follow this link to the annual report from the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Reputation Institute on the most socially responsible companies in the USA in 2010.
http://www.bcccc.net/pdf/CSRIReport2010.pdf
interesting reading....
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
A watery plan of compromises (Murray-Darling debate: article from ABC.NET.AU)
A watery plan of compromises
HTTP://WWW.ABC.NET.AU/UNLEASHED/40026.HTML
13 OCTOBER 2010
JAMIE PITTOCK
Is the furore of irrigators a sign that our governments are finally going to adequately conserve the Murray-Darling Basin’s environment? Sadly, no.
The Guide to the proposed Basin Plan published by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority on October 8 proposes to reallocate between 27 and 37 per cent - or 3,000 to 4,000 gigalitres (GL) - of water consumed in the basin. But this is insufficient to conserve wetlands in the basin designated as internationally important under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. It would also amount to a breach of international environmental law and could see the validity of a compromise basin plan tested in the High Court.
Australia was a founding member of the Ramsar Convention in 1971, endorsing all of its subsequent decisions. The treaty requires members to maintain the "ecological character" of designated Ramsar wetland sites. Ramsar is not a preservationist treaty: it promotes the "wise use" of wetlands. Parts of Ramsar sites in the basin are well managed for livestock and timber production. However, the ecological character of wetlands requires water at the right time and of sufficient quantity and quality to support flora and fauna.
Floodplain wetlands cover 60,000 square kilometres or 6 per cent of the basin, and Australian Governments have designated 16 Ramsar sites covering 6,363 square kilometres. The wetlands are of cultural and economic importance to the Indigenous traditional owners. These freshwater ecosystems harbour the richest biodiversity in the basin, including 95 threatened species, which Australia has also promised to conserve under international treaties. The wetlands generate critical ecological services, and pleasant environments that are the basis for tourism.
By the turn of this century the environmental impact of bad management on the basin’s wetlands was too obvious for our governments to ignore: thousands of hectares of desiccated red gum forests were dead or dying. In response the state and federal governments set targets in The Living Murray program in 2003 to conserve icon wetlands, including five Ramsar sites. The targets adopted were compromises. Lower targets were set, aimed at conserving only half of the aquatic vegetation of the Hattah Lakes and just 30 per cent of the red gum floodplain forests of Gunbower-Koondrook-Pericoota. Governments dismally failed in achieving even these low targets. In 2009 just 3 per cent of Hattah and 11 per cent of Gunbower-Koondrook-Pericoota were in good condition.
The authority’s guide to the draft basin plan proposes further compromises. The low-ball proposal of reallocating just 3,000 GL, would leave the River Murray with "poor" environmental flows, and the authority notes that environmental objects of the Water Act would only be achieved with an optimistic "long-term return to wetter conditions across the basin". "Giving effect to relevant international agreements" is only achieved with the return of 7,600 GL. A management target for conserving only 75 per cent of the red gum forests in good condition in key wetlands is proposed, and this compromise can only be achieved with the return of 4,000 GL to the environment. The 75 per cent target is lower than the conservation objectives adopted in 2003 for the Chowilla/Riverland and Barmah–Millewa Ramsar sites. No conservation targets are proposed for other wetland ecosystems, such as the black box floodplain forests. Further trade-offs are contemplated in allocating water between the Coorong and upstream red gum forests.
Managing for poor condition, maintaining one Ramsar wetland at the expense of others, failing to conserve different wetland ecosystem types, and seeking good condition for only 75 per cent of the red gum forests in designated Ramsar sites is inconsistent with the convention. It is not obvious that the authority understands Australia's legal obligations under the treaty.
The Ramsar Convention relies on moral suasion to enforce its provisions: sadly our governments will not be dragged off to the International Court of Justice to explain their environmental sins. However there are significant domestic implications in ignoring convention obligations. In 2007, when the federal government dismissed the ineffectual attempts by the states to restore the basin’s environmental health, both sides of politics supported the adoption of the Water Act and its basin plan to regulate water use. The Federal Government’s constitutional mandate for the Water Act is largely based on implementing the Ramsar Convention. If the basin plan does not faithfully implement Australia’s obligations under the convention, wetland conservation activists could seek redress in the High Court.
