On Corporate Social Responsibility

Channel News Asia reports:

Campaigners representing the rural poor, the environment and organised labour blasted the communique as a sideshow, stage-managed for corporations who are major contributors to the World Water Council, which organises the Forum…

"We demand that the allocation of water be decided in an open, transparent and democratic forum rather than in a trade show for the world’s large corporations."

Full article here.

Interestingly, Ethical Corporation Institute says that big businesses like Rio Tinto, SAB Miller, Coca-Cola, Intel and Molson Coors are "leading the way in water management" (link here) and saliently, Jeff Conant said last year:

As we learn from the WWF website, “One of the benefits of joining the WWC is the Council’s ability to influence decisions related to world water management that affect organizations, business, and communities.” Perhaps their secret meetings will also be attended by executives of the Worldwide Fund for Nature, whose recent partnership with Coca-Cola aims to help the global soft-drink giant become “the most efficient company in the world in terms of water use,” with “every drop of water it uses… returned to the earth or compensated for through conservation and recycling programs.” And, with this blending of fact and fiction, it would hardly be surprising to find Greene’s signature on the CEO Water Mandate, which has companies with such devastating environmental track records as Dow Chemical, Shell Oil, Unilever, and Nestlé pledging to “help address the water challenge faced by the world today.”

Full article here. The italicized names are linked to rather interesting pages in the original article. Greene here refers to James Bonds’ villain in Quantum of Solace.

What does one make of it all? Alas, these great tides of information and opinion indeed confound the mind.

The Business Times (Singapore) today has a student article on "green funds".

Typically, two categories of green funds exist in the market. The difference between them lies in the way these funds select their stocks.

The first category takes the direct approach. Funds in this category are made up of companies that produce goods or services aimed at solving environmental problems. They normally invest in alternative energy, recycling and pollution control. For example, LSB Industries provides geothermal and water source heat pumps to multiple markets in the United States. Geothermal energy sources are environment-friendly alternatives to the burning of fossil fuels, a contributor to environmental pollution.

Funds in the second category take the ‘best-in-breed’ approach. These funds seek out various sectors or industries for their respective industry leaders in terms of employing environmentally-conscious business practices. Unlike funds that take the direct approach, funds in this category may invest in an oil company, for example, as long as it is considered the cleanest oil company of the lot."

 It’s a rather superficial article.

Environment-friendly investments can achieve two objectives. Investors will be injecting capital into companies that help slow down Earth’s degradation. Also, the more investments go into companies that engage in green practices, pressure is put on others to clean up their act in order to attract further investments. Therefore, by investing green, investors are also indirectly pressuring more companies to think about Mother Earth.

Cuiyu had a little bit of a skeptical post on greenwashing some time ago. It’s a very important topic, considering how environmentalism is on the rise at least in terms of consumer awareness. From the New York Times via CorpWatch:

The New York Times covers how companies are making the effort to cut down on packaging waste.

The money quote:

“Waste of any kind is inefficiency, and inefficiency equals cost,” said Scott Vitters, Coca-Cola’s director of sustainable packaging.

 Companies mentioned include P&G, Coca Cola, Wal-Mart, Estee Lauder, McDonald’s, and Nestle.

From today’s Business Times’ feature on Mr. Sukanto Tanoto, billionaire founder of pulp and paper company Asia Pacific Resources International (APRIL).

A major lesson [Mr. Tanoto] has imbibed is the necessity of corporate social responsibility (CSR). One of his most controversial problems was with his first pulp company PT Indoraya Utama in Sumatra, which became the target of a series of violent community protests, amid allegations of pollution and land disputes in the late 1990s. The business eventually shut down.

In a previous interview with the Financial Times, Mr Tanoto admitted candidly: ‘At that time (the Suharto era), we thought that poverty and society and taking care of the people was a government job . . . So we learnt the hard way, we made some mistakes. In the end we realised that when you come to a certain size of operation, you must have a clear sense of social responsibility.’

April, for instance, now has a well-entrenched CSR programme. It issues a detailed sustainability report every two years and works closely with NGOs like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to protect high-conservation value forests in Riau, as well as wild animals like elephants.

It funds schools around Kerinci, Riau, where its main operations are based, and has also established an integrated farming system to teach villagers more viable and sustainable alternatives to the slash-and-burn techniques of shifting cultivation. Those who graduate from the three-week courses are given seeds, cattle, fish and fertiliser as start-up capital.

In my mind APRIL had always been associated with illegal timber exports, illegal forest clearing and the haze. To hear that APRIL even has a CSR programme and works closely with WWF is, to put it mildly, surprising.

