Sustainability Reporting Coming of Age?

Published May 31st, 2010 in sustainability, sustainability reporting | No Comments »

The Amsterdam Global Conference on Sustainability and Transparency wrapped up a couple of days ago, and the website is a source of wonky sustainability fun. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), which advocates for transparent and reliable sustainability reporting and created the Sustainability Reporting Framework, produced the conference.

The event saw the release of Carrots and Sticks—Promoting Transparency and Sustainability, a study of mandatory and voluntary reporting trends worldwide produced by the UN Environmental Program (UNEP), GRI, KPMG Sustainability, and the University of Stellenbosch Business School that says government will be more involved in regulating sustainability reporting.

On balance, government oversight is a good thing—and the report shows sustainability reporting is coming of age. As Wim Bartels of KPMG Sustainability said, “Sustainability is a key business issue that needs a level playing field.” Representatives of sponsoring organizations also pointed out that:

  • Regulation will result in more rigorous sustainability reporting and increased transparency, sharpen companies’ focus on their sustainability performance, and help drive professionalism and universal standards.
  • Changing market conditions, information overload, and growing public demand for accountable use of resources require credible information and new management tools for reporting.

Mandated reporting is always burdensome in varying degrees, but it also raises the bar for global standards, even for voluntary reports. It means we’re all measuring the same things the same ways, backing up claims with credible information, and using the same language.

In other news from Amsterdam, the GRI announced its 2015 and 2020 goals, including a proposal to require all large and medium-size companies to report on their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance, or explain why if they don’t. GRI also released proposed G3.1 revisions to reporting content, and is accepted comments from the sustainability community through August 23.

Business Alliance Supports AB 32 Global Warming Bill

Published March 30th, 2010 in resources | No Comments »

Thinkshift has added its name to the California Business Alliance for a Green Economy, joining more  than 750 businesses, small and large, that have signed on with the organization. (As has our client, New Resource Bank.) It’s a nonprofit, “created to amplify the business voice in support of policies to help move us toward cleaner energy, less dependence on fossil fuel, and to help us avoid the economic and social disruptions associated with climate change.” The organization supports AB 32, California’s groundbreaking Global Warming Solutions Act.

The Alliance website has good background info, including the March 24 news that the California Air Resources Board analysis of AB 32 shows that it will have a positive effect on the economy and a roundup of op-ed pieces from around the state, both pro and anti.

Go ahead, sign on with the Alliance—it’s an easy way to show your support for a growing, more sustainable economy in the state. Of course, this is a simple step, but every little bit helps, and we think that taking action to develop a clean energy economy is one of the most important things anyone can do to fight pollution and climate change.

Matching Mouth to Money

Published February 14th, 2010 in Miscellaneous, green marketing, sustainability | No Comments »

The phrase “put your money where your mouth is”  has been coming up a lot here lately—in part due to our work with New Resource Bank, which lets sustainability-minded businesses, nonprofits, and individuals do just that, and in part due to our decision to join 1% for the Planet.

If you’re not familiar with it, 1% for the Planet is an alliance of businesses of all sizes that commit to give one percent of their yearly revenues to environmental nonprofits. And the organization holds members to it–you have to submit tax documents and proof of donations to maintain membership.

We’d been thinking of doing this since learning of 1% via a Fast Company interview with Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard, who co-founded the organization with Craig Mathews, fisherman and owner of Blue Ribbon Flies. What finally kicked us into gear was hearing Hunter Lovins give her “The Business Case for Sustainability” speech at New Resource’s bimonthly speaker/networking event, re:think.

Lovins includes an apt quote from Interface chair Ray Anderson: “What’s the business case for destroying the planet?” But what really got to us was her parting question, “What are you doing?” Somehow, “helping sustainable businesses and environmental nonprofits” didn’t sound like enough. So here’s another chip on the table.

Try it—it feels good.

Betting on the Future

Published April 25th, 2009 in marketing | No Comments »

New Yorker financial columnist James Surowiecki tells the tale of two cereal companies’ approach to the Depression in his April 20 column (“Hanging Tough”): Post cut its ad budget, while Kellogg doubled its budget, moved into a new medium, and gave a major push to a new product (Rice Krispies). The result:

By 1933, even as the economy cratered, Kellogg’s profits had risen almost thirty per cent and it had become what it remains today: the industry’s dominant player. You’d think that everyone would want to emulate Kellogg’s success, but, when hard times hit, most companies end up behaving more like Post. They hunker down, cut spending, and wait for good times to return.

Examples like Kellogg and Post (and Surowiecki gives plenty more) are why we tell people that now is the time to market like hell—you’ll position yourself well for the upturn, and you’ll give yourself the best chance to capture those who are still spending. Of course it’s in our self-interest to say that, but we are following our own advice, and spending more than feels quite comfortable on marketing and new initiatives.

As Surowiecki points out, this can be scary. There’s a good reason so many organizations choose to batten down the hatches in a downturn: a gamble on the future isn’t always successful.

But as they say at the tables, you can’t win if you don’t play.