There is no doubt that the Federal Government faces difficult decisions in deciding how much to conserve the basin’s environment versus maintaining irrigated agriculture. However the authority’s Guide proposes yet more compromises at the expense of the environment, similar to those that placed Australia in this invidious position to begin with. Regional communities deserve certainty and that will not be achieved by more half-measures that continue environmental degradation and end up in the courts.
Jamie Pittock is a researcher at the Crawford School of Economics and Government at the Australian National University. His research (with co-authors) on the legal obligations to conserve wetlands in Murray-Darling Basin will be published in the Environment and Planning Law Journal in November.
HTTP://WWW.ABC.NET.AU/UNLEASHED/40026.HTML
13 OCTOBER 2010
JAMIE PITTOCK
Is the furore of irrigators a sign that our governments are finally going to adequately conserve the Murray-Darling Basin’s environment? Sadly, no.
The Guide to the proposed Basin Plan published by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority on October 8 proposes to reallocate between 27 and 37 per cent - or 3,000 to 4,000 gigalitres (GL) - of water consumed in the basin. But this is insufficient to conserve wetlands in the basin designated as internationally important under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. It would also amount to a breach of international environmental law and could see the validity of a compromise basin plan tested in the High Court.
Australia was a founding member of the Ramsar Convention in 1971, endorsing all of its subsequent decisions. The treaty requires members to maintain the "ecological character" of designated Ramsar wetland sites. Ramsar is not a preservationist treaty: it promotes the "wise use" of wetlands. Parts of Ramsar sites in the basin are well managed for livestock and timber production. However, the ecological character of wetlands requires water at the right time and of sufficient quantity and quality to support flora and fauna.
Floodplain wetlands cover 60,000 square kilometres or 6 per cent of the basin, and Australian Governments have designated 16 Ramsar sites covering 6,363 square kilometres. The wetlands are of cultural and economic importance to the Indigenous traditional owners. These freshwater ecosystems harbour the richest biodiversity in the basin, including 95 threatened species, which Australia has also promised to conserve under international treaties. The wetlands generate critical ecological services, and pleasant environments that are the basis for tourism.
By the turn of this century the environmental impact of bad management on the basin’s wetlands was too obvious for our governments to ignore: thousands of hectares of desiccated red gum forests were dead or dying. In response the state and federal governments set targets in The Living Murray program in 2003 to conserve icon wetlands, including five Ramsar sites. The targets adopted were compromises. Lower targets were set, aimed at conserving only half of the aquatic vegetation of the Hattah Lakes and just 30 per cent of the red gum floodplain forests of Gunbower-Koondrook-Pericoota. Governments dismally failed in achieving even these low targets. In 2009 just 3 per cent of Hattah and 11 per cent of Gunbower-Koondrook-Pericoota were in good condition.
The authority’s guide to the draft basin plan proposes further compromises. The low-ball proposal of reallocating just 3,000 GL, would leave the River Murray with "poor" environmental flows, and the authority notes that environmental objects of the Water Act would only be achieved with an optimistic "long-term return to wetter conditions across the basin". "Giving effect to relevant international agreements" is only achieved with the return of 7,600 GL. A management target for conserving only 75 per cent of the red gum forests in good condition in key wetlands is proposed, and this compromise can only be achieved with the return of 4,000 GL to the environment. The 75 per cent target is lower than the conservation objectives adopted in 2003 for the Chowilla/Riverland and Barmah–Millewa Ramsar sites. No conservation targets are proposed for other wetland ecosystems, such as the black box floodplain forests. Further trade-offs are contemplated in allocating water between the Coorong and upstream red gum forests.