So I checked out the corporate website.

It seems that an extraordinary effort has been made to stem accusations of environmental irresponsibility. Right there on the front page - where companies usually market their products or services -  we see APRIL mentioning sustainability twice, and a very overt list of the companies CSR commitments. We learn immediately that the company is a member of the UN Global Compact, "corporate partner" of the UNEP awards, and that it works with the WWF. Moving further into the website, we find annual sustainability reports and semi-annual CSR newsletters.

It should be quite interesting to see how the corporate rhetoric gels with external allegations…

I just had to post this. From the Business Times today:

SIA chief blasts emissions taxes, carbon offset schemes for airlines

Emissions taxes, carbon offset programmes and emissions trading schemes imposed on the aviation industry are misguided, unrealistic, offensive and morally objectionable, Singapore Airline’s chief executive said in a hard-hitting speech delivered at a Hong Kong aviation conference yesterday.

Citing various expert studies, Chew Choon Seng noted that while there was no denying that the fast-growing global aviation had an impact on the environment, its responsibility for global warning was disproportionately small, at just 1.6 per cent of global emissions.

‘The aviation industry accounts for 8 per cent of the world economy, and has a multiplier effect on business, travel, trade and tourism,’ Mr Chew said at the Greener Skies 2007 conference yesterday.

Mr Chew was critical about the effectiveness of the carbon offset schemes, where industries invest in environmentally friendly initiatives to offset the emissions they produce.

‘Sounds neat in theory, but in practice, offsetting is neither transparent nor effective. Because it uses the voluntary market for trading, which is largely unregulated, and there’s no guarantee that the intended projects are undertaken successfully.’

But he saved his harshest criticism for the proponents of emissions trading schemes.

‘They are simply revenue-raising ploys dressed up to be in aid of the environment, but with collections disappearing into government treasury coffers, and no visibility on how much is actually spent on improving the environment. Carbon taxes, specific to airline passengers, are unfair and discriminatory to airlines, and unless we are more vocal in our opposition to them, politicians will see us as easy pickings to fund all sorts of government spending - like the French President’s bizarre proposal last year for a tax on passengers to fund foreign aid programmes.’

He said the winners from trading were brokers.

‘And I find it morally objectionable and offensive when trading houses openly advertise that they are targeting emissions trading as their next big profit generator.’

And if a global trading scheme was to be devised, one with universal acceptance should be devised by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, he said.

Mr Chew added that with fuel accounting for between 25 and 40 per cent of operating expenditure, airlines already had enough incentive to lessen fuel consumption, and to improve operational efficiency, without the need for externally dictated punitive and discriminatory measures.

In fact, the best approach would be via partnerships with aviation industry partners, he added. A large part of the International Air Transport Association’s US$1.8 billion fuel-saving campaign in 2006 resulted from shorter, more direct, tracks for 350 air routes.

‘That was possible only with the understanding and cooperation of government agencies and air navigation service providers,’ Mr Chew noted. ‘More can be done, and not just with air routes, but also to improve inefficient air traffic management systems, such as fragmented territorial air traffic control, notoriously over Europe, and overly conservative flight separation standards, noticeably over China skies, where flight separations are more than double what it is in America and Europe.’

He added that at least some 10 per cent of all flying time - corresponding to the emission of 70 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year - was created by needless waiting for clearance to ascend or to descend or to cross traffic control zones.

Aircraft technology was also reducing fuel burn.

‘Each new generation of aircraft has improved fuel efficiency significantly, through improved engine designs, better aerodynamics and lighter airframes. The evolutionary progress and incremental improvements will continue to serve us well.’

But he ruled out substitutes for jet kerosene in the foreseeable future, as cleaner and consistent alternatives, like biofuel and liquid hydrogen, would take time to research and develop.

Any thoughts? I’ve got to run off now. Be back soon!

How many of those ‘boho skirts’ were bought in Singapore alone last year? How many now languish at the back of closets, having made way for leggings, retro prints and kimono tops? Fashion trends change faster than ever - cheap, poor-quality knock-offs are shipped out of factories weeks after a runway show; celebrity culture inspires copycat styles that shift as frequently as Lindsay’s excuses do.

The International Herald Tribune examines how the impact of ‘disposable clothing’ on the environment:

Consumers spend more than $1 trillion a year on clothing and textiles, an estimated one-third of that in Western Europe, another third in North America, and about a quarter in Asia. In many places, cheap, readily disposable clothes have displaced hand-me-downs as the mainstay of dressing in one or two generations.

The result: women’s clothing sales in Britain rose by 21 percent from 2001 to 2005 alone, to about £24 billion, or $47 billion, spurred by lower prices, according to the Cambridge report.

