Samsung has now publicly committed to helping find a solution to the situation on Bangka. Although it is far from the only company to source tin from Bangka, its competitors – including Apple – have so far stayed silent.

A young tin miner on Bangka. Source: Ulet Ifansasti/Friends of the Earth

Mobile phones contain more than thirty different kinds of minerals and metals. Given complex global supply chains, it’s almost impossible to guarantee that your phone doesn’t contain minerals from regions like Bangka and the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where metals like tantalum, tungsten, tin and gold are mined by forced labour and help fund brutal militias.

What can companies do about it? The key is not to stop sourcing from these areas. In the DRC, where 82% of the population is considered unemployed, mining supports tens of thousands of people. Instead, companies need to map out their supply chains, and work to find industry-wide solutions. Initiatives like Solutions for Hope, a pilot initiative launched by Motorola to source conflict-free tantalum from the DRC, are a good start. Yet according to NGO Global Witness, phone makers are among companies lobbying against new US laws on supply chain due diligence.

This week, the Fairphone project began taking pre-orders. It may be starting small, but the project has big ambitions. Aiming to create a “smartphone that puts social values first”, Fairphone will start with conflict-free tantalum and tin, and is working towards sourcing conflict-free tungsten and Fairtrade-certified gold and cobalt. It also aims to pay workers a living wage, be transparent about suppliers and pricing, use recycled materials and make the phone as adaptable and recyclable as possible, perhaps eventually becoming fully “closed loop”.

Buying more stuff seems like a counter-intuitive way to reduce your impacts, especially on the environment. But Fairphone is definitely a step in the right direction, and looks likely to meet its target of 5,000 pre-orders. High-profile network partners already include Vodafone, O2/Telefónica and KPN.

Phone makers should be watching with interest.

When will this come into force?

Don’t panic! GRI is expecting a gradual switch to the new standard. A useful route to transition would be to begin work on transition during the next reporting cycle (published 2014) and full switch the following year. GRI’s deadline is that “reports published after 31 December 2015 should be prepared in accordance with the G4 Guidelines”.

So what about ‘In Accordance’ and Application Levels?

The Applications Levels have gone – replaced with a two tier ‘In Accordance’ system with differing levels of required elements.

• ‘In Accordance – Core’. A good baseline for established reporters
• ‘In Accordance – Comprehensive’. Think of it as ‘Application Level A’.

Organisations can still use the standard and not report ‘in accordance’. GRI offers a short statement for reporters to use in this case.

The big similarities

1. Open source. The Guidelines are still free to download (see below) but with over 350 pages of guidance, give yourself a weekend to read it all.
2. Still based on principles. As before these are; Stakeholder Inclusiveness / Sustainability Context / Materiality / Completeness / Balance / Comparability / Accuracy / Timeliness / Completeness / Clarity.
3. Two groups of indicators plus Disclosures of Management Approach (DMA). ‘General standard disclosures‘ (organisation, governance and reporting parameters)and ‘Specific Standard disclosures (aspects/issues and most performance indicators) Specific indicator requirements vary with ‘In Accordance’ level but also now vary according to individual materiality assessments.
4. A GRI index based on the specific accordance level is still needed.

The big changes

1. Two complementary documents but cross-referenced and with quick links on key topics like assurance, principles, integrated reporting and indicators. However the distinction between volumes is not always clear.
2. Replacement of three-fold ‘Applications Levels’ with two levels of ‘In Accordance’ (mentioned above).
3. Materiality plays a more explicit role in the selection of ‘Specific Standard Disclosures’ and greater definition of materiality of specific aspects is needed.
4. Greater emphasis is now placed on the DMA. Guidance has been restructured into two types: Generic (broken down into three sub-sections; a,b,c) and Aspect-Specific (which is still under development for some aspects).  Overall this area seems to have lost some clarity.
5. Greater tie-in and disclosure of core governance structures and processes into report production especially for ‘In Accordance – Comprehensive.’ At this higher level new requirements include reporting on “the highest committee or position that formally reviews and approves the organization’s sustainability report and ensures that all material Aspects are covered.”