Managing for poor condition, maintaining one Ramsar wetland at the expense of others, failing to conserve different wetland ecosystem types, and seeking good condition for only 75 per cent of the red gum forests in designated Ramsar sites is inconsistent with the convention. It is not obvious that the authority understands Australia's legal obligations under the treaty.
The Ramsar Convention relies on moral suasion to enforce its provisions: sadly our governments will not be dragged off to the International Court of Justice to explain their environmental sins. However there are significant domestic implications in ignoring convention obligations. In 2007, when the federal government dismissed the ineffectual attempts by the states to restore the basin’s environmental health, both sides of politics supported the adoption of the Water Act and its basin plan to regulate water use. The Federal Government’s constitutional mandate for the Water Act is largely based on implementing the Ramsar Convention. If the basin plan does not faithfully implement Australia’s obligations under the convention, wetland conservation activists could seek redress in the High Court.
There is no doubt that the Federal Government faces difficult decisions in deciding how much to conserve the basin’s environment versus maintaining irrigated agriculture. However the authority’s Guide proposes yet more compromises at the expense of the environment, similar to those that placed Australia in this invidious position to begin with. Regional communities deserve certainty and that will not be achieved by more half-measures that continue environmental degradation and end up in the courts.
Jamie Pittock is a researcher at the Crawford School of Economics and Government at the Australian National University. His research (with co-authors) on the legal obligations to conserve wetlands in Murray-Darling Basin will be published in the Environment and Planning Law Journal in November.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Reuters article: Does CSR reporting help the planet or just help reporting?
Does CSR Reporting Help the Planet, or Just Help Reporting?
Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:00am EDT
The challenges to achieving true global sustainability seem more insurmountable as the years roll on. World leaders quibble over details of international climate deals while greenhouse gas emissions ascend unabated, a water crisis looms on the horizon, and oil spills underscore the environmental cost of doing business.
In the midst of it all, a number of sustainability reporting frameworks have emerged, inviting organizations around the world to disclose information on their environmental, social and economic performance. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), The Prince's Accounting for Sustainability Project (A4S), the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), and the Ceres and Tellus Institute Facility Reporting Project (FRP) are among the organizations that have developed voluntary reporting frameworks.
Further crowding the landscape of reporting bodies is the recently announced International Integrated Reporting Committee (IIRC), a child of GRI and A4S and would-be reporting panacea. On the heels of the success of One Report, a book by Robert G. Eccles and Michael P. Krzus that calls for the convergence of reporting content and guidelines, IIRC essentially invites participating organizations to provide one 'everything-to-everyone' integrated report merging environmental, economic, social, and governance data for a true cross-section of sustainability performance.
Though the spirit of the mission of sustainability reporting is to be lauded, there remain questions over whether reporting initiatives actually improve the environmental performance of participating organizations, or simply improving the quality of their reports.
Reporting for Reporting's Sake
As one of the first comprehensive sustainability reporting frameworks, GRI illustrates the challenge of negotiating the opposing spheres of reporting for sustainability's sake and reporting for reporting's sake.
Formed in 1998 by the Coalition of Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES), a group of investors and environmentalists trying to integrate sustainability into capital markets, GRI was intended to set the standard for how an organization reported to stakeholders on environmental, social and economic performance.
After acquiring alliances with the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), it launched its first draft of sustainability guidelines in 2000 with 50 organizations reporting. Fast forward to 2010 and more than 1,500 organizations from 60 countries including corporate behemoths like Shell, Pepsi and Coke report in accordance with G3 guidelines (the most recent iteration of the GRI reporting framework), now considered to the most prevalent sustainability reporting guidelines.
But lost in the "greenwashing" marketing gloss that accompanies GRI conformance is the question of whether participating organizations actually achieve environmentally and socially responsible objectives and, more importantly, whether or not they can prove it.
Consider that while ISO 14000 -- the most widespread family of standards on environmental management systems (EMS) -- provides a framework for managing an environmental program, it carries no intrinsic compass of environmental responsibility.
