ResponsAbility » CR http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/responsability Thoughts on corporate responsibility and sustainability Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:12:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 en hourly 1 A CSR tale of two mines: when the path chosen makes all the difference http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/responsability/2011/01/05/a-csr-tale-of-two-mines-when-the-path-chosen-makes-all-the-difference/ http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/responsability/2011/01/05/a-csr-tale-of-two-mines-when-the-path-chosen-makes-all-the-difference/#comments Tue, 04 Jan 2011 21:43:29 +0000 Tara Knight http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/responsability/?p=201 In November of 2010, the Canadian government rejected an $800 million copper-gold project of Taseko Mines, called “Prosperity” in my home province of B.C. Although the federal government ultimately cited environmental concerns in declining the license to operate, relations between the company and the First Nations communities in the areas around the mine really hit rock bottom during a federal environmental review process for the project.

Taseko’s “Prosperity” mine had potential to generate significant economic wealth for the Williams Lake region of BC, an area hard-hit by other economic factors and desperately in need of jobs. However critical stakeholders, such as the First Nations in the area of the proposed mine believed their communities would not benefit from the mine in their territory and actively opposed the project during the environmental review.

Interestingly, on the same day the Canadian government rejected the Taseko Mines Prosperity project, it approved a $915 million copper-gold project (“Mount Milligan”) in a different area of the province. In speaking about its decision, the federal government indicated that the Mount Milligan project (Prosperity mine rejected, Mt. Milligan approved) had designed appropriate mitigation measures and minimized environmental impacts and that as a result, was likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. 

In further contrast to how Taseko Mines managed key stakeholders such as the First Nations communities in the area around their proposed mine, Thompson Creek Metals (Mount Milligan copper-gold project) reached out to First Nations communities in a meaningful way, and adopted Principles for Sustainable Relationships with First Nations, a framework developed by the Association for Mineral Exploration BC.

The Mount Milligan project had First Nations support in the form of a revenue-sharing agreement between the province and the McLeod Lake Indian Band – only the second such deal in the province. Further, Thompson Creek Metals partnered with post-secondary institutions to create an environmental training employment program for First Nations – allowing them to participate in project operations.

Although neither mine is without opposition, nor serious environmental and local concerns, it is an interesting contrast of the employment of two very different stakeholder strategies. It is also a powerful narrative about the power of relationship building for economic prosperity, and recognizing stakeholder dynamics as a critical component in a company’s social license to operate.

What is the cost of developing a solid CSR program that incorporates social and environmental responsibility concerns into the cost of business? In this tale of two mines, the path chosen made all the difference.

Disclosure: Taseko Mines and Thompson Creek Metals are not clients of Hill & Knowlton.

]]>
http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/responsability/2011/01/05/a-csr-tale-of-two-mines-when-the-path-chosen-makes-all-the-difference/feed/ 1
New “standard” for CSR? ISO 26000 gets official November 2010 http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/responsability/2010/10/05/new-%e2%80%9cstandard%e2%80%9d-for-csr-iso-26000-gets-official-in-november-2010/ http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/responsability/2010/10/05/new-%e2%80%9cstandard%e2%80%9d-for-csr-iso-26000-gets-official-in-november-2010/#comments Mon, 04 Oct 2010 22:22:19 +0000 Tara Knight http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/responsability/?p=166 Last week, I had the opportunity to review the final draft of the International Standard ISO 26000, Guidance on Social Responsibility with Robert White, who sits as a Canadian Representative and Expert Member of ISO 26000 Social Responsibility Working Group. Approved in September, the ISO 26000 guidelines will be officially published in November 1, 2010.

If you haven’t been following the story, it’s been a long wait for this standard – ISO 26000 has been in development for well over five years. Given that CSR as an area of business concern is relatively new, rapidly evolving, and frequently difficult to accurately define, it’s no surprise that this document has been subject to vigorous overview and discussion. A multi-stakeholder effort, 400 people took part in developing the standard, which makes it ISO’s biggest working group to date.

So what is it? ISO 26000 sets out an international consensus on definitions and principles of Social Responsibility (SR); identifies seven core issues to be addressed, and provides guidance on how to integrate Social Responsibility throughout the operations of an organization. Significantly, the standard has been intentionally written to be accessible to non-specialists, and unlike many other ISO standards, it is a voluntary guidance standard, meaning it is not eligible for certification.

You can review an overview of the contents of ISO 26000 here. If you are looking for the ‘quick hit” version, ISO 26000 defines seven core principles of Social Responsibility, as: Accountability, Transparency, Ethical Behavior, Respect for Stakeholder Interests, Respect for the Rule of Law, Respect for International Norms of Behavior and Respect for Human Rights.

Under these principles of SR, the guidelines lay out an additional seven core subjects to consider in integrating Social Responsibility in an organization. These are organizational governance; human rights; labour practices; the environment; fair operating practices; consumer issues; and community involvement and development. Economic aspects, as well as aspects relating to health and safety and the value chain, are dealt with within each of these core subject areas.

Final word? For organizations that feel daunted in even considering or initiating a Social Responsibility program, or processes, ISO 26000 will provide valuable structure and guidance in helping to shape and define Social Responsibility for organizations big or small (or just smaller). For those organizations already leading the way, ISO 26000 may help illuminate areas where Social Responsibility governance or practice is not as developed as it could be, and provide guidelines for improvement. In short – there is something here for everyone to learn.

Which organizations do you think are already leading here? Are “the leaders” too far ahead to benefit from this guidance? I am very curious if organizations that do not currently track their CSR policies/programs will choose to take advantage of this effort and utilize the ISO 26000 guidance standard prior to implementing CSR reporting or policies.