Three cheers for

1. More specific and detailed guidance plus updated reporting requirements for example on energy and human rights where there has been substantial public policy and legislation changes.
2. A more material basis for reporting should mean great specificity of reporting, fewer boiler plate statements covering indicators with low relevance to the organisation and increased audience engagement.
3. A table giving the indicator overlaps between G4 and UN Global Compact.

Get used to

Just some of the salient changes to indicator coverage.

1. More breadth and clarity on energy and carbon indicators. For instance, Indicator EN4, ‘Energy Consumption outside the organisation’ asks for upstream and downstream energy use corresponding to the categories and activities of the WRI/ WBCSD GHG Protocol. The carbon ‘scopes’ are covered separately by indicators EN15, 16, 17. Also EN5 now asks for energy intensity by unit of activity or output.
2. Several new indicators extending the requirement to report on “screening for, buying in and managing supplier risks”, in terms of: impacts on the environment, labour practices, human rights (as previously for child labour, forced and compulsory labour) and impacts on society.
3. Greater requirement to discuss a wider range of grievance issues. Specific indicators covering environmental, labour, human rights, impacts on society aspects.
4. New indicator, PR6, on sale of banned or disputed products.

Assurance or not?

GRI recommends the use of external assurance but assurance is not a requirement to be ‘in accordance’ with the Guidelines.

For more information and advice, please contact Ian Buckland at Corporate Citizenship.

https://www.globalreporting.org/reporting/g4/Pages/default.aspx

The Voice of Young Science (VoYS) campaign says that by using “negative claims” – advertising products as free from ingredients such as MSG, aspartame, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or parabens – supermarkets are playing up unfounded health fears. Such labelling, they say, is as meaningless as marketing a “low sodium drain cleaner”, or “asbestos-free deodorant”.

In a recent speech, author Mark Lynas called the controversy over genetic modification “one of the greatest science communications failures of the past half-century”. Once an anti-GMO campaigner with Friends of the Earth, he has since been swayed, and now argues that “millions, possibly billions, of people have come to believe what is essentially a conspiracy theory”.

Why do supermarkets use negative claims? Marks & Spencer told VoYS that its products are free from GMOs due to “customer concerns”. Asda says its policies are “led by our customers”. We end up in a kind of vicious cycle, with supermarkets helping to perpetuate health scares rather than looking at the evidence.

Of course, there is a shared responsibility here. Sometimes people just don’t want to hear the evidence – why else would millions be spent every year on homeopathy? You only have to look at the recent measles outbreak in Swansea, or the impact of AIDS denialism in South Africa, to see that scares founded on hype and misinformation can cause real harm. Consumers should be more sceptical, and realise that it’s ok to ask about evidence. The government needs to do more to improve public understanding of science, while the media has a responsibility to fact-check the science behind headlines. But companies must also work to make sure their customers are as informed as possible about the products they are buying.

Businesses are rightfully wary of taking a “we know best” attitude, but pandering to hype is unproductive and potentially dangerous. Behaviour change is a growing trend in the world of CSR, whereby companies are looking for ways to “nudge” consumers towards more sustainable behaviour, without dictating or judging. Could this be a solution?

Unilever, which recently admitted the difficulty of selling refillable pouches and reduced-salt foods to suspicious customers, has developed the idea of five “levers for change” in behaviour. The first of these is “make it understood” – educating consumers in order to raise awareness and encourage acceptance.

Companies have a responsibility to help their customers make informed, healthy choices. According to a recent survey, people trust businesses more than they trust governments and the media – and that trust is rising.

Let’s make sure it’s deserved.

The collapse wasn’t a freak accident, or a surprise. On Tuesday, cracks were noticed in the structure of the Rana Plaza factory, in which factories such as ‘New Wave’ were housed. Following evacuation of the building on Tuesday, most other businesses in the Rana Plaza told their employees to stay away on Wednesday. Not so the New Wave factories.  New Wave workers – mostly women – were allegedly ordered to carry on as normal, making clothes for companies all over the world. When the inevitable happened, hundreds of workers – and their children in the factory crèches – were trapped, injured and killed by the falling building. There were several moments when this disaster could have been averted.