That is: An organization can pollute to the ends of the earth and retain ISO 14000 certification, as long as it conforms to the comprehensive (if ethically challenged) ISO 14000 standards.
Getting Stuck on the 'Reporting Treadmill'
Similarly, adherents to most sustainability reporting frameworks essentially conform only to reporting guidelines. For example, there are no benchmarks for success embedded in the GRI framework that ensure a reporting organization actually achieves tangible, accountable accomplishments that curb GHG emissions and target a sustainable future.
The preoccupation with reporting is also the source of other complaints, including the common concern that following guidelines set by GRI, A4S, CDP and now IIRC keeps organizations on a "reporting treadmill," forcing them to collect, analyze and report on fluctuating data on what seems like an interminable basis, often allocating significant resources solely towards reporting activities.
Sustainability reporting initiatives attempt to make the reporting process easy, with plenty of support resources online, and most claim reporting processes are smooth and straightforward. But the process of compiling data and generating reports is only as seamless as an organization's approach to data collection and management.
Further, opponents complain that reporting framework guidelines feature ambiguous performance indicators and a lack of accountability and enforcement mechanisms. The latter point is significant, as organizations are only required to describe their procedures and practices. There is no requirement calling for proof sustainable practices have been implemented.
Though a fan of the spirit of GRI's mandate, Corporate Social Responsibility guru Mallen Baker points to another critical flaw in the GRI approach, namely the fact a report is essentially a company's own narrative of its sustainability performance.
"All the current models of reporting expect the companies to provide their own narrative -- to tell the story complete," he noted on his blog. "And yet that doesn't work, because the end user actually doesn't read the reports, and doesn't trust the company to provide its own context. There are no expert interpreters of this information. All the focus on assurance is about checking data -- but that isn't the real issue. People by and large don't think the companies will lie about the data -- but they fully expect them to paint the best gloss on what the data actually means."
Somewhere between GRI and friends' overzealous focus on reporting standards and the noble spirit of making sustainability reporting as comprehensive and transparent as financial reporting, there is a golden mean that is arguably more passive, less resource-intensive, and -- quite appropriately -- completely sustainable. Businesses that implement a streamlined, electronic EMS featuring configurable reporting capabilities and real-time dashboards stand to benefit from two critical advantages.
Firstly, if all sustainability metrics are monitored and inputted across all business units on an ongoing basis and rolled up across administrative levels, much of the time spent measuring, collecting and analyzing data and generating reports that comply with reporting models will be eliminated.
The time and effort associated with generating comprehensive sustainability reports has been a major gripe among participant organizations and critics, and a streamlined, software-based reporting process curbs the time and manpower required.
Secondly, with real-time dashboards indicating the status of sustainability KPIs (GHG emissions, for example), an organization is able to monitor the pulse of its sustainability performance and gauge the impact of new initiatives.
In essence, instead of gauging and reporting on sustainability performance on an annual basis, an organization real-time dashboards and integrated reporting capabilities provide a means of perpetual monitoring and reporting.
Sustainability reporting frameworks cannot be entirely blamed for a strong emphasis on reporting methodology since it constitutes their very mission and raison d'être.
However, the vision of making disclosure on economic, environmental, and social performance as commonplace as financial reporting -- and as relevant to organizational success -- will only achieve widespread success if the reporting process is smooth, efficient and painless.
Paul Leavoy is a writer and researcher who focuses on environmental and sustainability issues affecting businesses around the world.
OXFAM's Climate Change Campaign - Wave of action
Climate change: Wave of action
People from around the world are joining this week of action on climate change
This week thousands of people will come together in the biggest moment of action against climate change the world has ever seen. And it couldn’t be more timely. While politicians are makinginfuriatingly slow progress in moving towards the fair, ambitious and binding climate deal we need, people around the world are ramping up demand for action and getting to work themselves.
