October 29, 2008
· Filed under news · Tagged capital, corporate governance, investors, KPMG, law, news, reporting, stakeholders, survey
KPMG has published on October, 27 its International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting. The 2008 survey was conducted in 22 countries and with more than 2200 businesses around the world. The sample has included the Global Fortune (G250) and the 100 largest companies by revenue (N100) in 22 countries.
One of the most significant findings of the 2008 Survey is that nearly 80% of the largest 250 companies in the world have issued reports. In 2005, the percentage was only 50%. Another important finding is that ethical considerations and innovation emerge as the most important drivers for reporting.
I will focus on the findings regarding the role of stakeholders in the reporting process.
Nearly two-thirds of the G250 companies engage with their stakeholders in a structured way, up to 33 percent in 2005. According to the Survey, only 42% of the N100 companies engage in a structured dialogue with the stakeholders. 65% percent of the G250 companies disclose details of who their stakeholders are and how they are engaged while less than 50% of the N100 companies provide this kind of information.
The stakeholders are involved in the definition of the corporate responsibility strategy only in 37%of the G250 companies and in 20% of the N100 companies. Only 25% of the G250 companies and 14% of the N100 companies declare that they use stakeholder feedback for reporting purposes.
The most used channels and methods for engaging with stakeholders are round tables, questionnaires, web-based feedback. Ironically, the established forums for stakeholder communications are the least utilized for corporate responsibility issues: annual general meetings, analyst presentations, direct interactions with customers.
According to KPMG, “this could be an indication that corporate responsibility is not fully integrated as a priority in a company’s main operations. It may also be a reflection, especially in the G250 population of a lack of attention paid to environmental risks and opportunities by investors and other providers of capital.”
October 24, 2008
· Filed under news, research · Tagged csr, GRI, law, mechanisms, policy, reporting
I have read a couple of days ago a recent article, “Is CSR failing?” by Wayne Visser posted on CSRinternational.
He is a CSR supporter but he emphasizes that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has failed to reduce social “bads” like poverty, human rights abuses or environmental degradation and argues that CSR needs to evolve exactly like the Internet from 1.0 to 2.0. CSR 2.0 has to achieve three objectives: connectivity, scaleability, responsiveness.
David Henderson, admits that corporations should behave responsibly but does not agree with the concept of CSR that is used now. Basically, he thinks that the justification provided for CSR actions is not correct and that CSR is not going to make the world a better place but it will bring it more harm.
So, ironically, CSR supporters and critics agree. Of course, there are plenty of nuances in the CSR debate, but I think that it is obvious that CSR has not helped much in reducing “social bads” like environmental degradation or human rights abuses. Actually, some commentators think that it was an utopy to expect that.
The question is how to achieve objectives like connectivity, scaleability or responsiveness. Through which mechanisms. How to enhace the complementarity between CSR instruments and legal mechanisms. Moreover, it is about designing coherent policy frameworks.
In the last weeks, many have asked themselves if the recent financial crisis has a negative impact on CSR activities. In a recent report, the GRI considers that the financial crisis should be seen as a driver for policy-making based on sustainable development principles. In this process, sustainability reporting, says the GRI,
“is a tool that can help to achieve this goal as it facilitates transparency and accountability, enables like-for-like comparison between organizations’ sustainability performance, and through the process of gathering data and information, it creates optimal conditions for new sustainability systems to be established within organizations. “
