainability Index and Corporate Knights Global 100.

Our December 15, 2016, webinar presents analysis of sustainability and corporate social responsibility reporting by Silicon Valley-based companies and organizations from CSE’s report Sustainability Trends in Silicon Valley.

While many companies researched are leaders in their field, they are not necessarily leaders in sustainability. See where leading brands such as Adobe, AMD, Apple, Cisco, eBay, Facebook, FICO, Google, Intel, LinkedIn, PayPal, Oracle, SunPower, Tesla, and Zynga land on the sustainability spectrum. Find out about the overall corporate climate toward sustainability in Silicon Valley.

CSE’s research furthers its commitment to high caliber training in sustainability for corporate executives and sustainability managers worldwide. Its Sustainability Academy (a global initiative to train 100,000 sustainability professionals by 2020!) provides rigorous education to sustainability professionals, entrepreneurs and graduates needing the latest resources to advance in this ever evolving field.

The expert webinar will be led by Nikos Avlonas, president and founder of CSE, and Rosalinda Sanquiche, executive manager, CSE-North America. Join us on Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 11am ET. (REGISTER)

To learn more on how these findings can improve sustainability within your organization, attend one of our Certified Sustainability Practitioner (CSR) Programs.(Advanced Version)

Many companies in the EU are already required by national laws in the country where they operate to regularly disclose financial and non-financial information. However, as there are very different laws on national level, the existing requirements regarding non-financial information are often regarded as unclear and ineffective. Given the situation, the European Union Council decided to adopt its new Directive in October 2014, as an amendment to the Accounting Directive which was released in June 2013. The Directive 2014/95/EU (or the “2014 Directive”) establishes new environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) reporting requirements for covered enterprises, including companies based in the United States.

To be more specific, the directive targets “large” companies, defined by reference to the number of employees, balance sheet total, and net turnover. It is applicable to all companies incorporated in EU Member States as well as U.S. companies that are EU exchange-listed, and have a significant presence in an individual Member State.

The European Union Council defines “large” companies as those that:

Have more than 500 employees;
Are “public-interest” organizations, which are defined to include EU exchange-listed companies as well as some unlisted companies, such as credit institutions, insurance undertakings, and other businesses selected by Member States, based on size, number of employees, and/or activities.
Have a balance sheet total of at least EUR$20 million (approximately USD$25 million) or a net turnover of at least EUR$40 million (approximately USD$50 million).

There are some facts that each large company should know about EU 2014 Directive Reporting requirements. To begin with, companies are required to submit ESG disclosures (“non-financial statements”) either within the annual corporate report or as a separate filing. In case a separate filing is made, it should either be published with the management report or be made publicly available on the company’s website (within six months of the balance sheet date) and referred to within the management report. The non-financial statement can be filed by the group/parent company, rather than individually by all affiliate companies.

Furthermore, covered companies are required to prepare and provide information about:

Environmental matters (e.g. current and foreseeable impacts on environment, health, and safety issues, the use of renewable and/or non-renewable energy, greenhouse gas emissions, water use, and air pollution)
Social and employee-related aspects (e.g. gender equality, implementing fundamental conventions of the International Labor Organization, trade union rights, health and safety at work, and engagement with local communities)
Human rights
Corruption and anti-bribery issues
Diversity in the company’s board of directors

Fortunately, the Directive gives companies significant flexibility to disclose relevant information in the way that they consider most useful. Companies may use international, European or national guidelines which they consider appropriate (e.g. the UN Global Compact, ISO 26000, or the German Sustainability Code).

By the end of 2016, the EU 2014 Directive will be transformed into national law which then applies to fiscal years beginning in January 2017 and thereafter. Therefore, companies concerned will have significant time to adapt to the new requirements, and will start reporting as of their financial year 2017.

To learn all about successful sustainability reporting, GRI Guidelines, current global and local legislation, recent trends and external assurance, join now the Certified Sustainability Practitioner Program, Advanced Edition 2016 in Houston, February 23-24

Learn more and book online here

Contact us: [email protected]

Minimizing a company’s impact to society has long been considered to be at odds with maximizing stakeholder returns. Better informed customers, as well as liability averse investors are now requiring companies to do better. Companies are responding, and a bottom line benefit is emerging.

In the last 50 years sustainability has primarily been seen in Socially Responsible Investing (SRI), which avoids investment in companies with unethical or risky practices. While a positive development for society, this exclusionary practice has generally been associated with at best average investor returns.