Oxfam and partners are organizing events, protests, talks and media stunts in over 30 countries, all part of a wave of action that demonstrates we’re willing to roll up our sleeves and get on with the job - and demand that world leaders do the same
We know that poor people feeling the impacts of climate change are already finding innovative solutions to adapt. Like Noograi Sangsri from Northern Thailand, who has been part of a community initiative to pipe water directly into her field, reducing the time she must spend there and increasing her harvest.
Oxfam and partners are organizing events, protests, talks and media stunts in over 30 countries, all part of a wave of action that demonstrates we’re willing to roll up our sleeves and get on with the job - and demand that world leaders do the same
We know that poor people feeling the impacts of climate change are already finding innovative solutions to adapt. Like Noograi Sangsri from Northern Thailand, who has been part of a community initiative to pipe water directly into her field, reducing the time she must spend there and increasing her harvest.
This work is critical to building long term, sustainable solutions to climate change. But international support for more work like this is urgently needed. Less than a tenth of climate funds distributed to date have reached those who need it most.
2010 is an opportunity to get the climate negotiations back on track and help the world’s most vulnerable people. As Environment Ministers set off to the next Climate Summit in Cancun at the end of the year, millions of people will be watching.
We demand a fair Climate Fund is established, one that delivers for poor people, particularly women. By delivering concrete progress on the cash needed to tackle climate change and ensuring it reaches those who bear the brunt of climate impacts like Noograi, world leaders can sow the seed for the fair, ambitious and binding deal that the world so urgently needs.
Join us and make sure our political leaders get the idea.
Read more
Sow the seed: How you can make a difference in three simple steps
Monday, September 27, 2010
A different (economic theory) argument supporting the education of women in developing economies
"It's not just about educating a woman. When you educate a woman, you beat poverty, because women spend 90% of their earnings back into the family, where as men spend only 30 to 40%."
At the 2010 Clinton Global Initiative being held this week in New York City, I posed a question to Her Majesty Queen Rania of Jordan regarding educational access for women and girls in the Middle East. The Q&A is below, and the full plenary session on Empowering Girls and Women is embedded beneath the interview.
Rahim Kanani: What is the single biggest challenge facing women and girls in the middle east regarding educational access, and what do you think the most promising solution is?
Her Majesty Queen Rania: I think generally the Middle East and African Region is one of the biggest spenders on education. In 12 countries in the Middle East, more girls are in school, especially in universities, than we have males. Yes is some countries there is the challenge to access and that has a lot to do with entrenched mindsets that need to be changed, but I think more importantly, the bigger challenge for us is how to get women into the labor market. That's what we really need to confront. But also, when you talk about changing mindsets, it's demonstrating what it really means when you say education. It's not just about educating a woman. When you educate a woman, you beat poverty, because women spend 90% of their earnings back into the family, where as men spend only 30 to 40%. It's a very interesting statistic. It's also a social vaccine. If all children received a complete primary education, over the next 10 years you can prevent 7 million cases of HIV/AIDS. Now that's a staggering statistic. Another example is education as a midwife. When a midwife is educated, maternal mortality levels go down by 10% for every extra year of education received. A child is 50% more likely to make it to their 5th birthday if their mother is literate, so it's not just about 'doing girls a favor', but it's about benefits that cascade throughout society that really make a huge difference. So when people really understand what the value of education truly is, it's such a compelling argument that it's difficult not to make that a priority for policymakers.
measuring socio-economic impact: new research paper published by Ethical corporation
check out - this new research paper written by Peter Davis and published this month by Ethical Corporation
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Sustainability in business: ethics, responsibility and the profit motive
I recently watched the documentary ‘Schmatta: Rags to Riches to Rags’ (see reference, resources and links page), which chronicles the history of the ‘rag’, trade in American (Schmatta is Yiddish for rags). In 1965, 95% of American clothing was made in the USA and by 2009 only 5% was manufactured there. So what happened to this industry that had, as the documentary explores, been the source of wealth, employment, added economic value for so many for so long?
