Examining The Sustainability of the Royal Bank of Scotland: Facing Your Demons

09 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by Aman Singh in CSR, CSR reporting, CSRwire

Tags

banking, corporate governance, CSR, CSR report, CSR reporting, CSRwire, Disclosure & Transparency, economy, employee retention, ESG, Ethics, finance, HR, Leadership, leadership, materiality, stakeholder engagement, Sustainability, sustainability, transparency, voluntary disclosure, Work culture

The finance sector continues to ride on the coattails of what started as a severe decline in trust, market performance and profits in 2008. And Royal Bank of Scotland [RBS] was no exception, facing its own share of customer distrust and instability as well as a government bailout.

However, in its most recent CSR Report, the bank – as compared to its contemporaries – makes a marked effort to address these concerns and makes a public promise to examine its “financial stability, our customers, the way we use the resources around and the practices that we have.”

What really piqued my interest was the press release issued by the bank, which right from the headline – Royal Bank of Scotland Extends Meetings with Biggest Critics – told me change was afoot.

I caught up with Duncan Young, Deputy Head of Sustainability who is also in charge of producing the bank’s annual CSR Report. We began with an obvious question – I couldn’t hesitate – about a specific statement in CEO Stephen Hester’s quote that highlighted the Report’s very first page: What will it take to “build a really good bank”?

Aspirational Goals: “Building a Really Good Bank”

“There’s been debate about how aspirational that statement is…and a recognition that the sector has had a difficult time in recent years. We want to regain the trust of our customers and wider stakeholders – and we’re not going to become a really good bank till we do that,” he explained, adding: “We’ve spent the last few years working to make the bank secure and stable again. And made fairly significant progress. But as we go through the process of regaining trust with wider society, we think we need to deliver the kind of solutions that equate with us being a good bank.”

Fair enough. But what does an overarching statement of “becoming good” involve for an organization that serves a cross sector of business and consumer populations?

“We have significantly enhanced the remit of our Group Sustainability Committee this year. They will now cover wider reputational issues, impact on customers as well as U.K. industry practices, where too often, in the past customers were taken for granted. Today, we want to put customers at the heart of what we do to make sure we don’t make those mistakes again,” he said.

As for the committee’s expanded remit, “The committee will operate at the board level with full support from our leadership. Members will meet six times a year to review its larger mandate, which now includes conduct, culture and reputation, a very current issue for the industry.”

Underlining this is of course a sense of loss. As Young put it, “We are well aware that we have suffered heavily since the financial crisis and need to rethink how we work with our customers.”

“After the crisis, we were bailed out by the taxpayer. Our fundamental goal since has been to make the bank safe and secure. We’re getting there. Our loan to deposit ratio – traditionally held as a good measure of a bank – was at 140 percent at one point. Now we’re down to 100 percent, which is deemed to be a measurable sign of a stable bank,” he said.

“We’ve also repaid key aspects of government support. But it’s important that we focus on maintaining a culture now that ensures past mistakes do not recur. We have a much stronger focus on conduct risk and our engagement efforts are making sure the bank’s leadership are much better placed to pick up on issues of market behavior, reputation risk and have an understanding of what customers’ expectations are from us. That’s another reason why we have significantly increased our disclosures,” Young emphasized.

Transparent Leadership: Engaging With Critics

So how does the company plan to address and interact with its critics?

“We have had a program where the sustainability committee meets with our biggest external critics where they can make the case about their interests in how we operate directly to the executive team. Last year, we held three engagement sessions with 14-15 separate groups attending. This year, we transparency at RBS will have six more. In fact, even as we talk, committee members are meeting with a few organizations to discuss cyber security and its impact on the bank and our customers,” offered Young.

The leverage and stature of the committee has proven an important approach in increasing the bank’s stakeholder engagement, according to Young, because of the members’ ability to represent critical points of view and risks directly to the leadership. “This ensures that our top leadership does not lose sight of our key stakeholders and the dialogue informs their decision-making and specific business-related outcomes,” he added.

The CEO Speaks

Another first for the bank: Publishing a Q&A with its CEO that makes a mighty honest effort at addressing issues like trust, stability, its lending practices as well as the 2012 LIBOR rate-fixing scandal. Highlights:

On sustainability:

“Our long-term success will be determined by how well we understand our customers and communities, and how well we can service their needs in a responsible way. 2012 was a very challenging year for the sector, but it certainly served to underline that point.”

Lending to small businesses:

“It’s a difficult environment at the moment. Ongoing economic uncertainty has unsurprisingly driven down demand from businesses. SME loan applications were down 19% from 2011. Nonetheless, we continue to provide significant support to customers. RBS advanced more than £74 billion to UK businesses and homeowners in 2012. We’re approving a higher proportion of loan applications than ever – 93% in the last quarter of 2012.”

Royal Bank of Scotland CSR Report

The impact of the LIBOR rate-fixing scandal:

“There is no place at RBS for such behavior. That’s why we’re determined to correct the control and risk management failures that originated in RBS during the financial boom years, of which attempted LIBOR manipulation is an example. This is a painstaking task, that’s been undertaken over several years and we can’t detect and solve every problem as fast as we would like. The aim is to create a safe and secure RBS that serves customers well and that, in the right way, creates value for those who rely on us.”

On customer trust:

“Staff don’t set out to serve customers poorly, but banks too often had other priorities before the crisis. They saw customers as a means of making money.”

On executive pay:

“The investment banking bonus pool has gone down by 20% on last year, despite operating profits in the markets division being up by nearly 70%. In fact, since 2009 our investment banking bonus pool has shrunk by more than 70%. We’ve also increased transparency around pay. But there’s a balance – we need high quality people if we are to achieve the goals we set out in 2008. So we must deliver reform, while not making the business unmanageable.”

Regaining Trust with External Stakeholders…

The report’s materiality map, worth a look by anyone interested in disclosure and how it can increase shareholder value and business performance, shows customer trust as the bank’s number one material risk. I asked Young how his team was planning to address this:

“Stakeholder engagement is one piece. We make our senior leaders available to the media, release quarterly disclosure and take advantage of public forums to explain where we’re taking the company, how we’re working on renewing customer trust and engaging with enterprise,” he said.

Other efforts include programs like “Working with You” where relationship managers spend a minimum of two days a year working with their clients to get a real understanding of those businesses, an accreditation scheme to ensure our bankers are suitably skilled and qualified, and simplifying our product range to make life easier for our High Street customers.

“It’s not just about the products but also how we offer them. We have to acknowledge that we’re operating against the backdrop of a tough regulatory landscape and immense pressure. The repercussions of offering the wrong products in the past continue to be felt across the organization and we have to get this right,” he added.

…And Employees

What about the bank’s internal culture? With massive layoffs having made headlines not too long ago, Employee retention at RBS what is Young’s team doing to retain and attract top talent? “Despite all the changes and the restructuring, our employee engagement measurements stack up very well. We’re quite pleased, for example, with our ongoing commitment to demo gender diversity at the executive level. We’re not at the optimum point but we’re getting much better at employing more women,” said Young.

Take a look at the report and you see Young’s sentiments reflected right from Page 1. It is commendable that the bank, despite its difficult regulatory environment and consumer marketplace, is facing up to its critics, shifting its cultural rotunda and putting programs in place that can ensure 2008 does not repeat itself. As Young put it, the report manages to “strike a realistic tone and successfully acknowledges that we did have a difficult year.”

After all, we’ve gone hoarse advocating to reporters that they mustn’t view CSR/sustainability Reports as yet another marketing document but as a piece of disclosure that is tied to materiality, engagement and business performance.

Final words? “If people read nothing more than the first 15 pages, they would get a good oversight of our challenges and how we’re responding. That’s mission accomplished for us,” offered Young.

Originally written for and published on CSRwire’s Commentary section Talkback on May 15, 2013.

Connecting the Dots Between Consumers, Consumption & Sustainability: The External Face of Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan

09 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by Aman Singh in CSRwire, ESG

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Brand Management, Business, cause markeing, cause marketing, CSRwire, employee engagement, Environment, ESG, marketing, packaging, palm oil, PepsiCo, roundtable on sustainable palm oil, sanitation, Stakeholder Engagement, supply chain, Supply chain management, Sustainability, sustainability, unilever, unilever sustainable living plan, waste, water

What role does a consumer-facing sustainability strategy play in an ambitious plan like the Unilever Sustainable Living Plan? That’s where I left off in my interview with Marketing Chief Keith Weed last week in our review of the ambitious Plan two years since launch.

From Desire to Habit: Unilever’s Five Levers for Change

He chose to respond by explaining a framework called the “Five Levers for Change” that his team developed to solve exactly this dilemma. An excerpt:

Make it understood. Sometimes people don’t know about a behavior and why they should do it. This Lever raises awareness and encourages acceptance.
Make it easy. People are likely to take action if it’s easy, but not if it requires extra effort. This Lever establishes convenience and confidence.
Make it desirable. The new behavior needs to fit with how people like to think of themselves, and how they like others to think of them. This Lever is about self and society.
Make it rewarding. New behaviors need to articulate the tangible benefits that people care about. This Lever demonstrates the proof and payoff.
Make it a habit. Once consumers have changed, it is important to create a strategy to help hold the behavior in place over time. This Lever is about reinforcing and reminding.