And while many people have grown accustomed to recycling cans, bottles and newspapers, used clothes are generally thrown away. Britons on average discard about 65 pounds, or 30 kilograms, of clothing and textiles a year. Only an eighth of that goes to charities for reuse.

"In a wealthy society, clothing and textiles are bought as much for fashion as for function," the report says, and that means that clothes are replaced "before the end of their natural life."

The report referenced in the article refers to a Cambridge research project entitled "Well Dressed? The Present and Future Sustainability of Clothing and Textiles in the UK".

The report suggests some ways the "ideal consumer" should behave:

• Buy second-hand clothing or textiles where possible
• Buy fewer but longer-lasting garments and textile products
• Extend the life of clothing by mending them
• Buy clothing made of synthetic fabric, or those made with least energy and least toxic emissions
• Wash clothes less often, at lower temperatures and using eco-detergents, hang dry them and avoid ironing where possible

Page 14 of the report also highlights the main environmental and social pressures faced by the clothing and textile industries, which include: (i) use of energy and toxic chemicals in the manufacturing and processing of the primary materials; (ii) child labour; (iii) lack of freedom of association and collective bargaining (FACB) rights of low-skilled workers; (iv) absence of employement contracts and delayed payments; (v) sexual harrassment; and (vi) exposure to hazardous chemicals and fibre dust in factories.

It’s a superbly comprehensive report… go download and read it for yourself! :)

CEOs in America urge legislators to enact legislation to counter climate change.

"Ours is a unique and diverse group, which is united in the belief that we can, and must, take prompt action to establish a coordinated, economy-wide, market- driven approach to climate protection.

The members of the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) are committed to action and believe that properly constructed policy can be economically viable, environmentally responsible, and politically achievable. Swift legislative action on our proposal would encourage innovation and provide needed U.S. leadership on this global challenge.

Our goal is to help our nation create public policy that would act aggressively and sustainably to slow, stop and reverse the growth of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions."

The US Climate Action Partnership consists of companies including BP America, General Electric, DuPont, Lehman Brothers, and Caterpillar.

+ Source

+ Press release 

Most packaging for our goods such as food, drinks and toiletries end up as trash. Packaging makes up about one-third of household waste. Packaging waste can be recycled. There is also scope to minimise packaging waste by redesign or changing to another material.

Some countries have implemented laws to make producers bear responsibility for the environmental impact of their packaging (e.g. they have to bear the costs for recovery and recycling of the packaging waste).

In Singapore, instead of moving straight away to introducing legislation to curb packaging waste, the National Environment Agency (NEA) has decided to work together with industry to develop a voluntary programme in which industry would have more flexibility to adopt cost-effective solutions for reducing packaging waste. The programme also facilitates and fosters closer collaboration among industry members, the community and the government.

To help businesses better understand this new programme and how you can play a part to reduce packaging waste, the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCCI) and the National Environment Agency (NEA) will be organising a briefing session on "Voluntary Packaging Agreement 2007".

+ Source

+ Also see the Guidebook on Waste Minimisation for Industries (NEA) 

+ Also see the Principle of Extended Producer Responsibility

31 Oct - 2 Nov: Eco-Products International Fair

Event dedicated to environmentally-friendly products and services. Flex that consumer muscle of yours and learn how to spend with a conscience. Free.

31 Oct - 2 Nov:  "Growing the Eco-nomy" – Learning from the Best Eco-practices

Featuring international speakers, the programme includes topics on corporate environmental planning and management, green procurement, eco-design and product development, consumer labelling schemes, alternative fuels, water and climate change management. Registration required.

2 Nov: Singapore Compact for CSR - Inaugural Distinguished Lecture

Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, Chairperson of the UN Global Compact Foundation delivers his personal sharing and insight on "Why am I a Social Responsibility Champion". This inspiring lecture is presented by the Singapore Compact for CSR, the national society driving the CSR movement. Registration required.

3 Nov: People, Planet and Profits

Join the CSR Student Movement for an informal dialogue on the ideas and workings behind corporate social responsibility! This intimate session encourages sharing, active discussion and peer learning. If you know nothing about CSR, this will be a splendid introduction for you. 5pm, Committee Room 2 (Yusof Ishak House). Free.

6 Nov: People, Planet and Profits

 Join the CSR Student Movement for an informal dialogue on the ideas and workings behind corporate social responsibility! This intimate session encourages sharing, active discussion and peer learning. If you know nothing about CSR, this will be a splendid introduction for you. 5pm, CR 3-4, Bukit Timah Campus. Free.