Several questionable industry based decisions but principally to blame was the failure of Reaganomics or the laughingly called ‘Trickle Down’ theory. Which in my very simplistic understanding offers tax cuts and incentives to industry and the wealthy with the rather naïve expectation that the benefits would ‘trickle down’ through the tiers of the economy from the wealthiest down to the poorest. It didn’t.
The profit motive overrode any ethical caution or fiscal responsibility for the livelihoods of the workers and led to a pursuit of larger ‘greed is good’ profit margins. Taking the lowest level jobs overseas to countries with lower daily wage requirements and non-existent union protection very quickly offered shareholders of fashion houses lower unit costs, higher profit margins and instead of benefits trickling down unemployment trickled up through the tiers of the industry.
The suppliers soon became affected by the same price pressures and their businesses followed the same pattern of being driven offshore; this then led to complementary businesses suffering. With the resulting depressed economy, the demand for lower cost products furthered the downward spiral of the American clothing manufacturing trade into a cycle of even lower cost production, leading to unsafe and unethical practice.
The plight of the ‘rag trade’ industry workers (both the unemployed American and the unprotected overseas sweatshop workers) highlights the danger of applying an economic model which underestimates the powerful drive of, and the subsequent impact of, the profit motive and ignores the need to motivate an imperative to provide a competitive, sustainable, financial future rather than the lure of the short term gain.
Industry, Government and the community need to holistically view economic decisions and directions in recognition of their responsibility to still be there; responsible to the shareholders, employees and the community economy.
Industry, Government and the community need to holistically view economic decisions and directions in recognition of their responsibility to still be there; responsible to the shareholders, employees and the community economy.
sustainability concepts: efficiency
I am no economist. Absolutely. However, in my approach to “domestic” economics, i.e. my family budget, our goal is to maximise our lifestyle (for the immediate and the long term) whilst incurring a minimum of debt. We have some ideologies which underpin this very simple theory which is also to minimize the harm we do… so within the bounds of our ability to control we purchase fair trade items, use free range food products and cruelty free personal products.
So you could say (although economists would likely not) that the Grey family economic efficiency is the ratio:
Created value (assets and acceptable services) gained
Grey ecological system (debt/opportunity cost & freedom) sacrificed
This quest for efficiency can be equated to the sustainability economic theory of Comprehensive Efficiency Identity, which considers the challenge for the macro economy for now and for the future i.e. to the efficiency with which capital (MMK and NK) is used to provide life supporting and life-enhancing services.
Overall ecological-economic efficiency is the ratio:
MMK services gained
Ecosystem services sacrificed
where MMK is man made capital and Ecosystem or NK is natural capital.
The Comprehensive Efficiency Identity uses one primary ratio subdivided into four components,
(1) service efficiency,
(2) throughput efficiency,
(3) growth efficiency, and
(4) Sacrifice of ecosystem service ratio.
As I attempt to understand it, this ratio and its components are used when reviewing a service or supply chain and solicit questioning which reflects how efficiently the process, industry, and/or overarching philosophy utlises ecosystem resources to reach the projected/desired level of value creation in product or service.
This ratio recognises that the services we get from man-made capital (the numerator) can come at a cost to the ecosystem services obtained from natural capital (the denominator) and just as in the Grey family ecosystem we want to maximise the services gained whilst minimising the (pay for it later, negative) impact.
Seven big ideas - reforming our economic view
Seven big ideas
(Seven big ideas and descriptions in Blue from State of the World 2008 – see reference, resources and links page; examples and ideas in green from the collective consciousness and me).
(Seven big ideas and descriptions in Blue from State of the World 2008 – see reference, resources and links page; examples and ideas in green from the collective consciousness and me).
1. Adjust economic scale
- an economy that tries to grow beyond a size the biosphere can support will simply destroy it. So there must be a limit on the size of the economy.
· Example: online news production vs. newspaper/print production
· Idea: centralised supply management to reduce duplication and waste.
· Idea: online newsletter distribution vs. hard copy distribution throughout a company
2. Shift from growth to development
- move from a growth mandate to a focus on development of value within living condition
- move from a growth mandate to a focus on development of value within living condition
· Business production idea: improving production processes which offer a leaner approach to components (and subsequent landfill) whilst still offering quality product to consumers.