“We need to continue to work with others to drive this change. If we achieve the Sustainable Living Plan, and it doesn’t change business at scale, ultimately that’s a fail. Unilever’s impact is huge but we’re still a drop in the ocean. We need a movement going for businesses to help address this,” he explained.

“We are already working with organizations like the World Toilet Organization, UNICEF and others on sanitation, for example, which is a very important issue for us. Two million children die every year from pneumonia or diarrhoea. In a world where there are more mobile phones than toilets or toothbrushes, our work ahead is sure cut out for us,” he added.

The fact is Unilever cannot do it alone. None of it.

And Weed and team have understood that since launching the Unilever Sustainable Living Plan. While scale is a huge factor, organizations require individual and mass power to change consumer behavior and habits. And that is where the Five Levers for Change along with creative partnerships like the kind Weed referred to can help.

Making Sustainability Personal…

“I was in Brazil recently speaking to a lady in Sao Paulo about the environment and the city’s pollution. For her this meant dust from the nearby construction and the tainted flavor of her water supply. These were her immediate challenges – not deforestation or climate change. People view the world through the prism of my world – family, friends, and community. Our world is a step bigger: the city you live in, the supermarket, the local dump, etc. And the final level, ‘the world’ is the rainforest, the ice melting in the Arctic,” Weed continued.

His point: We need to connect “my world” with “the world” for consumers. “Right now we’re at level one. When I asked the lady what she thought would solve the issues, she suggested stopping the
littering because it would stop the drains from getting clogged and therefore avoid local floods. Level One,” he said.

What companies need to do is create a movement and work with people to drive change. A natural question then: Is Unilever working with other companies on its initiatives or primarily with nonprofits?

… and a Business Driver

One example Weed offered was palm oil.

“We purchase a lot of palm oil but it still makes only for three percent of the world’s palm oil. We started our journey by promising to source 100 percent of our palm oil sustainably by 2020. It’s a clear signal to the entire palm oil supply chain that that is the future we are working toward.”

“But this goal would be impossible to reach across the value chain without working with other purchasers of palm oil. So we work with other businesses and NGOs on the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil to do this collectively.”

In fact, Weed says Unilever managed to reach the 100 percent goal last year because of this collective effort. The next step: To make the supply chain of sustainable palm oil easier and connected by 2020. “Right now procuring sustainable palm oil means weaving through a very complex supply chain,” he added.

Another example: the work of the Consumer Goods Forum, which includes 650 members including manufacturers, competitors, retailers and NGOs, responsible for over $2.5 trillion in sales. And Weed is pretty positive about the goals and work of the Forum: “There are a lot of companies getting behind the need to address the negative impacts of deforestation, and momentum is starting to build,” he said.

While momentum is starting to build – with several companies announcing new initiatives and collaborations – the issue did bring us back full circle to where we started: how do we connect these overarching partnerships with the average consumer?

Subtle Messaging & Cause Marketing

And what role does cause marketing play in Unilever’s 2020 plan? Should we expect more nuanced advertising on the lines of the Dove campaign, for example? Or go full throttle like Patagonia’s “Don’t Buy This Jacket” campaign?

It’s going to be subtler, says Weed. “For example, for our Tomato soup in Germany or our Ketchup in India, we talk about sourcing tomatoes sustainably. With our Lipton tea, we talk about sourcing all our tea and tea bags sustainably by 2020,” Weed explained.

“Consumers comprehend these messages differently though. When we talk about sourcing our tea sustainably, customers see the Rainforest Alliance logo as a sign of better quality and taste, not necessarily sustainability. With our Hellman’s mayonnaise we discuss cage-free eggs. Consumers perceive that as an indication of better food: animals are better looked after therefore they’re getting better food. However, it’s still early days,” he added.

Work Culture: Participating in Change

Early days also for Unilever’s employees, who are witnessing – and participating – in a significant shift culturally at a company that has left behind decades of “doing things one way” to a more complex ideology. How has the company’s culture evolved since 2010?

According to Weed, the greater purpose espoused by the Sustainable Living Plan has been significant for employees – kind of like Performance with Purpose over at competitor PepsiCo. “The notion that you can work for a business to earn money, build a career and also do it in a better way is significant. We need new ways of doing business in the future – our generation has stolen from our children’s
generation financially and environmentally – so we ‘re going out and saying we want our employees to innovate and encourage new ways of doing business,” Weed said.

In fact, the marketing chief, who also leads internal and external communications for Unilever, says despite the many crises facing our world today engagement levels among employees have gone up consistently every year.

A sentiment that resonated in an email I received this week from Kam Erik Fierstine, a project delivery manager in Unilever Engineering Services at the company’s Henderson, Nev.-based ice cream plant. Here’s what he wrote when I asked him about the culture at his company:

“The Sustainable Living Plan is something that is quite apparent to those of us that live in a desert-like area where we are very conscious of water usage. It has shown our employees that Unilever has the same values that we were raised with. Our employees would not put up with a leaky faucet at home, and now they have the backing of management to proactively fix these simple issues at work.”

“We all agree that we want to leave a healthy planet for future generations and we can help do that by conserving our resources. Our employees see the management team walking the talk and that empowers them to escalate issues and voice new ideas. They will now do small things to make a larger impact like pick up things from the floor or switch off conveyors or equipment when not in use.”

The Henderson, Nev.-based ice cream plant was recently honored by the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy for its sustainability practices.

“They see us taking on challenges in a positive way and that’s inspiring,” Weed wraps up.

Originally written for and published on CSRwire’s Commentary section Talkback on May 1, 2013.

Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan: The Challenges of Being Too Ambitious

09 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by Aman Singh in CSR, CSR reporting, CSRwire

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

agriculture, Brand Management, Business, cause marketing, climate change, Consumerism, Corporate Governance, CSR, CSR reporting, CSRwire, disclosure, Disclosure & Transparency, dove, energy, environment, Environment, food, hygiene, Leadership, lifebouy, marketing, nutrition, paul polman, Social Enterprise, supply chain, Supply chain management, Sustainability, sustainability, Sustainability Report, unilever, unilever sustainable living plan, water

Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan was created and launched amid much fanfare in 2010. It was lauded for its ambitious goals, an exhaustive list of metrics and for its commitment to put sustainable and equitable growth at the heart of its business model.

This week, the consumer products company released its second progress report and it began with a stark statement from CEO Paul Polman:

The world continues to face big challenges. The lack of access of many to food, nutrition, basic hygiene and sanitation, clean drinking water or a decent job should be a concern to all of us. We firmly believe business has a big role to play in striving for more equitable and sustainable growth, but large-scale change will only come about if there is real collaboration between companies, governments and NGOs across all these areas.

Now, the report is impressive, exhaustive and filled with data. So to get beyond the flash, the avalanche of numbers and statistics, I reached out to Keith Weed, Chief Marketing & Communications Officer also responsible for the Sustainable Living Plan, to discuss not only the challenges of reaching some of the goals Unilever is striving for by 2020 but also the successes, the unforeseen road bumps and the transformation the company is undergoing culturally because of the Plan.

To get started, here are the three overarching goals Unilever began its Plan with:

Help more than a billion people take action to improve their health and well-being;
Source 100 percent of agricultural raw materials sustainably;
Halve the environmental footprint of its products across the value chain.

Ambition: Sustainability in Perspective

“The report is indicative of what we’re trying to do. We’re trying to do things at scale. This is not a [standalone] CSR project in Africa but something that touches every single element across our value chain,” he began.

It takes a mindset shift to put Unilever’s plan in perspective. As Weed explained, “The idea that it isn’t just about the footprint of your facilities…we have to think all the way through the lifecycle of a product from consumer to facilities to sourcing to the impact of key productions. The Unilever Sustainable Living Plan guides our direction.”

Did his team realize the magnanimity of the goals they were setting? “We knew that we couldn’t achieve all of them but that if we set them like this, we would find solutions along the way by working with others,” he said, adding, “When you get interconnected, solutions and opportunities open up. That was the spirit we started with.”

And the results encapsulated on Unilever’s website and a 53-page PDF download, are in keeping with that spirit. “It’s not about mechanically ticking off the targets and goals. Our Sustainable Living Plan is a movement to get business to move toward socially and environmentally sustainable future,” he clarified.

The Unilever Sustainable Living Plan: Highlights

First of, he reminds me that from the outset, the Plan set out the sustainability goals to be achieved alongside the mission set out in 2009 to double the business. “We serve two billion people a day and another 2.5 billion are expected to be added to the world’s population by 2050. So our goal is to reduce our environmental footprint and increase our social impact while doubling our business.”

The good news: “We have started to drive sustainability into the core of our business and today, our sustainability efforts are helping to drive business growth.” One example is Unilever’s popular Lifebouy soap, which was rebranded in 2010 with a social purpose alongside:

[We went] from selling soap to encouraging people to wash their hands – and wash them correctly. And our efforts have resulted in double-digit growth over the last three years – and reaching millions with our Handwashing campaign. It’s proving the coherence of our strategy of combining social impact with business growth instead of just a sales goal,” Weed explained.