Today corporate sustainability has evolved to where it is possible, even advantageous, to operate in a manner that is a win win for an organization, its partners and society. There is strong evidence that companies with their “Triple Bottom Line” – Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) – ducks in a row are rewarded with a lower cost of capital and frequently outperform. These “best in class” companies are not only reducing their impact on others, but reducing waste and mitigating liabilities in their operations.

While a new concept for many, ESG is coming on strong. After nearly zero a decade ago, ESG related assets under management at the end of 2015 were over $21 trillion. Morningstar now has 120 analysts covering ESG issues. It’s both carrot and stick – recent financial crises have convinced regulators and investors that more information is needed from companies. And companies have recognized that being a good citizen is a point of positive product differentiation.

Much of the impact of ESG falls on the CFO’s desk. For the Social component – the S in ESG, companies that treat employees and suppliers fairly reap rewards of increased productivity plus less turnover and litigation.

Recent data breaches at companies like Target have shown that companies have hard to manage vulnerabilities in their supply chain that can threaten their sustainability. New companies like ThirdPartyTrust have emerged to address the issue as companies scramble to identify and manage this risk. For suppliers, demonstrating data security has become a necessary requirement to win contracts as well as a potential competitive advantage.

Strong corporate governance (the G in ESG) creates transparency and stability, encouraging investment.

Most early adopters are large multinationals, particular those in Europe with regulatory requirements from public exchanges. Companies such as Mitsubishi, Apple, and Cummins are providing ESG disclosure in an annual report like format. Goldman Sachs is a solid example of ESG reporting.

Standards for ESG measurement and reporting are evolving. Unlike standard GAAP financial principles with a well defined one way dissemination of information, ESG measurement is still both an art and a science. Communicating this sometimes hard to measure information is ideally a two way conversation with stakeholders. Just as GAAP represents a standardization of best practices over time, initiatives such as SASB and GRI aim for the same consistency and eventually auditability.

Driving change at an organization begins with measurement and communication of the relevant drivers. Sustainability Academy’s Online Certificate in ESG Performance for Investors and Sustainability Professionals gives professionals a good background into ESG reporting and the opportunities and challenges of this rapidly changing field.

What gets measured, gets managed. Making markets and companies more transparent will benefit both the environment and the economy.

——————-

Bio:

Michael Hines is a financial executive, consultant and entrepreneur. He specializes in change management, business metrics, supply chain risk, and sustainability. His experience includes large and small companies, restructurings, startups and acquisitions.

Learn more and book online here

Contact us: [email protected]

The trends that dominated in 2016 in learning behavior, tools and devices show that
E-learning is here to stay

Elearning is rapidly changing the way we learn, our access to information, the place or time of learning, the reasons we choose to learn or the tools and devices we select.

Recent studies have shown 8 global learning trends:

Gamification
Mobile learning
Video-based learning
Social Media learning
blended learning
Micro-learning
Augmented reality
Big data and learner analytics

For the Centre for Sustainability and Excellence (CSE), keeping a close eye on the trends is important in order to provide top professional knowledge through its Certified Online Courses on Sustainability and Corporate Responsibility issues.

Click here to view the Online Courses of the Sustainability Academy or contact us at [email protected]

Source: https://www.exultcorp.com/top-8-e-learning-trends-infographic/

Much has been made about whether Silicon Valley corporations are or are trying to be role models for sustainability. There is a perception that Silicon Valley corporations, many with high concentrations of Millennials, are inherently sustainable. Yet the likes of Google and Apple are noticeably absent from the top of sustainability indices such as the Dow Jones Sustainability Index and Corporate Knights Global 100. Given the disconnect, the Centre for Sustainability and Excellence (CSE) has undertaken the first systematic research on the true picture of sustainability efforts in Silicon Valley by analyzing sustainability and corporate sustainability strategies by Silicon Valley-based companies. The findings are available in CSE’s report Sustainability Trends in Silicon Valley upon request.

Providing insight for investors, business leaders, company boards, Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability professionals, NGOs, customers and other stakeholders, this research examines 100 companies ranging from small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) to large businesses with 1000 to over 100,000 employees. The research tracks if organizations follow best practices for sustainability, breaking down sustainability practices into six specific categories (Community, Environment, Ethics, Employees, Supply Chain and Philanthropy).

It outlines trends in these focus areas, evaluating if some are emphasized more heavily than others. The report also describes which types of companies generally produce the highest number of comprehensive sustainability practices, have the highest percentage of sustainability and Corporate Responsibility professionals or have thorough sustainability reporting, if any.