@TaraKnightHK

Q3YJSKERK8SM

]]>
http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/responsability/2010/10/05/new-%e2%80%9cstandard%e2%80%9d-for-csr-iso-26000-gets-official-in-november-2010/feed/ 1
Trends in CSR Reporting http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/responsability/2010/08/25/trends-in-csr-reporting/ http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/responsability/2010/08/25/trends-in-csr-reporting/#comments Wed, 25 Aug 2010 18:58:53 +0000 Tara Knight http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/responsability/?p=144 I had the opportunity recently to do a bit of digging into best practices and trends for corporate responsibility reporting – and it was a fascinating journey. CSR (or ESG – Environmental, Social and Governance) concerns and reporting are clearly moving to the forefront of corporate agendas.

There are a few more obvious trends – corporate responsibility reporting formats are clearly headed away from large volume hard print copies and towards digital solutions such as websites and online formats as reports get more detailed. Finding easy-to-manage ways to organize large volumes of information is especially true for organizations using integrated reporting frameworks to incorporate financial and non-financial indicators into a single report. (A couple of excellent resources in this area are: Corporate Register’s CR Reporting Awards  and CSR Trends 3)

In the wake of a number of corporate actions which have publically (and dramatically) not met their CSR reputations, there is a lively debate about evaluating the breadth and credibility of corporate CSR reporting. With a more skeptical audience, there is a significant appetite for more transparency, independent verification of CSR reporting, and engaging stakeholder participation to validate key aspects of corporate CSR reports.

The Chartered Accountants of Canada recently released a report, Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Issues in Institutional Investor Decision Making, which provides another window into why these trends have become more prevalent. As investors are increasingly concerned with the environmental management aspects of CSR as a risk mitigation strategy, especially long-term investments, CSR (or ESG) reporting is also becoming critical data in making investment decisions. In fact, their report identifies that reporting on environmental, social and governance elements of the business are now being seen by some investors as a proxy for evaluating the quality of management of a company. Jennifer Hicks wrote about this growing interest in Triple Pundit.

Of course, this trend is frustrated by the lack of truly comparable metrics to evaluate CSR or ESG reporting between companies. Although the Global Reporting Initiative seems to be emerging as a favored standard, Corporate Register’s 2010 CR Reporting Awards report indicates the second most popular option is a completely customized reporting framework.   

For companies looking to initiate or improve their CSR (and ESG) reporting, making the choice between a global standard or custom framework will be difficult. A global reporting standard might enable their investors and stakeholders to perform better comparable analysis on their CSR performance relative to the market, where a custom reporting system could be a better fit to the company’s needs. In the meantime, companies should be conscious that reporting their CSR activity is critical not just for their corporate reputation – but potentially their financial success as well.

]]>
http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/responsability/2010/08/25/trends-in-csr-reporting/feed/ 0
The Power of Apologies http://www.boydneil.com/blog/2009/10/22/the-power-of-apologies.html http://www.boydneil.com/blog/2009/10/22/the-power-of-apologies.html#comments Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:50:26 +0000 Boyd Neil 417677:4590288:5582295 Anyone who has followed my posts on apologies will know how important I feel they are as a way to manage reputation in a crisis. (Forgive the self-reference, but two of the most recent posts can be found here and here.)

A colleague in my firm's Seattle office, Drew Arnold, sent me an article from the Oregon Business Journal referencing a June 2009 discussion paper called 'The Power of Apology' from the University of Nottingham's Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics.

Here is the paper's abstract:

After an unsatisfactory purchase, many firms are quick to apologize to customers. It is, however, not clear why they should do that. As the apology is costless, it should be regarded as cheap talk and thus ignored by the customer. In this paper, we test in a controlled field experiment whether apologizing influences customers' subsequent behaviour. We find that apologizing yields much better outcomes for the firm than offering monetary compensation."

Based on a study of customers using eBay in Germany, the study found among other results:

  1. "Customers who receive an apology instead of a monetary compensation are more than twice as likely to withdraw a (negative) evaluation."
  2. "When money is offered, a higher purchase price makes it less likely that a customer withdraws his (negative) evaluation. An apology works independent of the level of the purchase price."

Why then can't we assume that the propensity to consider legal action when harm has been caused by an accidental event, even if negligence is involved, just might be mitigated by a genuine (and the key here is the word 'genuine') apology?

]]>
here and here.) A colleague in my firm's Seattle office, Drew Arnold, sent me an article from the Oregon Business Journal referencing a June 2009 discussion paper called 'The Power of Apology' from the University of Nottingham's Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics. Here is the paper's abstract:

After an unsatisfactory purchase, many firms are quick to apologize to customers. It is, however, not clear why they should do that. As the apology is costless, it should be regarded as cheap talk and thus ignored by the customer. In this paper, we test in a controlled field experiment whether apologizing influences customers' subsequent behaviour. We find that apologizing yields much better outcomes for the firm than offering monetary compensation."

Based on a study of customers using eBay in Germany, the study found among other results:
  1. "Customers who receive an apology instead of a monetary compensation are more than twice as likely to withdraw a (negative) evaluation."
  2. "When money is offered, a higher purchase price makes it less likely that a customer withdraws his (negative) evaluation. An apology works independent of the level of the purchase price."
Why then can't we assume that the propensity to consider legal action when harm has been caused by an accidental event, even if negligence is involved, just might be mitigated by a genuine (and the key here is the word 'genuine') apology?]]>
http://www.boydneil.com/blog/rss-comments-entry-5582295.xml 0