Other examples:

Laundry cleaner: Unilever increased its market share by 10 percentage points since 2010 to over 25 percent, with its concentrated liquids, which according to Weed carry a much lower carbon footprint in production and use.
Dry shampoos: A huge opportunity for the company, right now dry shampoos are mostly sold in the U.S. – where Unilever occupies a 75 percent market share. But as the company enters into more water-restricted countries, Weed predicted an accompanying increase in sales. The environmental benefit? Compared to heated water, dry shampoo reduces CO2 by 90 percent through lower water usage and less heating of water for the shower. An added benefit for developing countries: water conservation.
Dove: The Self Esteem campaign continued to gain momentum with 62 percent of women who know of the campaign now recommending Dove to others. “The campaign started with the idea that we should think differently about how we portray beauty,” said Weed, “Today, it’s a global movement.”
Oral hygiene: Unilever’s oral hygiene campaign helped its Signal brand grow by 22 percent in 2012. “People brush their teeth in the morning and evening, which requires more toothpaste, ergo a virtuous circle,” contextualized Weed.

A Twist on Purposeful Cause Marketing?

So cause marketing spelt and implemented differently. By attaching value and impact with its core products, Unilever is addressing a question all consumer products companies continue to struggle with: how do you change consumer behavior to scale a company’s sustainability efforts?

For Unilever, this has meant active pairing of product and messaging with a focus on impact and growth, yet ultimate success is far away.

As Weed explained:

This is a coherent strategy that works – we’re increasing our social impact while growing our business. However, while we’re making good progress, we’re still facing challenges across the value chain, whether it’s with sourcing, food production or disposal.

And each carries with it a nuanced set of challenges, a complex set of solutions and invariably a cobweb of marketing, brand positioning and partnerships.

We have reduced our CO2 emissions, non-hazardous waste to landfill has been reduced in 50 percent of our factory sites, we’re sourcing over a third of our agricultural raw material from sustainable sources, up from 14 percent when we started in 2010…yet we’re miles away from our 2020 target of 100 percent,” he offered.

Scaling Behavior: Easier Ideated than Done

Of course, a key ingredient in Unilever’s Plan is the ability to scale. For the world’s largest tea producer, these achievements might mean small metrics today but when scaled are attribution to an entire value chain at work on technological improvements, environmental studies, and more. However, the opportunity is also a challenge:

“The sheer scale of our commitments is tremendous. For example, we want to be able to educate a billion people by 2020 on washing their hands correctly. That’s a lot of people – despite the progress we’ve already made since 2010 –119 million people reached since 2010, of whom 71 million were reached in 2012. Scale has been more challenging than we originally thought,” Weed explained.

Another challenge: encouraging people to adopt new behaviors.

Consumer Behavior: The Toughest Challenge Yet?

“When someone tells you something about hygiene, it’s easy to do it for a couple of days and then switch back to your old habits. Habits are hard to change and we’re seeing this come up in almost every initiative,” he said.

Using the example of laundry, he exemplified:

The biggest use of domestic water across households worldwide is for laundry. Only a few hundred million in North America and Europe use machines. The other billions wash their clothes by hand and usually use four buckets of water to do so: wash in one, rinse in three. Our challenge is to reduce that rinsing from three buckets to one. So we came up with a product that kills the foam – wash in one bucket and rinse in one bucket. Water used is instantly cut to half. And we expected the product to be a runaway success.

The team found that embedding that behavior change of using one bucket instead of three was instrumentally tough. Even in water scarce markets where people have to walk long distances for water. “Rinsing is hard work. I thought this would be a rapid victory but we found that it takes time to change habits and we ended up reaching only 29 million households, much lower than anticipated,” he recalled.

When your footprint encompasses billions of culturally diverse populations with very different social and environmental settings, scale becomes an ever-moving target.

Perhaps Weed puts it best again: “If you went to work in a Boeing 747, it wouldn’t make a difference to the planet. If half the planet started doing that, it would make a huge difference. The power of individuals is when you scale them together.”

Its hard work.

And Unilever’s 2012 Progress Report while celebrating the company’s achievements does not undercut the challenges ahead. “We’re breaking new ground every day. We’re showing results. But there are several pieces we are yet to crack,” said Weed.

Originally written for and published on CSRwire’s Commentary section Talkback on April 24, 2013.

Shared Success at Verizon: No Silver Bullet for Sustainability, Say CSR & Sustainability Chiefs

09 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by Aman Singh in CSR, CSR reporting, CSRwire, ESG

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Business, carbon, community, Consumerism, CSR, CSR reporting, CSRwire, Disclosure & Transparency, energy, environment, Environment, ESG, ghg, iirc, integrated reporting, Philanthropy, recycling, shared value, supplier responsibility, supply chain, Sustainability, sustainability, technology, verizon

Verizon recently released its second Integrated Report, combining the company’s financial and non-financial data and metrics into one clean look at its overall performance.

While the technology giant has been publishing its environmental, social and governance results for almost a decade, integration with the firm’s financial performance is relatively new. And Verizon saw several significant changes in 2012 to its approach to sustainability and shared value – which Verizon calls “shared success” – including a reformat of its Foundation’s model.

In a recent webinar, I had the opportunity to discuss the report, Verizon’s goals, challenges and a whole host of issues with Verizon’s CSR and sustainability chiefs Kathy Brown and Jim Gowen, along with an engaged audience.

Here are excerpts – and a link to the webinar recording.

Whether you’re eager to learn more about Verizon’s approach to sustainability or what the future holds for integrated reporting and sustainability standards, the webinar will provide you with exemplary context, insights into one company’s efforts to reduce its impact, and how a multinational must pick a strategy that is holistic, focused and measurable.

Shared Success:

Kathy Brown: “When Lowell McAdam became our CEO a year and a half ago, he brought with him a set of principles by which he inspired us to live. It is a value-based approach to our work in the market. We deliver outstanding communication and technology for our communities and country. And we are to share our success with the community. While Michael Porter gets a deep bow for creating Shared Value, these pillars – solutions, service and sustainability – state our mission and our version of shared success.”

Verizon's Shared Success Innovation Process

“We want to achieve measurable social impact. We can do a number of things at one time because our technology is powerful enough for us to find a way to do well for our shareowners and stakeholders, communities and countries in tackling the world’s problems…Specifically, we are focusing on how technology can bring transformational change in education, healthcare and energy management. The platform is our fiber network [and] our wireless network. Through these [networks] we are able to reach millions of users and applications that can literally change the world.”

Setting Aggressive Targets:

Jim Gowen: “Our sustainability program includes aggressive targets, follow-up and our people [who] really do make the difference. In September 2009, when we created the Office of Sustainability, one of the challenges was how were we going to make an impact on a business that [in many areas] is growing exponentially. So we set the Carbon Intensity Metric as the way to grow most efficiently. We set an objective by 2020 to improve our carbon efficiency by 50 percent. Since 2009, we have driven our carbon efficiency 37 percent.”

“But as I often tell my employees, that was the easy part. Now comes the tougher part. We’ve taken care of all the low hanging fruit. How do you keep that momentum going? For example, e-waste is one of our biggest impacts. We’ve set a goal of collecting more than 2 million pounds of e-waste by 2015. That’s no small feat.
We’re doing that internally as well as externally with our Recycling Rallies.In the last two years, we’ve held 36 of these [across the country]. That objective is very important to Verizon and our customers.”

Environmental Footprint: Setting the Stage

Jim: “Our environmental footprint is quite large. Supporting hundreds of millions of customers takes a lot of work. We operate 42,000 cell towers, 31,000 facilities globally, and [a] 38,000 private fleet of trucks and vans, etc. We had to concentrate on our own resources and see how to become sustainable.”

“We focus on four key areas: making our networks more efficient; expand[ing] our renewable sources of energy; run[ning] our fleets more efficiently; and reduc[ing] the lifecycle cost of ownership of how we operate. From purchasing to logistics and sustainability – they all match up nicely.”

Highlights from 2012: From Packaging to the “Magic Bus”

Jim: “How do we make our packaging more environmentally-friendly? How do we handle the end of life for that? We asked our OEMs to make their equipment more energy efficient – 30 percent more than legacy equipment. Then we looked at our consumer stores: 131 stores have been LEED certified so far with the U.S. Green Building council, and a pilot is underway to increase that number across our markets.”

“We recently launched our Magic Bus program. The idea was generated by one of our line managers in New York who suggested that, instead of driving our own vans around very congested areas of New York, why couldn’t we drop off our employees with their equipment to provide service to our customers?”

“From that originated a three-month pilot where we used vans that could host eight to 10 technicians with their equipment and inventory on board, and we started driving them around areas of Manhattan. We would pick [up] and drop them [off] and provide service to them throughout the day when they needed it. The benefit was significant – for our customers and our employees. We’ve now started 25 of those Magic Buses in New York and removed 250 of our vans off the roads of New York City.”

No Silver Bullet for Sustainability

Jim: “There is no silver bullet and no magic button. It’s going to take a lot of trial and error and a lot of commitment. While we think and look at our lifecycle approach, we’re still in our immaturity stage, and the opportunities ahead of us are so powerful that we can have a significant impact”

From Sustainability to Integrated:

Kathy: “Our Shared Success Council is made up of senior executives across the company – including marketing officers, product managers, general counsel, etc. – who are clearing the strategy for growth and in the process, sharing the idea of Shared Success. The report recognizes these efforts.”