Companies examined include global leaders in their sector such as Adobe, AMD, Apple, Cisco, eBay, Facebook, FICO, Google, Intel, PayPal, Oracle, SunPower, Tesla, and Zynga. Industries covered include automotive, computer and internet, entertainment, financial services, medical, renewables and telecommunications.

Surprisingly, the report DID NOT find Silicon Valley companies overwhelmingly sustainable, based on their self-reporting. Of the 100 companies reviewed, only 63% of large companies employ sustainability professional and only 33% of SMBs. Only 29% have sustainability reporting, defined as having issued a sustainability report in a “clear report format”, omitting reports that are strictly online or web-based presentations of quick facts, brief overviews or vague goals. With the exception of those strongest companies at the top of the scale such as Adobe, Applied Materials and Cisco, corporate strategy seems to focus on one or two elements of sustainability, rather than a strategic and systems approach.

With a proliferation of vague displays of sustainability practices, often with slick online promotion, only 21% of the companies studied address all six practices – community, environment, employee, ethics, supply chain and philanthropy. Of the companies studied, 95% report practicing ethical governance, with numbers falling precipitously to 64% for supply chain and 63% for environmental. While the reporting on ethics deserves greater analysis, one can surmise interest in supply chain and the environment reflect current awareness and concern for carbon foot printing.

While many of the companies examined are leaders in their field, they are not necessarily leaders in corporate sustainability, negating the popular perception reported by the likes of Forbes and Environmental Leader. Finding Google on the short list of 23 companies addressing all six sustainability categories is no surprise, while Apple is notably absent. One would expect industry leaders to also lead in sustainability, following best practices in all focus areas to maximize their impact and stakeholder value. Yet, leading brands such as LinkedIn and PayPal did not provide easily accessible evidence of comprehensive sustainability practices and reporting. On the other hand, Adobe, Intel and Oracle have both comprehensive and extensive reporting on a myriad of programs addressing all six practices. The ability and potential certainly exists, but the corporate climate toward sustainability is not pervasive.

Due to the developments, specialists from the website https://www.papsociety.org/ambien-zolpidem-10-mg/ found that Ambien is contraindicated to pregnant women (especially during I trimester), except in cases of extreme necessity or doctor’s prescription. Moreover, the drug should be taken only if the potential benefit to the mother outweighs the possible risk to the fetus.

This report is the first of its kind to delve into corporate behavior in Silicon Valley related to Sustainability and Corporate Responsibility. Presumably, this would be the most complete representation of a company’s efforts given how fashionable corporate responsibility has become in the wake of constant reports of corporate misbehavior. Is such a lack of evidence a missed marketing and branding opportunity or is it a true indication that Silicon Valley is not ready to lead?

For more info on the research please contact me at [email protected]

To learn all about successful sustainability reporting, Guidelines, current global and local legislation, recent trends and sustainability practices, join now the Certified Sustainability Practitioner Program, Advanced Edition 2016 in Toronto, March 27-28

Learn more and book online here

Contact us: [email protected]

Since the 1990s, the number of companies disclosing information on their environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance has grown significantly. According to The State of Play in Sustainability Reporting in the European Union, Sustainability Reporting is growing in numbers (around 4,000 reports are registered globally and 2,000 in Europe). The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2013 indicates that among the largest 250 companies listed in the Fortune Global 500 ranking (G250), 93% issue sustainability reports.

Today, we can observe companies issuing such reports as a part of their annual reports or as stand-alone CSR reports. Despite the increase in the number of CSR reports their quality is different. The reports do not always provide complete data that reader’s desire, which in turn intensifies the problem with the evaluation and comparison of the organization’s results, achieved in this scope.

Instances of non-credible communication, the misuse of CSR for marketing exercises, and corporate scandals with large environmental and social impact have sparked skepticism and mistrust toward CSR reports. As a result, companies and stakeholders are trapped in the “credibility gap” of CSR reporting, which is harmful for both: stakeholders cannot satisfy their information needs regarding CSR and companies can hardly convey their CSR activities in a credible manner?

The issue of credibility in CSR communication has given rise to external verification, stakeholder engagement and integrated reporting. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) recognizes the importance of the external assurance for sustainability reports since 2002. In its G3/G3.1/G4 Guidelines, GRI recommends the use of external assurance for sustainability reports in addition to any internal support, such as internal audit team involvement. A report conducted by the Centre for Sustainability and Excellence indicates that the GRI Reporting Guidelines (G3,G3.1,G4) were the most frequently used by companies (66%) in 2014. The report also highlights some non-GRI reporting guidelines and standards, like OECD, UNGC, CDP, IFC and ISO 26000.