· Service industry idea: focus on offering higher quality and more targeted services delivery rather than more services to the community.
· Government idea: substitution incentives – tax relief / bonuses for reduction of negatively environment
3. Make prices tell the ecological truth
- environmental costs are often unaccounted for by the market leading to misrepresentation of the true impact of business activities and there ability to be sustainable over time.
· Example: government taxes and vouchers incentives to represent and promote accountability of waste production and disposal in the cost of doing business.
· Business idea: incorporation of environmental impact targets within corporate budgets and business plans.
· Government buy-back incentives for domestic/household waste reduction.
4. Account for nature’s contributions
- nature’s contributions are increasingly being factored into economic decision making through administrative and market mechanisms.
- nature’s contributions are increasingly being factored into economic decision making through administrative and market mechanisms.
· global economy idea: debt reduction incentives for countries which resist pressure to commercialise environmentally beneficial ecosystems –creation of environment economic value systems which compensate resource nations for loss of commercial income.
· Farming idea: voucher incentives for complementary farming techniques which are developed in connection with nature’s ‘cycle’ and contribution to value creation, i.e. crop production.
5. Apply the precautionary principle
Mas vale prevenir que lamentar (better to prevent than lament)
- where an activity raises threats of serious or irreversible harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically
- where an activity raises threats of serious or irreversible harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically
· Government policy idea: introduction of risk assessment standards for impact studies for new industry/projects which are formulated and monitored by independent assessors
· Independent body with auditing powers which enable punishment and reward systems which are relevant to the financial scope of the industry; e.g. fining a mining company for inappropriate environmental practices for less than 1% of their annual revenue is an incentive for infringement rather than correction.
6. Revitalize commons management
- private property ownership vs. communal interest management of resources – shared responsibility especially in the areas of resources whose use has an impact on the whole community not just the industry
- private property ownership vs. communal interest management of resources – shared responsibility especially in the areas of resources whose use has an impact on the whole community not just the industry
· International covenant - authority: establishment of an international representative body with the authority and power to oversee global ‘assets’ whose use affects existing and future populations within and without existing political/geographical boundaries.
7. Value women
‘most poor people are women and most women are poor” according to a 1994 UN Report
‘most poor people are women and most women are poor” according to a 1994 UN Report
· Idea – incentive program encouraging organizations to include more women on management Boards: in both developing and wealthy economies women are underrepresented on management Boards of companies, especially outside of the not-for-profit domain.
· Idea – sponsorship of education of women projects in countries where women are subjected to discriminatory inaccessibility to education.
· Idea – development of a more equitable reflection of the economic contribution of full-time parenting women and/or women in primary caring roles (ageing, disabled, children); eg government sponsored superannuation fund contributions scheme which compensates for out of the paid workforce
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Sustainability: evolution and shifting paradigms
Sustainability is fast becoming the latest fashion accessory for business large and small as well as government, not-for-profits and even religious organizations.
The cause has infiltrated our community with everyday Australians carrying green shopping bags at the local shops and dutifully putting out its recycling bin each fortnight.
No longer using the language of the hippie movement, or the loud-hailer language of the no-nukes, no dam activist movement, sustainability now speaks the language of competitive advantage, corporate social responsibility and Natural Capitalism.
Business plans and strategic vision statements now include commitments to carbon reduction and sustainable growth.
Organizational cultures are adding environmental responsibility to values statements and behavioural expectations.
But sustainability is a journey not a destination.
We need to recognise our interconnectedness with each other and with our environment. We need the concept of efficient sustainable growth to stick and take on real meaning in our lives. We need government, businesses big and small and individuals within our communities to take responsibility for development of practical, ethical profitable and sustainable strategies to protect our natural capital. We need to continue to evolve ecological economic practice to the everyday practice of doing business in Australia and as members of a global ecology.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)