“The process involves a lot of collaboration between executives and the folks on the ground. We focus a lot on our data, and we don’t see this journey as involving any one data point. It’s a journey of doing business, and the report reflects that. We’ve shown enormous efforts and growth, and the information is easy to read and use for our stakeholders across the board.”

Jim: “The report also helps us tell our story concisely. Our customers are asking, as are our investors. They are asking how we’re measuring ourselves? What are our goals – people want to invest in sustainable companies – and how are we incrementally achieving those?”

Technology and Health Care: Powerful Answers

Kathy: “We need to work on reducing costs on factory delivery systems and improv[ing] patient outcomes. Think about what you have on your iPad or phone today. We believe we can, in a more systematic way, think of security and identity issues for patients, fast connections, and [the] ability for patients and doctors to talk to each other in a secure environment through our technology, etc. We call this Powerful Answers.”

Who’s Reading the Report?

Kathy: “Internally, the audience is our employees who can have sense of our values as a company. Externally, people want to do business with companies with a heart but also have the technology and wherewithal to solve their problems. Beyond individuals, this includes communities [and] governments who take on big ideas about congestion, smarter cars, health care, etc. This report does a good job [of] painting the bigger picture for this audience.”

Jim: “[The] hip market that will change the world [is] using our technology, and this report helps them see first-hand the choices they have. Sustainability at Verizon is driven by our employees and our communities, not just one executive.”

Supplier Responsibility:

Jim: “Over the last couple of years, we have queried our top 200 suppliers, which represent 80 percent of our total spend, to ask them how they manage their CO2 and greenhouse gas impact. What goes into the products they supply to Verizon? And we were very surprised at the answers we got back and tallied them up and graded them.”

“Whether they’re early adopters or much more mature with their sustainability strategies, we’ve set ourselves a 2015 goal: to operate with over 40 percent of our suppliers that have targets and greenhouse gas emission goals. That impact is significant, and we’ve already seen that through the innovation they’re bringing to us about how they can become more sustainable and continue working with us.”

Evaluating Success:

Kathy: “We get all sorts of consumer indicators of how we’re doing in our community. We know how they use our network, what they think of it, etc. Once we start asking consumers how we’re doing in terms of impact, the responses have been very good. But it has been a challenge to do that in a broad way across many segments.”

For more insights from Verizon, listen to the webcast.

Originally written for and published on CSRwire’s Commentary section Talkback on April 18, 2013.

Access to Medicine, Transparency & Ethical Governance: GlaxoSmithKline’s 2012 CSR Report

09 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by Aman Singh in CSR, CSR reporting, CSRwire, ESG

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

avandia, carbon, clinical trials, community development, compliance, CSR, CSR report, CSR reporting, CSRwire, Disclosure & Transparency, Environment, ESG, Ethics, ethics, glaxosmithkline, governance, health care, paxil, Social Impact, Supply chain management, Sustainability, sustainability, Sustainability Report, transparency, vaccines, work culture

When a company is manufacturing critical need medicines and popular consumer products, how does it address increasing access to innovative products while managing its energy use?

On the launch of the GlaxoSmithKline’s 2012 Corporate Responsibility Report – a comprehensive read at 75 pages – I caught up with Director for Global Corporate Responsibility Clare Griffin for some updates.

Looking Ahead: GSK Switches Focus

For the first time the report, while focusing on the company’s 2012 performance, also includes a set of 23 forward-looking commitments across GSK’s business. The first thing that caught my eye in the report was the framework used to connect the firm’s vision with its business mission, assets, purpose and bottom line [see below]. How did the team use this chart to define CR’s focus at GSK?

“Lots of companies say they don’t have separate CR strategies; that they are completely embedded, etc. But how can you demonstrate that integration? This chart, for us, is a good way of explaining how CR is interwoven into our business. We have our business assets, our people, our priorities, our values, which leads us to create innovative products and drive access where people need it the most,” she explained.

“That’s the vision we want to create. We believe that if responsibility is absolutely integral to how we do business, we will deliver sustainable business growth for shareholders and benefits for our other stakeholders,” she added.

It’s all interrelated.

“For example, in the world’s poorest countries, our Developing Countries and Market Access (DCMA) operating unit has a clear objective to increase access to medicines and vaccines, while expanding our market presence and ensuring our business is sustainable for the long-term. This model is increasing our volume sales while increasing access to essential medicines and vaccines.”

Transparency, Pricing & Carbon: Challenges Ahead

“We will see through the implementation of our commitments on transparency of clinical trials data, continue with our commitments on pricing, and look to further harness manufacturing technologies to improve our carbon footprint,” writes GSK CEO Andrew Witty in the report.

Lots of promises in that one statement, I asked. How will these be implemented?

“We have a pretty diverse product line. Although pharmaceuticals are the majority, we also produce vaccines and consumer healthcare products. To improve our carbon emissions, we first invested in mapping our carbon footprint. For example, we found out that Amoxicillin, a very popular antibiotic, is the third-largest contributor to our carbon emissions due to the manufacturing process,” she said. “Our green chemistry team in Singapore has found a different way to produce Amoxicillin through using an enzyme instead which will cut carbon emissions from this process by 36,000 tonnes and reduce waste by 2,400 tonnes as well.”

Similarly with Horlicks, a popular malted milk drink: “We are working to further enhance an Indian government program aimed at modernizing milk production, and looking at introducing alternative energy generation, for example low-carbon biomass energy generation using waste wood to replace coal. Essentially, we are focusing on where we believe we can have the biggest impact,” she added.

Creating Access: Sharing Data From Clinical Trials

As for the transparency piece, while GSK has shared the summary results of all of its clinical trials – whether positive or negative – on a website accessible to all since 2004, the firm has committed to going further and now making anonymized patient-level data available to researchers.

“We’re setting up an independent panel which will review each request to make sure it is appropriate and will be using the data for valid scientific reasons. We also want the researchers to share their results back with the scientific community. We hope this initiative will be of value in developing and catalyzing a wider approach in the industry,” she explained.

Ethical Standards: Reinstating a Culture of Responsibility

Our discussion would not have been complete without taking into account, GSK’s rough tidings last year with the U.S. government. With the firm having to pay $3 billion to the U.S. government to settle allegations of unethical misconduct – failure to include information, etc. – in its sales and marketing practices around drugs Paxil and Avandia, several questions arose about the company’s corporate governance, accountability and sales practices – how do you move forward, I asked.

The company has taken significant steps to move beyond that, responded Griffin. “We have implemented a new incentive compensation system (Patient First) for our professional sales representatives who work directly with healthcare professionals in the U.S. The new system eliminates individual sales targets for these representatives as a basis for bonuses, and instead bases compensation primarily on sales competency, customer evaluations and the overall performance of their business unit,” she said.

The company has also brought together different Codes of Practices across regions and business units to create one Global Code and introduced standards that reinforce clear distinction between scientific dialogue and promotional activities. “These new standards govern the way we engage in scientific activities, such as advisory boards, publications, scientific congresses and medical education,” she said.

Other steps: A Corporate Ethics and Compliance Program for all employees, strengthened training programs, setting up an anti-bribery and corruption initiative and setting in motion disciplinary actions when needed.

“The 23 forward-looking commitments cut across the four areas of GSK’s responsibility: Health for all, Our behavior, Our People and Our Planet. It was important that we picked a time frame that is close enough that the current cadre of employees will be the people delivering the commitments while giving us enough time to create sustained change,” Griffin emphasized, alluding to the firm’s 2015 and 2020 goals.

Goals & Commitments: Highlights from 2012

So what were some of the year’s highlights for GSK?

The potential to bring around 15 new medicines and vaccines to patients over the next three years
3.5 million pounds invested in R&D
5 million pounds invested in the Tres Cantos Open Lab Foundation in Spain to fund research on solutions for diseases in the developed world
A concentrated focus on creating access, including monitoring the influential Access to Medicine Index, that measures what pharmaceuticals are doing to bring more medicines to more people [GSK won the top spot for the third time in 2012 although Griffin was quick to point out that “the index is a measure of what we’re doing, not the reason why we’re doing it.”]
A number of commitments around transparency established in 2012 including participating in the All-Trials Initiative, marking the next level of details on releasing results of GSK’s clinical trials.

What’s next?

“In 2013 we will continue to focus on innovation, access, and operating with transparency across the business. Specifically we will work to see through the implementation of our commitments on transparency of clinical trials data, continue with our commitments on pricing, and look to further harness manufacturing technologies to improve our carbon footprint,” finished Griffin.

Originally written for and published on CSRwire’s Commentary section Talkback onApril 16, 2013.

Earthwards 2.0: Johnson & Johnson Seeks to Evolve Sustainable Product Innovation

09 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by Aman Singh in CSRwire, ESG

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

andrew winston, Brand Management, CSR, CSRwire, earthwards, environment, Environment, ESG, health care, healthcare, hunter lovins, Innovation, lifecycle analysis, marks and spencer, Sustainability, sustainability, sustainability strategy, unilever, waste

In recent posts, I explored the genesis of Johnson & Johnson’s proprietary Earthwards^® process and how it has been used to help develop greener products to meet customer needs. For Johnson & Johnson, the process of instilling a sustainability mindset began with introspection and questioning: How does an organization with multiple product lines and a global workforce develop and define greener products? And the process began with a tool called GAIA, or Global Aquatic Ingredient Assessment.