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) reflects in its Sustainability Disclosure Database the following three, generally accepted types of external assurance providers:

Accounting firms
Engineering firms
Small consultancies/boutique firms

According to AICPA report, assuring sustainability reporting can in turn result in key competitive benefits such as:

Increased stakeholder confidence in the information
Improved decision-making by the organization
Higher rankings among leading sustainability raters and rankers like CDP (formerly, the Carbon Disclosure Project) and Dow Jones Sustainability Indices (DJSI)
Enhanced brand reputation
Improved ability to attract and retain employees
Stronger performance and efficiencies
Cost savings
Improved risk management

Instituting a solid and credible CSR reporting process takes a tremendous amount of effort. Yet it is effort that is well worth the time and resources involved because of the payoff it produces in the form of risk reduction and enhanced business value.

Learn more and book online here

Contact us: [email protected]

New legislative transparency rules are in place, with the 2014 European Committee Directive going into effect starting 2017. Organizations with more than 500 employees are required to report on environmental, social and employee-related, human rights, anti-corruption and bribery matters and describe their business model relying on recognized frameworks such as GRI’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines and the United Nations Global Compact.

In fact, EU CSR Strategy 2015-2019 goes from Compliance to Innovation. “European CSR Strategy 2020 should not only focus on a common understanding of CSR to minimise risk, compliance and transparency but also to support companies to take advantage of opportunities to innovate of products and services that create shared value and sustainable living for all” said Étienne Davignon, Minister for State and CSR Europe President.

CSR Professionals who want to get a recognized qualification and learn more on related legislation, the benefits of reporting for an organization, the GRI standards that are used globally, the process of materiality assessment, data collection, and stakeholder mapping and engagement, can benefit from the world’s top Online Certificate on Sustainability (CSR) Reporting.
Global case studies will provide you with even more in-depth knowledge.

Visit the course in the Sustainability Academy

For more information and special discounts contact: [email protected]

As companies continue to advance their sustainability strategies and practices, the question of “to what standard” is becoming more urgent. Especially with regard to the procurement policy of a company. Sustainable Procurement means buying products and services from suppliers in a responsible way, in a way that respects economic, ethical and environmental aspects and includes issues such as waste disposal, supply chain and the cost of operation and maintenance over the life of goods or services.

A new standard, ISO 20400, Sustainable Procurement – Guidance is now being drafted, in order to provide organizations with a framework allowing them to integrate and measure sustainable practices into their procurement process.

Why is this important? When suppliers adhere to the organization’s set standards and values, the quality of the relation contributes to the organization’s long-term success and growth. For example, procurement in the public sector alone in OECD countries accounts for 12% of GDP and 29% of government spending. If we can make this amount of money work to an internationally accepted standard, it will be a major contribution toward global sustainability.

Advance your skills in Corporate Sustainability and be up-to-date with all the latest trends, cases and international legislation by joining the top Certified Online Sustainability Courses, offered by the Sustainability Academy.

VIEW ALL COURSES

For more information and special discounts, please contact [email protected]

Staying on top of sustainability reporting trends is challenging, since the field is constantly evolving and new standards and expectations are emerging. The focus on reports gradually shifts from mere operations towards a more life-cycle approach. The growing demands for transparency, mandatory disclosure and detailed reporting on CSR initiatives place reporting on top of the agenda for organizations.

According to a Carrots & Sticks survey, regulators urge companies to disclose ESG (environmental, social and governance) information in their annual reports and a trend towards integrated corporate reports was created. That is, investor-relevant sustainability information is concisely reported alongside financial data, while further information may be shared separately. This is also confirmed by Wim Bartels, member of the Financial Stability Board’s Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures and Global Head of Sustainability Reporting & Assurance at KPMG, who expects fewer stand-alone sustainability reports in the future. Even though the tools used to produce sustainability reports (eg. spreadsheets and databases) are basic compared to those used for reporting on financial measures, the findings of an EY survey support that 65 percent of CFOs are now involved in sustainability in terms of cost reduction and risk management, meaning that the status quo may change. There is an increased interest in the representation of companies’ social and environmental impact in financial terms. Such quantification methodologies will facilitate the integration of sustainability issues in the annual reports.

In fact, hard data (numbers) is the norm for reporting leaders. An increase of inquiries is evident from shareholders and investors about sustainability-related issues and, in order to satisfy their stakeholders, companies even compete to offer more quantifiable and, thus, comparable information. The link created between financial and non-financial information through integrated corporate reports is expected to shed light on company risks that were otherwise hard to identify and to provide a clearer view of performance.