It has since emerged that companies such as Primark and BonMarché, known for their low-cost clothes, used New Wave factories in their supply chain. Whilst both retailers voluntarily – and swiftly – acknowledged the fact, and expressed distress over the tragedy, real action has failed to materialise. In 2012 the two retailers refused to sign the Bangladesh Fire and Building Safety Agreement, which would have ensured the independent inspection of any factory used as a supplier. Perhaps such an inspection would have prevented these deaths.

Although many companies have come a long way on the road to ethical and sustainable supply chains, Marks and Spencer and Puma are two shining examples, this is not the case for all. Clearly companies for whom CHEAP is the primary requirement, face more challenges in addressing these issues. Primark and  BonMarché’s refusal to sign up to the most basic agreements on workers’ conditions and a reliance on a supply chain based on minimal wages, long hours and low overheads make such disasters almost inevitable.

But consumers also bear responsibility. The idea that t-shirts can, and should, cost as little £4 is fundamentally flawed. If cotton is to be farmed sustainably, workers paid properly, and factories kept in safe working order, such a price starts to sound too low. So yes, companies need to address these issues, but we, as consumers, also need to think a little more about what the true cost of a t-shirt really is.

The interview, which made the rounds on the Internet this week, is certainly an interesting watch. Taken from a 2005 documentary, Nestlé’s then-CEO goes on to outline why he believes that water is “a foodstuff like any other… And like any other foodstuff it should have a market value.”

There has been a predictable outcry. Brabeck-Letmathe has an obvious interest in privatising water supplies – Nestlé is the biggest producer of bottled water in the world. But has he been misunderstood?

There are good reasons for putting a price on water. Water is increasingly scarce in many parts of the world. Qatar, which provides all of its citizens with free water, has the highest water consumption per person in the world, and uses vast amounts of energy (and oil) desalinating seawater for its thirsty population to drink. Like a carbon price, a price on water may help put a “cap” on its use, encouraging people to save water, invest in efficiency improvements or move to more water-abundant areas.

So Brabeck-Letmathe has a point. But there are misunderstandings on his side of the argument too. The “NGO” position, perhaps best represented by the Millennium Development Goals, is not about providing people with unlimited supplies of water, but rather making sure that everybody has access to the water they need to live.

A free market for water will ensure (in theory) that it is used in the most economically efficient way possible. But from an economic perspective, a Nestlé bottling plant makes far more productive use of water than an African child. Vague talk about protecting the poor is not enough – water should simply never be unaffordable.

In a recent interview, Brabeck-Letmathe is just as enthusiastic about putting a price on water. “If something doesn’t have a value, it’s human behaviour that we use it in an irresponsible manner”, he says. But he also seems to have backtracked slightly: “I am the first one to say water is a human right”, he proudly states.

Perhaps the NGOs weren’t so extreme after all.

Who’s affected?
Current EU research puts the percentage of large companies regularly reporting on non-financial aspects within Europe at 10% (2,500). The proposed legislation will affect all companies with over 500 employees in the EU. That is around 18,000 companies or an increase of around 600%. It will therefore have a wide impact on trans-national corporations operating across Europe.

When will this come into force?
Don’t panic! This is still a proposal but one with staying power. Legislation is unlikely to be activated until 2015 and will only become law, as usual, via national legislation. The first reports needing to comply with the legislation would probably be 2017.

What will be required?
Details are still sketchy; with the emphasis on flexibility of approach. The EU wishes to underpin countries with strong existing responsibility reporting requirements – Barnier mentions Netherlands, Denmark and France – while creating a level playing field across the whole EU. There is also recognition that existing norms would be referenced – again Barnier specifically mentioned UNGC, ISO26000 and the German Federal Sustainable Development Code.

Will it be ‘comply or explain’ legislation?
This legislative approach is widely used by territories already requiring the disclosure of non-financial information, e.g Denmark and India. The Commission seems at pains to distinguish its approach from ‘comply or explain’ while also referencing it. What this means will become clear over time but materiality and avoiding box-ticking are likely to be central to the EU expressed desire to limit administrative burden.