In the beginning, GAIA was operating almost exclusively with R&D because it was a science-based tool with specific emphasis on measuring downstream ecosystem impacts. Implementation of the Earthwards process accelerated broader adoption and has helped spur greener product innovation based on lifecycle thinking that is, in part, quantified by tools like GAIA. But Earthwards, despite its rigor and initial success, is still in its infancy.

In 2012, Senior Director for Worldwide Environment Health and Safety Al Iannuzzi enlisted a team of experts that volunteered to examine the Earthwards process and recommend areas for improvement. What’s next? I explore the future of the program through the eyes of two well-respected sustainability experts who recently weighed in as part of that expert team: Andrew Winston and L. Hunter Lovins.

_____________________________

By now, you’ve probably caught a glimpse of that new inspiring Honda Civic 2013 commercial, framing innovation as believing that ‘things can always be better.’ For Winston, making things better begins by asking questions. “As we pursue sustainability in the future, asking the right questions will be as important as the answers we get,” he said.

For the people at Johnson & Johnson, the concept of continuous improvement is a driving force. So it makes sense that their efforts to evolve the current Earthwards methodology into a better process began with some honest introspection and engagement with a few external experts, including Winston and Lovins.

In a recent phone call with Winston, I asked him his impressions of the Earthwards process.

He believes that the Earthwards process is a solid program with appropriate categories and logical steps that “empowers product developers with information and helps them understand the choices. It’s a well-designed system, but does have its pros and cons.”

I asked him to elaborate.

“They have the right categories, seven in all, but the concern is that a product could be improving in three distinct areas, but these may not be the most important areas to focus on in order to address the products’ greatest material impacts. There’s a fine line between simplicity and enabling efficient assessments.”

Of course there are trade-offs. But the biggest challenge internally is giving employees the time and information they need to become comfortable with the Earthwards process and appreciate the impacts of improvements across the lifecycle.

“It is a fair point,” said Iannuzzi. “Our Review Board, including three external experts, also helps to keep the process objective, making sure that the brands focus their improvements on meaningful areas. To make this even more robust, we will require each application to address the lifecycle screen hot spot areas identified in step two of the Earthwards process, the lifecycle screen.”

Sufficiently Ambitious or Room for Improvement?

There is broad agreement among the experts that Johnson & Johnson has a long history of – and
interest in – environmental protection and sustainability. “The company has cared about its impact on the environment and on people, and taken a position of responsibility,” Lovins noted.

While both Lovins and Winston said that the Earthwards process is one of the most comprehensive sustainable product tools in the industry, and in Lovins’ view, “a strong and rigorous process.” She also feels there is opportunity for the company to become even more aggressive in making this a companywide initiative.

“They need to examine the inadequacies of the Earthwards process, align it with tougher science-based goals and then make a commitment to hold every product to those goals.”

Winston had similar sentiments, specifically around the 10 percent benchmark Johnson & Johnson has set for improvements against Earthwards’ sustainability criteria. “The problem with a goal like 10 percent is that it’s kind of an internal-looking, corporate improvement. These goals at the product level need to be shooting for more dramatic increases.”

Some of J&J’s leading products are doing more than the required 10 percent anyway, so why stop there?

According to Iannuzzi, Johnson & Johnson sees the potential to raise the bar, perhaps substantially on some dimensions, but also recognizes the need to balance meaningful improvements within the original intent of Earthwards.

“J&J is always up for a challenge, but we want to make sure we don’t raise the bar so high that it becomes detrimental to Earthwards’ intended purpose of widespread adoption,” said Iannuzzi. “If we make the bar so high that almost no product can get there, no one would pursue it.”

New Blueprint Needed?

According to a recent study commissioned by Johnson & Johnson titled The Growing Importance of Sustainable Products in the Global Health Care Industry, 54 percent of health care organizations globally say green attributes are very important in their purchasing decisions of health care products and supplies. And this trend appears to be gaining traction, as 40 percent of global hospitals expect their future request for proposals to include sustainability criteria for the products they purchase. Among the greatest concerns hospitals share are the amount of energy they use and the volume of waste they generate.

With data like these indicating that the strongest push for sustainability is coming from within the healthcare sector, how will this influence the evolution of the Earthwards process?

To get at the heart of this question, Winston suggests that Johnson & Johnson ask itself whether doing better than 95 percent of its competitors is good enough.

In fact, Winston said Johnson & Johnson should go further than others and has challenged the company to raise the requirements for Earthwards recognition. For example, the baseline could be higher than the current 10 percent improvement needed to achieve recognition in the different categories, especially in the energy efficiency category, in light of the general scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced by 85 percent by 2050.

Iannuzzi responded: “We plan to better understand the greenhouse gas emissions impacts of the improvements we make this year with the Earthwards process and consider ways to further encourage them in our products.”

Lovins suggests the company be more transparent with customers about where it is in the process of sustainable product development and where it is going. Iannuzzi’s team is already responding by sharing more content on www.earthwards.com including more information about the 36 products that have received recognition so far and other external-facing efforts like a six-part series with CSRwire.

Internal Certification Process, Not a Sustainability Strategy

Coleman Bigelow, Johnson & Johnson Global Sustainability Marketing Director, sees the Earthwards program as an internal product stewardship and green marketing process rather than a long-term sustainability strategy like that of Marks & Spencer’s Plan A or Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan.

The Earthwards process ensures “every product we produce has undergone a lifecycle screening and is as sustainable as possible. For the first time, we have a process that offers something to the developers, the R&D folks, as well as the marketers and sales associates,” Bigelow explained.

Iannuzzi, a Johnson & Johnson veteran of 28 years who has spearheaded the Earthwards program internally from the start and is a popular sustainability champion among the team, doesn’t foresee the company taking an approach akin to GE’s Ecomagination with a separate structure, either.

“Our philosophy is to embed sustainability into every product, not create something special or separate,” Iannuzzi explained. That said, the company does plan to track how much of its revenue stems from Earthwards recognized products. So while it is not its own revenue generating business unit, per se, it certainly could prove to save the company money over the long haul as well as drive innovation internally.

When I asked Iannuzzi about Earthwards’ ten-year plan, he reflected.

“Ideally, I envision it as a way of showing customers how we are coming up with more innovative products using sustainability as the driver. This means moving Earthwards process away from being an add-on and moving it toward full integration. External communication will also be key.”

“But right now, it’s not as well integrated as we would like,” Iannuzzi admits.

Regardless, Winston seems convinced that Johnson & Johnson’s efforts have been both aggressive and innovative as a whole. The next tricky move for the company, say the experts, is to be mindful of how quickly the Earthwards program grows in scope without losing sight of the program’s quality.

As the team at Johnson & Johnson prepares for Earthwards round two, the experts’ advice should help the healthcare company scale its journey from green to greener without losing sight of the ultimate goal: A sustainable planet for future generations.

For now, it’s back to the white boards.

About Andrew Winston and L. Hunter Lovins

A globally recognized expert in green business strategies, Winston is the author of Green Recovery and co-author of Green to Gold, the international best-selling guide to what works – and what doesn’t – when companies go green. Winston is also founder of Winston Eco-Strategies, a sustainability consultancy dedicated to helping companies use environmental strategy to grow, create enduring value, and build stronger relationships with their stakeholders. He writes extensively on green business strategy, including a weekly column for Harvard Business Online and guest byline articles on Huffington Post.

Lovins is an award-winning sustainability consultant, featured speaker at conferences across the globe and author of Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. Lovins is also president and founder of Natural Capitalism Solutions (NCS), which creates innovative, practical tools and strategies to enable companies, communities and countries to become more sustainable. Lovins is also a professor of sustainable business management at Bard College and Denver University, and consults for large and small companies, and governmental clients.

Originally written for and published on CSRwire’s Commentary section Talkback on March 13, 2013.

Greener Products: Johnson & Johnson’s Blended Formula

09 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by Aman Singh in CSR, CSRwire

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

al iannuzzi, Brand Management, change managemet, consumer products, CSR, CSRwire, earthwards, ehs, environment, gaia, green, green products, johnson and jonhson, lifecycle analysis, marketing, ray sharples, Sustainability, sustainability

A “fully sustainable company” remains an aspirational goal for many organizations – yet the road to this ambitious endpoint is filled with challenges waiting for innovative solutions.

To get started, a company must assess its environmental impacts and consistently work to minimize them. But can a company ever become a “fully sustainable company” and, if so, what’s the right roadmap to getting there?

In last week’s post, Al Iannuzzi, Senior Director for Worldwide Environment Health and Safety at J&J wrote, “We believe in greener products.” He was instrumental in mapping out Johnson & Johnson’s EARTHWARDS process to improve product sustainability and its successful adoption across the business units.

Earthwards is a proprietary process that guides Johnson & Johnson teams to holistically identify, address and improve their products’ biggest environmental impacts across a broad range of areas. For Johnson & Johnson, this accounts for a major leap in its journey to becoming a more sustainable enterprise.