One more trend that simplifies comparison of and access to such data is the digitalization and standardization of sustainability reporting and tagging of information. This technological advancement will eventually lead to increased awareness regarding social and environmental impacts of corporations and will allow stakeholders to make choices that reward responsible corporate behaviour. To this end, effective disclosure of more sustainability-related topics can grant businesses higher sustainability ratings or rankings (e.g. Dow Jones Sustainability Index) that can greatly affect their reputation.

Speaking of this digital trend, we have to stress the power of social media where many stakeholders go to validate information. More businesses try to exploit this power and global reach to their benefit and increasingly use social media to communicate their CSR activities. Companies that will manage to capitalize on this direct interaction with stakeholders will be able to develop more effective reporting and even strengthen their overall business strategy.

Moreover, the effectiveness of reports can be reinforced through attentive materiality assessment, which helps identify the most important concerns of stakeholders that simultaneously create opportunities and value for the company. Brian Sansoni, VP of sustainability initiatives of the American Cleaning Institute, foresees an increased use of materiality assessments. The findings of such an assessment are of strategic importance as they are used in reporting to win over key stakeholders and create new growth opportunities. Dr. Nelmara Arbex, GRI’s senior advisor for innovation in reporting, claims that reports in the next decade are expected to demonstrate companies’ strategic commitment to tackle the challenges society will be facing.

Furthermore, aiming to enhance the value of such reporting for shareholders, companies need to seek third-party assurance. External assurance adds credibility to the report, which is crucial in sustainability. Major reporting and disclosure organizations and indices, such as GRI and CDP, encourage assurance of sustainability reports, in order for their content to be verified and validated. It is found that only half of sustainability reports have external assurance. Therefore, it is an essential feature for a company to demonstrate leadership. There are two main reasons that render organizations reluctant to seek external assurance; lack of understanding of the importance and benefits of external assurance and cost.

Also, keep in mind that, since reporting of ESG information has become mandatory in the EU, India and China, it is reccomended to be proactive and comply with the regulations before they are put into effect. SustainAbility’s Global Trends and Opportunities 2016 & beyond report assures that even more companies will be obliged to disclose their major environmental and social impacts as part of their annual reporting cycle due to this directive. These changes are due to begin in 2017 and companies meeting certain criteria will be required to report information on their human rights policies, risks management, due diligence and key performance indicators. Finally, greenhouse gas emissions and water usage reporting is becoming more common through the years.

And if we are talking about Valium, I’m not against chemicals (not sure what synonym would be more appropriate, but it is not 100% accurate), but as a TEMPORARY HELP. The reason why I have made the disclaimer about the chemicals – there are plenty of vegetable chemicals that do NOT (!!!) belong to narcotic drugs. And I am personally for cooperation with specialists.

From a technical aspect, provided that companies mostly follow the GRI framework, we will refer to some changes in the current GRI G4 Guidelines. This October, the GRI G4 Guidelines were transitioned into a set of modular, interrelated GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards, representing global best practice in sustainability reporting and providing the foundation for the future of reporting. Most changes will focus on the structure and format. For organizations already reporting in accordance with G4, impacts on the reporting process should be relatively minor. Improvements aim to increase usability through simplified language and relocation of content. Besides the new modular structure, clarifications on how to use and reference the Standards will be given as well as a clearer distinction between requirements, recommendations and guidance.

As you get more experience in this field, it is important that you keep up with what the leaders do. However, in order to do better than competition, it is critical to be well-informed about issues on the horizon through conversations on blogs and social media. Direct and meaningful insights can also be obtained from experts by attending conferences and webinars.

Much discussion is being made in the last years about Social Return on Investment (SROI) and Impact Assessment. But confusion exists: what is it exactly and what does it serve for?

Social Impact Assessment is a way of accounting for the value created by an organization’s activities. It is an analytic tool for measuring and communicating a much broader concept of value, taking into account social, economic and environmental factors. The SROI methodology, which is one of the leading ones in the area of impact assessment, was standardized by the Social Value UK in 2006 and now includes more than 700 members globally.

But why use it? SROI is a powerful management tool for strategic planning and can raise the organization’s profile or make a stronger case for future funding.

Want to learn about impact assessment and SROI? Join the new Online Course on SROI and learn how to apply impact assessment to your CSR activities. Click here to view all Certified Online Courses of the Sustainability Academy or contact us at [email protected]

Group registration form