Werbung


Friday, October 24th, 2014
Ip access
Ausgabe 15 (2014)
Ausgabe 14 (2014)
Ausgabe 13 (2014)
Ausgabe 12 (2013)
Ausgabe 11 (2013)
Ausgabe 10 (2013)
Ausgabe 9 (2013)
Ausgabe 8 (2012)
Ausgabe 7 (2012)
Ausgabe 6 (2012)
Ausgabe 5 (2012)
Ausgabe 4 (2011)
Ausgabe 3 (2011)
Ausgabe 2 (2011)
Ausgabe 1 (2011)
Businesses
Consultants
Business Councils
NGOs
Academic Networks
Research Institutes
Journals
english
german
CSR reports
Jobs
Events
Call for Papers
New Publications
Podcast


Werbung




Use CSR NEWS also through the following services designed for your needs:


Daily News per Email


Weekly News per Email


Become CSR NEWS-Friend
on Facebook !


CSR NEWS updates
through Twitter


RSS-Feeds



Global 100: Sustainably Misleading


Monday, February 4th, 2013


Corporate Knights continues to mislead. Once again they’ve issued a list of the world’s “most sustainable” corporations — the Global 100 — and once again the metrics they’ve used have surprisingly little to do with what most of us mean by the word “sustainability.”

First, let’s get one thing out of the way. The organization is right to defend the fact that there are oil companies (including Enbridge, for example) and other producers of “sin” products on their list. There’s nothing in principle that says an oil company can’t, in some useful sense, be sustainable. And even if you think the fact that a company like Enbridge should be docked points because oil is a non-renewable resource, it still is a useful and interesting exercise to look at which oil companies (for example) are leading the field in terms of sustainability. So, CK is right to defend itself in this regard.

No, the problem with the Global 100 is not that they give kudos to a few unpopular companies. The real problem lies in the criteria used to measure what they refer to as “sustainability.”

Here are the 12 “key performance indicators” that get a company onto the Global 100:

  • Energy productivity;
  • Carbon productivity;
  • Water productivity
  • Waste productivity
  • Innovation Capacity
  • Percentage Tax Paid
  • CEO to average employee pay
  • Pension fund status
  • Safety performance
  • Employee turnover
  • Leadership diversity
  • Clean capitalism pay link.

These are essentially the same criteria they used (and which I critiqued) last year. The only difference is that they’ve added the bit about “Pension Fund Status,” the relevance of which may already have you wondering.

Hopefully the problem with those criteria is clear to most of you: only the first four — the first third of the criteria — actually have something to do with what most of us mean by “sustainability.” The rest are important issues, to be sure, but not relevant to the question of sustainable use of resources, or to the notion of sustainable economic growth that is compatible with environmental conservation.

Many will surely defend these criteria, and will tell me that I’m working with too narrow a conception of sustainability. Sustainability, they may say, isn’t just a narrow environmental concept. It’s about the whole People-Planet-Profits nexus. Well, certainly you can draw a diagram with boxes and arrows that shows connections of various kinds between those three. But to say that the three are one is to make so many undefended ethical, conceptual, and factual assumptions that the only result must be unnecessary confusion.

No, the Global 100 really isn’t a sustainability index, at least in the way that word is used by normal folks. It’s a complex index of sustainability, fairness, and a bunch of other positive stuff. And if you’re interested in all that stuff, why not just say so? Why bury it in a word that most people take to mean something else entirely?

The kicker, in terms of misleading language, here, is the tag-line that completes the title of the Corporate Knights list: “The Global 100: World Leaders in Clean Capitalism.” The problem here is that “Clean Capitalism” is a term Corporate Knights uses to describe what others might refer to as “conscious” capitalism, or perhaps “corporate social responsiblity.” But when most of us hear “clean,” we think “not dirty,” or “not polluting.” The implication, here, whether intended or not, is that the firms on this list are clean ones, firms unlike the dirty, polluting, earth-pillaging firms of the past.

Now, it would be one thing if Corporate Knights wanted to turn the word “sustainability” (or “clean”) into a technical term, a term of art with a special meaning for experts in the field. But that’s not what’s going on. Instead, they’re turning the word into a brand, a buzzword, and it’s a buzzword with which 100 companies are today adorning press releases. A hundred firms are today bragging about being sustainable, and are doing so with Corporate Knights’ endorsement. But “sustainable,” here, simply does not mean what you think it means.


____________________________

LEAVE A COMMENT







INFORMATION DESK




PRINT
PDF
DIALOG: LEAVE A COMMENT
TELL A FRIEND

AUTHOR
Chris MacDonald

Chris MacDonald is Associate Professor in the Philosophy Department at Saint Mary's University (Halifax, Canada). He is also Coordinator of SMU's M.A. Programme in Philosophy and he runs the The Business Ethics Blog.

EMAIL TO THE AUTHOR

CATEGORIES: +Consultants | +english | +Research Institutes | AccountAbility | Business Ethics Blog by Prof. Chris MacDonald | Newsflash

RELATED ARTICLES


OTHER ARTICLES BY THIS AUTHOR
209 other articles by






© 2005- | CSR NEWS GmbH | CSR NEWS ist ein Projekt des Vereins Unternehmen - Verantwortung - Gesellschaft e.V.
Contact: editors@csr-news.net | Phone: +49 (0) 2192 – 8546458
Disclaimer | Legal Notice | Powered by WordPress | 0.753 seconds | web design by kollundkollegen.