Earthwards & GAIA: The Need For Tools

While Earthwards is now the criteria used to assess the sustainability of Johnson & Johnson products, it also requires business specific tools to help make products greener. A key tool for the Consumer Products division is the Global Aquatic Ingredient Assessment, or GAIA for short.

I sat down with Ray Sharples, Manager of EHS & Product Stewardship for Johnson & Johnson’s Consumer Division, to discuss the impetus for GAIA.

According to Sharples, there was a need to develop a tool to measure the environmental impacts of the products Johnson & Johnson puts into the marketplace. To address this need, in 2010, the Johnson & Johnson Consumer Product Stewardship team set out to create a new tool to quantify the impacts of various formulas.

“We needed a way to assess which materials were “better” among our ingredients so we could make improvements in the environmental attributes of our products,” Sharples said.

Interestingly, this technical and scientific process at Johnson & Johnson spurred opportunities for innovation and got employees engaged in the development of greener products. As part of the Earthwards lifecycle thinking, GAIA now plays a role in helping products achieve Earthwards recognition.

Johnson & Johnson started the GAIA scoring system in 2010. GAIA rates the ingredients in a Johnson & Johnson product. GAIA scores are primarily based on scientific issues such as persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity along with other factors, which, in some cases, can reduce the score of an ingredient.

“The intent behind GAIA was to guide product developers around the world to choose environmentally preferred ingredients,” Sharples said.

“The use of ingredients that are readily biodegradable and have minimal environmental impact to the ecosystem allows us to reduce our global environmental footprint. By making this process more streamlined and quantifiable, we’re not only increasing our environmental successes, we’re making it a part of everyday life,” he explained.

Getting a Lift From Earthwards

GAIA was operating almost exclusively with R&D because it was a science-based tool with specific emphasis on measuring downstream ecosystem impacts, but Earthwards changed that.

“Incorporating GAIA as one of the tools within the lifecycle thinking of Earthwards has been really important in mainstreaming GAIA across Johnson & Johnson Consumer group,” Sharples said, pointing to the much broader implementation of Earthwards across the company’s various business units and divisions.

“GAIA soon took off in the Consumer group, as brand teams tried to obtain Earthwards recognition. We’re now using GAIA as a way of educating and engaging our employees on key considerations for
sustainable product development,” he added.

Under the GAIA tool, a product with a score between 80 and 100 is considered environmentally preferred, which means the product consists primarily of biodegradable ingredients that minimize its impact on the ecosystem. “Sixty-five percent of our new formulations today achieve a GAIA score of 80 or higher. Our goal is to ensure that 80 percent of all new Johnson & Johnson consumer products score between 80 and 100 by 2017,” said Sharples.

Why stop at 80 percent?

“One-hundred percent is just very, very difficult to reach. Even reaching 80 percent will be challenging because of the complexity involved in our formulations,” Sharples explained.

GAIA: Hidden Opportunity?

GAIA offers obvious benefits and some less obvious ones. The tool, for example, has often led formulators and R&D teams to find opportunities that they would have previously missed. And making product improvements first through GAIA can help a product development team uncover other lifecycle improvements towards an Earthwards recognition.

Examples of products that first went through the GAIA process and then advanced to achieve Earthwards recognition include Johnson & Johnson’s Baby First Touch Zinksalva (Nappy Cream) and Baby First Touch Shampoo, both marketed under the Natusan brand in Europe.

Creating Change

Sharples’ comments reminded me of a keynote speech by Jeff Swartz, Timberland’s former CEO:

“Sometimes you have to stop wanting the consumer to dictate market trends, innovations and movements. Sometimes you have to take a stand and lead the market.”

But not all issues are as easy to remedy.

For example, zinc oxide is a “red” ingredient under GAIA and therefore, one that Johnson & Johnson aims to
avoid. But when it comes to sunscreen, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration [FDA] has approved zinc oxide as an active ingredient in these products and alternative sunscreen active ingredients have other potential environmental concerns.

So how does the company choose its next step?

Challenge the FDA? Continue with the status quo? Change its product formulation? And who takes on the cost burden of changing the formulation of a successfully tested product? The company? The government? The hospitals and health care institutions? Consumers?

These questions are complicated and require equally complicated solutions.

Like Johnson & Johnson, there are numerous companies aspiring to produce sustainable products, using renewable energy, pursuing zero waste and achieving other targets to ensure their impact on the planet and society is a net positive.

So far, their responses have been piecemeal with Johnson & Johnson’s Earthwards serving as an excellent example of the holistic approach needed in the marketplace. But is there a truly “fully sustainable company” that has figured it all out? If you know one, drop me an email.

Originally written for and published on CSRwire’s Commentary section Talkback on February 27, 2013 and part of a series on Earthwards, a Johnson & Johnson program.

Earthwards: A Front Row Seat to Sustainability in Action at Johnson & Johnson

09 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by Aman Singh in ESG

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bill McDonough, biomimicry, Brand Management, clean technology, coleman bigelow, consumer products, cradle to cradle, earthwards, environment, Environment, ESG, green, Innovation, johnson and johnson, keith sutter, organizational development, product design, Supply chain management, sustainability, Work culture, zero waste, zytiga

While hosting a panel last year on responsible business, a discussion ensued on the need for creating change and influencing millions to shift their habits. I was intrigued by a question from the audience:

“Would companies ever be receptive to the idea of ‘embedding journalists’ in their organizations to test the theory of transparency and therefore influence change?”

While many companies might bristle at this idea, it’s something I’ve thought about a lot. I wondered which company would be the first to invite a journalist inside for a closer look at how its commitment to responsible and sustainable business is put into practice. To my surprise, I didn’t have to wait too long before Johnson & Johnson reached out to me with an invitation. They wanted to discuss the possibility of going inside the organization to conduct an objective review of its sustainable product development process, aptly titled Earthwards^®. As Keith Sutter, Senior Product Director of Sustainable Brand Marketing at Johnson & Johnson explained, the Earthwards process was developed as an internal tool in 2009 to assess the environmental impacts of various products and help drive improvements around specific sustainability criteria. The invitation meant I would get an unvarnished view inside a company that has traditionally shied away from the publicity spotlight. So I dived in.

Diving In: The Challenges of Meeting Sustainability Goals

My first exposure to the inner workings at Johnson & Johnson was a recent Earthwards quarterly board meeting. “Early on some of our external reviewers advised us to establish an Earthwards board of directors and appoint people from our legal, marketing and R&D groups, along with several subject matter experts from the outside,” explained Coleman Bigelow, a board member and Global Sustainability Marketing Director in the Consumer division at Johnson & Johnson. “Assembling a diverse group of stakeholders has been an important piece of the puzzle.” As the presentations started, I realized how challenging it could be to change the design, ingredients and packaging of existing products, built on years and years of research and testing. And for a healthcare company, its products must also meet the highest standards for consumer safety, patient usability and efficacy. So, layering on sustainability considerations to the product development process added even more complexity.

Diving Deeper: How High Should We Set the Bar?

One product reviewed by the board that day was Zytiga^®, a drug made by Janssen (the pharmaceuticals group within Johnson & Johnson), used in the treatment of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer. Through a recent acquisition, Janssen had received the rights to manufacture and distribute Zytiga and the team saw an opportunity to improve the way the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) was produced to decrease its environmental impact and use the Earthwards process to guide the improvements. After the chief scientist for Zytiga walked the group through a formal presentation, the questions began. Now picture a room full of people representing different disciplines across the company – from Product Development to Environment, Health and Safety – and several from outside. The range of questions was broad and impressive: Was the product in competition with another product? Why change the process that was previously used to make the API? Does the product have FDA approval yet? How does making the proposed changes to the design and production of the drug make it safer for the environment? What about the impact on plant workers? And does this change the packaging? More importantly, the group wanted to understand what innovations had led to the proposed changes for Zytiga, and whether these changes could be replicated for other products within the company’s portfolio. Following the Zytiga presentation and discussion, the board took up the next item on its agenda: Should the company move ahead with adding its internally developed Global Aquatic Ingredient Assessment [GAIA] to the Earthwards’ framework? This would allow products in the consumer sector – think Aveeno, for example – to receive one point for their improved GAIA score in the Materials category of the Earthwards criteria. The company developed GAIA to evaluate the impact its product ingredients have on water, and determine if a potential for toxicity, persistence and bioaccumulation exists. Now the group questioned whether adding GAIA as an additional layer to the pre-qualifiers for Earthwards would raise the bar for other products competing for the recognition. As with Zytiga, the questions were far-ranging and complex: Does GAIA only consider the environmental impact of product ingredients, or does the assessment also consider the impact of these ingredients on human health? How do we weigh the toxicity? How does the consumer sector look at human health? With suppliers changing, how do we streamline the process? Does this then become a “hazard assessment rather than a risk assessment?” One example the board used to flesh out the pros and cons of GAIA was Natusan shampoo, which recently earned Earthwards recognition after overcoming a significant hurdle: Scientists had to figure out how to reduce the number of ingredients from 13 to eight to be eligible for recognition. The team explained that while the 13 ingredients used in the initial product were thoroughly reviewed for toxicology to insure that the finished product was safe for human use, the GAIA tool focuses on reducing ecosystem impacts. The board questioned whether the bar set by GAIA would be too high for some products. “We’re pushing for continual improvement while watching for signs of backsliding, and so far 60 percent of our products have continued to make further improvements,” was one sentiment. Another was, “We need to set the bar high but not so high that it discourages product developers from going for it.” Another board member – this time an external reviewer – commented that the allowable limits of “red” ingredients (those that Johnson & Johnson tries to avoid, where possible, due to environmental impacts) seemed reasonable, but cautioned that it might not be reasonable to others.