Which issues are covered?
“Companies concerned will be required to disclose in their annual reports relevant and material information on policies, results and risks concerning environmental aspects, social and employee related matters, respect for human rights, anti-corruption and bribery issues, and diversity on the boards of directors”. In his press conference, Michel Barnier (MEP) also specifically referenced diversity of staff, in terms of gender and age-structures, as important elements.

So is integrated reporting being discussed?
The EU makes positive noises about the International Integrated Reporting Council but sees this as a step ahead of this legislation. The use of the plural “annual reports” suggests that CR reports are still considered to be an important vehicle for compliance with new legislation.

Corporate Citizenship will be keeping a close watching brief on the legislation’s successive stages and will report on any new developments.

Until recently the face of collective bargaining were trade unions. Today, social media is creating a new wave of collective bargaining. We saw that during the Delhi rape case when people from all walks of life took to the streets to protest the rape and the government’s seeming inaction. This led to the commissioning of a three member committee headed by former Chief Justice of India, Justice J.S. Verma to review the current laws on sexual crime. A month later, the committee submitted its report paving the way for tabling of an amended rape bill in parliament which is awaiting approval.

Were the Jet Airways protests in 2008 the beginning of the new wave of collective bargaining in India? Sometime in 2008, Jet Airways decided to lay off 800 flight attendants amidst soaring costs. Little did they anticipate that the laid off employees would take to the streets and gain political support. Jet Airways reacted immediately and reinstated all the employees that had been laid off.

Welcome to the new wave and new face of collective bargaining.

DJSI is the most recognized sustainable investment ranking.  More companies are vying for a spot on the list. Only the top companies within each industry group are included.  Producing a strong application is important. It requires more than just ticking boxes and including general answers. Moreover, an effective approach to the DJSI application process can provide real value to the company. It can be used as a driver for continuous improvement, lead to sharper targets, more robust policies, and more effective measurement. It boosts internal engagement and embeds corporate responsibility/sustainability across the business.

Corporate Citizenship, a global corporate responsibility and sustainability consultancy, is offering a free webinar to provide insights into DJSI.  Megan DeYoung, Director and Peter Truesdale, Associate Director will leverage their experience advising companies on responsibility activities and DJSI applications to discuss the following topics:

• How DJSI works.
• Internal benefits of DJSI.
• Tips to creating a strong DJSI application.

The free webinar will be offered two times on Thursday 14^th March 2013

• First offering: Thursday 14^th March 2013 is at 9:00 AM EST / 1:00 PM GMT.

        Registration: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/726478041

• Second offering: Thursday 14^th March 2013 is at 12:00 PM EST / 4:00 PM GMT.

        Registration: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/418532856

The tiny Himalayan kingdom aims to ban all pesticides and herbicides. It expects that organic farming will not only help the environment, but will also help farmers to grow more.

The move, announced at a sustainable development conference, looks like a complete rejection of global agribusiness. It’s difficult to find an agricultural multinational that doesn’t describe itself as “sustainable”, yet these companies are often accused of harming the poor and damaging the environment.

Bhutan is often painted as a sustainable utopia. In 2008, the country didn’t just gain democracy; it also introduced an index of Gross National Happiness (GNH), to replace Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In theory, all decisions taken by government – from the granting of mining contracts to the introduction of a weekly “pedestrians day” – are guided by how they will impact on the happiness of the Bhutanese people, not just economic growth.

Regardless of how accurate this picture is, Bhutan’s experiment is interesting. Could it catch on elsewhere? The UK and France have already introduced their own happiness indicators, although GDP is here to stay.

When most people talk about sustainability, they really mean sustainable growth. Companies should minimise the harmful effects of growth, and maximise the beneficial ones. But above all, they should grow.

What if companies were judged using a different yardstick? The circular economy is one effort by business to think differently about growth. Another is Patagonia’s “Don’t Buy This Jacket” campaign, which this year will be followed by a wider campaign for responsible capitalism.

The West won’t be following Bhutan’s lead any time soon. But the debate over growth refuses to go away. Businesses need to seriously consider their true value to society, or they may face some very unhappy customers.