Browse
Engage
Research
The environmental metrics headlining Corporate Social Responsibility/sustainability report executive summaries and press releases tend to be "eco-efficiency" measures -- numbers defined relative to units of production (pounds, liters, servings, etc.) or operations (square footage) -- rather than absolute totals. Eco-efficiency measures generally show significant improvement, making them much more PR-friendly than absolute totals, which typically indicate an expanding ecological footprint.
A closer look at CSR/sustainability reports shows that some companies leave totals out of their reports altogether, effectively preventing stakeholders from assessing an enterprise's true environmental and social impact and driving appropriate, informed change. When companies do include totals, one must dig into the details of a CSR/sustainability report and free their mind of high-impact headlines and executive summaries.
Is obscuring or omitting totals deceptive? Both practices effectively tip the seesaw of sustainability reporting toward an overwhelmingly positive view. Might it be greenwashing to highlight eco-efficiency improvements while keeping one's ever larger ecological footwear in the closet? This seems similar to one of TerraChoice's "Seven Sins of Greenwash," the "hidden tradeoffs" that call out positive attributes while hiding negative ones. Shouldn't CSR/sustainability reporting and related communications be held to the same standards?
For those who say yes, and feel "radical transparency" should require both relative and absolute measures, are we willing to reconsider our tendency to blame business alone for increased totals and absolve any responsibility for solutions? After all, such excesses are exacerbated by our own growing consumption to a degree. Wal-Mart's emissions are climbing because consumers are driving there in ever larger droves and returning replete with some amount of unnecessary goods. The same can be said for any consumer products company or retailer's eco-impact. Its size is a reflection of both producer and consumer.
Going a step further, should companies report metrics in context, as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) indicates, helping consumers makes sense of the larger sea of numbers? Increased transparency is of little use without practical translation. For example, how many consumers understand what it really means to withdraw, say, one billion gallons of water from a water-rich region versus a drought-affected one? How many consumers take note that few businesses have greenhouse gas reduction goals that even come close to the reduction targets set forth as critical minimums by the IPCC? Dr. Mark McElroy of the Center for Sustainable Innovation has made a case for this in the "True Sustainability Index," a set of suggested content-based metrics for CSR/sustainability reporting. He's also outlined a methodology for this model, offering a key tool to move from ideals to implementation.
Perhaps the biggest question is how any such reporting standards will become a reality so the playing field is level and consumers know what they're buying into. Best practice guidance, such as the GRI, call for both relative and absolute metrics. Yet, few companies oblige. Is it time to expand the FTC Green Guides to CSR/sustainability reporting and communications? Would such a process be manageable and a wise use of resources, or would it divert our attention and efforts toward reporting for its own sake and away from the kinds of real actions we need to take to realize true sustainability?
Melissa Schweisguth is a corporate CSR manager who also sits on the advisory board for Big Tree Climate Fund, metrics committees for the Stewardship Index for Specialty Crops and working committees for the Food Trade Sustainability Leadership Association.
Image by stocker.
If Walmart Were the Only Store...
If a consumer buys the same amount from a greener company instead of visiting her old un-green source, she has reduced the net environmental impact even while growing the green company's total footprint. Isn't that the point of the "buy green" movement? But doesn't that argue that we'd be better off with a handful of monopoly firms as long as the cumulative footprint is less?
Wait! If all companies were run by the government, by law and subsidies (our taxes) we would ensure everyone could only buy green stuff: GM can be the pilot! Or watch how California's Green Chemistry Initiative plays out where that model of management will tell companies what and how to make safe products. Since we'll be poorer thanks to bigger government, we won't be able buy more stuff. Plus, the stuff will be crummy without any competition to be cool, so we'll want to buy even less of it. This is "sustainability"?
Except we don't know how to measure cumulative footprints. Companies might be able to guess, but that's not necessarily data they can verify - especially if not-in-kind substitutions have occurred, such as telecommuting with greener computers instead of driving. The best that might be possible is to generally describe what the company is trying to achieve and give as much "context" as they can.
I'd appreciate learning about what companies are trying to do to reduce overall impacts to the environment. But I don't want to be told where I can shop and what I can buy.
G. Adams
Consumer Transparency
I think contextual transparency (i.e., as recommended by the Global Reporting Initiative) should extend beyond the corporate sector and encompass the individual consumer. Similar proposals have been made for residentual energy consumption - imagine what similar tranparency with regard to general consumption at the individual level could potentially do to reduce consumption. Granted, there would be a whole host of big brother issues to deal with, but one of the most effective ways to change behavior is to make said behavior visible to all of your peers.
Marcel Harmon
M.E. Group, Inc.
Kansas City, MO
Wal-Mart's Emissions Continue to Grow
Very thought provoking post and you inadvertently raise an important question about boundaries when you state: “Wal-Mart's emissions are climbing because consumers are driving there in ever larger droves and returning replete with some amount of unnecessary goods”. Well, Wal-Mart’s emissions are climbing with or without the emissions from consumer vehicles or the impact from product lifecycles – neither of which are currently part of the company’s greenhouse gas inventory.
A lot of this is due to the company’s growth and acquisitions, and to be fair it is doing more than most companies on energy efficiency and renewables, but the fact remains: Wal-Mart’s footprint continues to grow. It could do a lot to change this trajectory, and expanding the boundaries of the inventory is a place to start. The most significant untapped opportunity for large-scale greenhouse gas reductions lies in Wal-Mart’s product supply chain, which represents the vast majority of Wal-Mart’s overall carbon footprint. Wal-Mart has the power to achieve true greenhouse gas reductions by leveraging its relationships with some 60,000 suppliers, for maximum impact on emissions. For this reason, Wal-Mart needs to make a firm commitment on its climate footprint, doing what it does best, while its business continues to grow.
Andrew Hutson
Environmental Defense Fund
Bentonville Office