Complexities Arise: Is Zero the Right Sustainability Target?

As the day wrapped up one thought stuck with me: how high should the bar be when it comes to meeting the sustainability criteria of the Earthwards process? Context is of course key in these discussions. For some products and their ingredients, it’s a fine line between raising the bar and raising it too high. And since most of these products have been tested and retested for years for their impacts, toxicity and formulations, room for improvement is limited and, in some cases, tough to achieve. So how high should the bar be set? That’s the chicken or the egg question for companies today, isn’t it? While Bill McDonough, co-author of Cradle-to-Cradle and chief architect of this concept, promotes zero as the target – as in zero waste or zero negative impact – the reality is that everything we consume is made up of materials that we get from our environment, and therefore has an impact. The question is whether we can replenish the resources as quickly as we take them. And if not, how do we find alternatives? For believers of biomimicry, the answers may lie with nature. And how can a program like Earthwards, which the Johnson & Johnson team insists is not a certification or eco-label – indeed no product carries any indication of its Earthwards recognition on its label – help to push the bar consistently higher while acting as a purposeful motivator for the R&D team, the scientists, the product developers and the marketers, toward more sustainable products?

A Front Row Seat

For someone who doesn’t quite understand chemical equations and bioaccumulation, but does understand cancer, deforestation and the quest for sustainability, the board meeting was a revelation and a front row seat to an often-guarded corporate zone. For a company that earmarks a significant portion of its revenue to R&D, it is encouraging to see the commitment to sustainable product development in action. The board meeting ended on a high note. Zytiga was approved by the Earthwards board for recognition. There was excitement in the air and a belief that Earthwards is moving the company in the right direction. And the coffee pots were empty. All in a day’s work. Originally written for and published on CSRwire’s Commentary section Talkback on February 13, 2013 as part of a series about EARTHWARDS^®, a Johnson & Johnson program designed to promote greener product development throughout the enterprise.

IKEA’s Sustainability Strategy: Save the World, One Product At a Time

09 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by Aman Singh in CSR, CSRwire

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

CEO Network, Chief sustainability officer, CSR, CSR report, CSRwire, energy efficiency, environment, Environment, ESG, ikea, led, lifecycle, product development, steve howard, Supply chain management, Sustainability, sustainability, waste, wind farms

154,000 workers.
47 percent of all managers are women [compared to 17 percent of the American Fortune 500’s board seats or the female representation at the recently concluded World Economic Forum].
338 stores worldwide.
8 percent comparable store sales growth in FY2012.
A third of total energy consumption met through renewable energy.

Is IKEA‘s newly minted sustainability strategy working? Titled People & Planet Positive, the strategy was borne out of the retailer’s business mission: to create a better everyday life for the many people. The 2012 report marks the first update for the superstore whose goals start from the obvious – a fourfold increase in sales by 2020 – and go on to include the other two pillars of sustainability – engagement of customers, employees and suppliers, energy dependence, as well as community development.

In typical European fashion – understated with an emphasis on data – the release headline read: The IKEA Group is Growing and Financially Strong. Mind you, the release announces the retailer’s 2012 Sustainability report, not the latest quarterly report on financials. What better way to position sustainability?

I spoke to Chief Sustainability Officer Steve Howard briefly on the cusp of the report’s release. Excerpts:

Aman Singh: What are some of the key highlights of the 2012 Sustainability Report that you would want every CSRwire reader to know?

Steve Howard: We’ve divided the report into two parts. First is the forward-looking piece, which talks about our new sustainability strategy and lays out our 2020 goals. Implementing these goals has meant a huge amount of work and unleashed an incredible amount of enthusiasm across the workforce.

The second piece deals with our impact. In terms of our operations, extending our work on energy has been significant. We completed installing 50,000 solar panels across our business locations by the end of FY 12. Last year, we committed to invest $2 billion in renewable energy by 2015. We’re already committed $500 million of that.

IKEA now owns wind farms in six countries. Thirty-four percent of our energy came from renewable sources last year. We’ve committed to reach 100 percent by 2020. Not bad for a furnishing company.

In our supply chain, we committed to reaching 100 percent compliance with our suppliers. We have 80 auditors working on this goal as well as independent team validating the work of our auditors. [Once we rolled this out] some suppliers agreed to collaborate while others decided not to. So we parted ways with as many as 60 suppliers. That has real business consequences – for us as well as the suppliers.

This goal has been a real test for us on how serious we are with our promises and commitments. Because our strategy is embedded and understood across divisions, our decision to part ways with 60 suppliers was not received with any criticism. We’ve also worked with our supply chain partners on funding projects and have reached more than 100,000 farmers on improving farm conditions, water conservation, etc.

Again, our goal is to reach every single one of our farmers by the end of 2015.

One of IKEA’s goals is to have at least 95 percent of coworkers, 95 percent of suppliers and 70 percent of consumers view IKEA as a company that takes social and environmental responsibility seriously. How’s that going?

Most of our suppliers, customers and coworkers are in the “I don’t know” category. They judge us and have opinions about IKEA but don’t know what we do on sustainability. What we also know is that people care. Once we communicate the urgency, they do care about things like climate change, the future of their children, etc.

Moving forward, we will strengthen our customer communications. For example, last year we replaced the doors of one of our frame cupboards with honeycomb fiber, which is as strong as solid chipboard but uses 40 percent less material. Cupboards need strong doors, not heavy doors. And this reduces the cost to produce the cupboard, therefore, reducing the price for our customers, which makes it a better customer proposition.

Similarly, the VIDJA lamp was redesigned last year to take out unnecessary components [as many as 24 of the 33 original components were removed] and replaced with LED lights, resulting in half the weight and the same performance. Additionally, we can now load 128 VIDJA lamps on a pallet vs. 80 previously, which means we can ship more at once, reducing our fuel usage and shipping costs.

Just like that, every IKEA product has a story. That’s the direction for our business. Soon everything will be traceable back to source but it’s a lot of hard work and we are starting to talk about these stories. But it will take us some time to get the communication across to our customers globally.

That’s emblematic of a true lifecycle approach. With thousands of products and a growing footprint internationally [IKEA is in China and will soon debut its first store in India] there must be some challenges in balancing sustainability goals and growing scale?

While having a mission and being a values-led business helps, it all comes down to a significant execution and implementation effort. Our people are motivated to lower prices and find sustainable solutions. I use three numbers to talk about sustainability within IKEA:

1.5 planets: needed to provide resources for today’s population
3 billion: extra consumers expected to overcome poverty across emerging markets by 2030
6degrees centigrade warming: A catastrophe.

These numbers are real. And hit hard. We’re over-consuming against the urgency of climate change. This hits the heart of business: we are either sustainable or bust. We have to do whatever is needed. And we know that.

We can help our customers save energy by switching over to LED lights. We’re essentially banning non-LEDs by committing to sell and use only LED lights in our products. We can help people save water in a meaningful way by using energy-saving equipment. Simple things like LEDs, for example, can reduce our customers’ expenses by 30 percent. That’s equal to a 10 percent pay raise!

This is our opportunity…and it’s highly motivating.

How does reporting on these metrics help? Whose reading the report?

We just want to be transparent. We’re not expecting IKEA customers or coworkers to rush to read our sustainability report. It is meant for a specialist audience that believes in the phrase, you can only manage what you can measure.

Businesses – and management teams – like to have clear targets so that they can report against them [and benchmark, analyze and improve performance]. So why not use the same logic for sustainability?

Originally written for and published on CSRwire’s Commentary section Talkback on January 21, 2013.

Corporate Social Responsibility at Target: Behind the Red Bullseye

07 Monday Jul 2014

Posted by Aman Singh in CSR, CSR reporting, CSRwire, ESG

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Business, Consumerism, Corporate Governance, CSR, CSR reporting, CSRwire, education, energy efficiency, environment, ESG, ESG goals, packaging, Stakeholder Engagement, supply chain, Sustainability, sustainability, sustainable design, target, transparency, water reduction goals

Target released four new corporate responsibility goals in 2011:

Increase sustainable seafood selection
Improve owned-brand packaging sustainability
Increase diabetes HbA1c testing compliance
Increase reading proficiency

Now, Target’s 2011 CSR Report offers pages of graphs measuring the Minneapolis-based retailer’s progress against these goals. While the graphs look promising and underscore the challenges of operating in a competitive market with multiple layers of stakeholders, I wanted to understand the context behind these goals and what the execution would look like.

I sat down with Tim Baer, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary with Target, for a conversation about the goals and how his team plans to demystify complicated supply chains and motivate its employees and customers toward healthy and sustainable choices.

Aman Singh: While the PDF of goals and progress gave me a sense of exactly that, i.e., progress, it didn’t give me a sense of Target’s mission/values. Can you elaborate?

Tim Baer: At Target, we’re committed to positively impacting the lives of our guests and team members. Since 1946, our legacy of giving and service has been reflected in a commitment that today totals more than $3 million a week to our communities.

And at the end of the day, by continuing to serve our team members and communities, we ensure our future success. As a result of our giving model, we benefit from being a workplace and shopping destination of choice for our team members and guests. Not only do our guests value our commitment to communities and giving, but our team members do as well.

To bring our vision of strong, healthy and safe communities to life — which we can’t do alone — we work with community, business and civic partners who inform and share in our approach. We know we can make a meaningful impact, so we set goals to guide our work in three focus areas — helping to put more U.S. children on the path to graduation, reducing our impact on the environment and helping Target team members live healthy, balanced lives.

Why is education such a big goal for Target?

Education, specifically K-3 literacy, is important to Target for three primary reasons. First, we believe that every child deserves the opportunity to reach his or her full potential. And, we’re compelled to do our part to address the education challenge in America, putting more kids on the path to high school graduation.

Second, based on guest surveys, we know that our guests care about education more than any other social issue, and we’re committed to giving to communities in a way that positively impacts our guests and their families.

Third, we know that reading proficiently by the end of third grade is a significant milestone on the path to graduation. This is the time when a child transitions from learning to read, to reading to learn. A child who cannot read proficiently by the end of third grade is four times more likely to drop out of high school when compared with a child who can.

Ultimately, education is critically important to the success of our children and our economy. By supporting education, we are investing in developing an educated workforce that is prepared for today’s and tomorrow’s challenging work environment. At Target, our team is our competitive advantage, and preparing future team members with a quality education today makes good business sense.

Your data shows that you were not able to achieve your water reduction goals? Can you give us a sense of the challenges and where improvements need to be made?

To recap the report, Target used 3.45 billion gallons of water, representing a 0.3 percent reduction in water use per square foot from our 2009 baseline. Although our absolute water use exceeded our initial baseline, we also increased our total real estate square footage, which led to a decrease in water use per square foot.

The most significant challenges we faced in 2011 were drought-like conditions in some of our mature markets like Texas, Minnesota and Iowa, where we have a relatively high concentration of stores requiring increased irrigation. This negative impact was modestly softened by our rollout of several water-saving initiatives, which we estimate will contribute a reduction of 1.4 percent annually starting this year.

A few examples of our water-saving initiatives include:

Expanded installation of smart irrigation controllers that irrigate based on real-time local weather data in lieu of set times,
Use of ultra-low flow urinals and water closets, and
Elimination of continuously running dipper wells for ice cream and coffee stations at Target Café and Starbucks locations in our stores.

We’re also in the process of installing real-time water submeters in a number of stores to pinpoint the quantity of water a typical store uses for various operations. This will help improve our evaluation of water-saving opportunities moving forward.

You have a goal of reducing owned-brand product packaging for at least 50 product designs by 2016. Is that aggressive enough?

While we’ve targeted 50 packaging designs, these changes will be implemented for a much larger number of items that use the same packaging.

We know environmental stewardship is important to Target guests, and our sustainable packaging designs will let them know that Target’s commitment to reducing our environmental impact begins before our products hit shelves.

Over the next five years, Target will be developing sustainable packaging designs that yield at least a 10 percent improvement in one of several attributes of our existing owned-brand packaging. We’ll do this in several ways, including reducing overall packaging, using more recycled or renewable content, and reducing product waste. We’ll also look to use more recyclable materials in our packaging, Sustainable Packaging at Target counting these improvements toward our goal only if the updated packaging is 100 percent recyclable.

The goals indicated regarding packaging are limited to your owned-brand products. Are there any plans to push your suppliers and CPG partners into more responsible, transparent and environmentally friendly actions?

We believe in leading by example and hope that by creating more sustainable packaging for our owned brands, we can inspire our suppliers, CPG partners and peers to implement more sustainable packages in their own products.

The report indicates strong progress toward empowering employees to be more health-conscious. Can you discuss some of the challenges behind the numbers?

For us, 2011 was a year of learning in regards to team member wellbeing.

We recognized goals specific to preventive service utilization rates were difficult to measure consistently and accurately, so we adopted HEDIS [National Committee for Quality Assurance’s Health Effectiveness Data and Information Set] measures. By doing so, we can support our wellbeing efforts by comparing our utilization rates to those of other employers or healthcare entities like medical groups or health plans.

The size and geographic distribution of the Target team member population reaches across 49 states, 1,700 stores, 37 distribution centers and nine domestic headquarters locations. We employ more than 365,000 team members and know they have varying degrees of health engagement, variable disease prevalence and differing perspectives on healthcare services. This is an opportunity for us to develop tailored programs that address these differences, more effectively reaching every team member, regardless of where and how they live and work.

Can you summarize the key highlights of the report?

All of Target’s corporate responsibility objectives ladder up to our larger goal of creating a brighter future for our team members, our communities and the world we live in. Target is here for good. Through all of these initiatives, we’re committed to positively impacting the lives of our guests and team members.

Additionally, Target’s 2011 Corporate Responsibility Report is the most transparent corporate responsibility report we’ve ever released. It represents the first time Target declared a GRI Application Level and obtained a GRI Application Level Check. [For more information, Target’s GRI Application Level/Check Statement from GRI were posted on www.Target.com/hereforgood on July 13, 2012.]

Why bother reporting on this set of internal goals? How do you measure the “success” of your CSR report?

Our commitment to our guest extends far beyond our stores, and we believe truly great service includes supporting the communities where we live and work. In business, Target collaborates and innovates to drive results. Key to that collaboration is transparency when it comes to measuring and reporting progress toward goals, allowing us to grow as a company.

Aspirational Goals: “Building a Really Good Bank”

Transparent Leadership: Engaging With Critics

The CEO Speaks

On sustainability:

Lending to small businesses:

The impact of the LIBOR rate-fixing scandal:

On customer trust:

On executive pay:

Regaining Trust with External Stakeholders…

…And Employees

Share this:

From Desire to Habit: Unilever’s Five Levers for Change

Making Sustainability Personal…

… and a Business Driver

Subtle Messaging & Cause Marketing

Work Culture: Participating in Change

Share this:

Ambition: Sustainability in Perspective

The Unilever Sustainable Living Plan: Highlights

A Twist on Purposeful Cause Marketing?

Scaling Behavior: Easier Ideated than Done

Consumer Behavior: The Toughest Challenge Yet?

Share this:

Shared Success:

Setting Aggressive Targets:

Environmental Footprint: Setting the Stage

Highlights from 2012: From Packaging to the “Magic Bus”

No Silver Bullet for Sustainability

From Sustainability to Integrated:

Technology and Health Care: Powerful Answers

Who’s Reading the Report?

Supplier Responsibility:

Evaluating Success:

Share this:

Looking Ahead: GSK Switches Focus

Transparency, Pricing & Carbon: Challenges Ahead

Creating Access: Sharing Data From Clinical Trials

Ethical Standards: Reinstating a Culture of Responsibility

Goals & Commitments: Highlights from 2012

Share this:

Sufficiently Ambitious or Room for Improvement?

New Blueprint Needed?

Internal Certification Process, Not a Sustainability Strategy

Share this:

Earthwards & GAIA: The Need For Tools

Getting a Lift From Earthwards

GAIA: Hidden Opportunity?

Creating Change

Share this:

Diving In: The Challenges of Meeting Sustainability Goals

Diving Deeper: How High Should We Set the Bar?

Complexities Arise: Is Zero the Right Sustainability Target?

A Front Row Seat

Share this:

Aman Singh: What are some of the key highlights of the 2012 Sustainability Report that you would want every CSRwire reader to know?

One of IKEA’s goals is to have at least 95 percent of coworkers, 95 percent of suppliers and 70 percent of consumers view IKEA as a company that takes social and environmental responsibility seriously. How’s that going?

That’s emblematic of a true lifecycle approach. With thousands of products and a growing footprint internationally [IKEA is in China and will soon debut its first store in India] there must be some challenges in balancing sustainability goals and growing scale?

How does reporting on these metrics help? Whose reading the report?

Share this:

Aman Singh: While the PDF of goals and progress gave me a sense of exactly that, i.e., progress, it didn’t give me a sense of Target’s mission/values. Can you elaborate?

Why is education such a big goal for Target?

Your data shows that you were not able to achieve your water reduction goals? Can you give us a sense of the challenges and where improvements need to be made?

You have a goal of reducing owned-brand product packaging for at least 50 product designs by 2016. Is that aggressive enough?

The goals indicated regarding packaging are limited to your owned-brand products. Are there any plans to push your suppliers and CPG partners into more responsible, transparent and environmentally friendly actions?

The report indicates strong progress toward empowering employees to be more health-conscious. Can you discuss some of the challenges behind the numbers?

Can you summarize the key highlights of the report?

Why bother reporting on this set of internal goals? How do you measure the “success” of your CSR report?

Originally written for and published on CSRwire’s Commentary section Talkback on August 6, 2012.

Share this: