CorporateResponsibility.Net

If a company can educate/influence their stakeholders a lot can be gained in terms of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). This is a good post on this topic.

——————

If you’ve ever ordered a Coke only to settle for a Pepsi or made a “Xerox” on a Canon copier, then you’ve experienced product commoditization.

From colas to copiers, some products become so familiar to us that we can barely distinguish among brands. To differentiate their commoditized products in the marketplace, brands often emphasize values and image over product specifications — Coke “shares happiness;” Apple offers “old nerd” vs. “geek cool.”

Many clean-tech companies can only dream of seeing their products achieve such levels of ubiquity. But to get off the ground, many cutting-edge green start-ups must first engage in an educational campaign to bring their audiences up to speed on the technology, before they start selling their brand.

Read the complete article here:

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=124390

How do you start ‘doing CSR’ at a university? Is there a need to have a clearly articulated CSR agenda and if so, how does it differ from the private sector?
Most corporations state that CSR is about having “a licence to operate”, it is about their “brand”, “reputation” and pushed forward by “stakeholder pressure”. While this may be true in the corporate sector, in the context of higher education this is not (yet!) the case.
On the contrary, one could argue that a university has positive CSR credentials by definition; an institution providing education, conducting valuable research,  promoting widening participation and life-long learning  can hardly be seen as a ‘bad guy’ who crudely aims to make profit whilst neglecting its stakeholders. Mitigating our negative environmental impact is far easier than that of for example an oil company. Moreover, most people don’t even perceive universities as corporations.
So why is it necessary to pursue and further develop a CSR programme? To start with, a university is a corporation in the sense that it does need to have a positive bottom line. It needs to be able to sell its product (education) to customers (students) and be competitive in the marketplace (other universities), attractive as a workplace to retain high quality staff (both support and academic) and, it has a significant role through its buying power (procurement). Academic excellence increasingly unites policy-makers, businesses and other organisations. At the end of the day, we either gain or lose in the global competition over high calibre students.
The way I see it, CSR has two main purposes in the university context. First, it enables the institution to develop a structured and economically viable approach on issues around social and environmental responsibility. Universities are intriguingly complex institutions with multiple organisational cultures within them. This means that there are often fairly autonomous pockets, such as schools (in our university there are seven schools), departments, committees, working groups…etcetera. It is, therefore, very important that there is an overarching institutional framework and a clear sense of direction of how to develop our role in the society as one entity.
Second, it is a commonly acknowledged issue that universities are good at drafting policies and committing themselves to them but when it comes to actions, it can suddenly get quiet.  Through CSR we can initiate a transformation process within the institution. CSR is actually a tool that allows us to reflect on our identity as an institution and what we aspire to be. In a constructive way, it makes us revisit our core purpose and our values and ensures that we walk our talk.
So what does developing CSR actually mean?
CSR is about taking actions. Building up a CSR programme is about implementation.  CSR is also about engaging people in the work/study place. In our university there are around 24 000 students and more than 2000 staff. I firmly believe that they want to identify with the organisation they work or study with and, they want to be proud of it. If an institution places any value on that, a holistic, action focused CSR programme is needed.
Anne Raudaskoski
The writer works with the University of Westminster as a CSR Research & Development Officer and is a member of The Sustainability Writers Network (TSWN).

By Amy Fetzer

Employ a sustainability expert at faculty management level and he or she will earn back their salary in savings several times over. Turn waste into a resource not a drain on resources by diverting it from landfill through recycling, composting or energy recovery.

These were some of the powerful yet practical messages delivered at the University of Surrey’s Sustainable Practice in Universities: Leading and Improving conference on 4th Sept.

Higher Education environments consume 5.2 billion kWh of energy every year creating a carbon footprint of ~3.3MT of CO2 and an energy bill of over £200m. By bringing together experts from across the globe, the conference armed delegates with the tools to reduce these impacts.

Delegates left with new contacts and practical tips on a diverse range of topics. One of the most ingenious included using the University as a living laboratory where innovations from sustainable building designs to climate control systems are tested in the controlled and yet real world environment of the campus. Another inspired approach suggested harnessing student talent by incorporating sustainability challenges into student coursework projects.

The conference also revealed six key strategies for successfully implementing sustainable development initiatives in Higher Education environments.

1. Implement a sustainable development strategy – not a policy. Policies can easily be ignored, but strategies set targets and goals, give people responsibility and make them accountable explained Almut Beringer, UNESCO Chair ‘Higher Education for Sustainable Development’.
2. Install sustainability experts at management level, as well as at an operational level. This prioritises sustainability at the upper level of management providing support and a coherent strategy for the operations team while the resultant cost savings will pay for the additional salary as Steve Lanou, MIT, explained.
3. Present the business case. Many sustainability strategies, such as energy efficiency initiatives, bring massive cost savings ensuring they pay for themselves in the first 1-3 years, as speakers including The Carbon Trust’s David Vincent demonstrated.
4. Engage all groups on campus from the staff to the students. Bring people with you and sustainability initiatives will succeed. The University of Leeds’ incredibly successful recycling programme and LSE’s Reuse programme which diverts student cast offs from landfill were just two of many winning initiatives showcased.
5. Communicate in a language stakeholders can understand and measure and present findings so they can see problems and progress. MIT and others testified that graphs and targets which clearly demonstrate improvement are invaluable – they inspire and motivate whether the subject is dorm radiators or recycling rates.
6. Work as a team and look at the University across all levels. Buildings, energy efficiency, waste management, transport and procurement often operate in silos. It’s crucial to bring people together across departments so the University works as a team and initiatives complement and support each other as Mike Kelly from Communities and Local Government explained.

Higher Educations authorities have an obligation to act to reduce their own environmental impacts. The conference concluded that managing their own impacts is not enough – Universities must lead by example and embrace their role in educating the decision makers of the future.

HE institutions are instrumental in mitigating the worst effects of climate change. They have the potential to produce a ripple effect across whole country and community as graduates literate in sustainability issues take that knowledge into their communities and the economy after graduation. This potential cannot afford to be wasted.

For more information on the University of Surrey’s Sustainable Practice in Universities: Leading and Improving conference, please visit: http://www.ces-surrey.org.uk/news/SPUconf.shtml#summary

Amy Fetzer is a freelance journalist and environmental writer specialising in CSR and sustainability issues. She can be contacted on amy.fetzer@amyfetzer.com. She is also is a member of ” The Sustainability Writers Network” (TSWN). For more information please visit the TSWN discussion thread on SustainabilityForum.com.

The majority of Fortune 50 corporations use the Internet to disclose some information on their environmental performance but most are missing opportunities to involve stakeholders, tap the interactive potential of the web, and provide transparency in their reporting, new research suggests.

Researchers at Brigham Young University and KDPaine and Partners set out to test a new model for transparency,  a hot topic in the field of corporate communications. After studying environmental information reported in the websites of F50 copanies, researchers found that a minority allow for any two-way interaction with stakeholders, which could inform and enhance the type of information they report. Read more

Source: Green Biz

About the BITC: Business in the Community mobilises business for good.  We are one of The Prince’s Charities and we inspire, engage, support and challenge companies on responsible business, working through four areas: Community, Environment, Marketplace and Workplace. With more than 850 companies in membership, Business in the Community represents 1 in 5 of the UK private sector workforce and convenes a network of global partners.

How would you describe your work at the BITC?
My work at the BITC includes three main areas. The first area is the BITC Corporate Responsibility Index, the relaunch of the CSR Academy including the training courses for the peer learning network and the advisory services for companies and NGOs on a particular issue that they need help with.

Could you tell us more about the BITC CR Index?
Business in the Community launched its Environment Index in 1996 to help companies benchmark their environmental management and performance. In 2002, member companies requested a mechanism to benchmark their other activities, so Business in the Community developed the broader CR Index to assess their impacts on the community, marketplace and workplace through their operations, products and services, and interaction with key stakeholders.

The impact of companies regarding their CR practices will be an important part in the future and we are currently working on trimming back sheer amount of work that needs to be put in by the entering companies so that they better manage their resources and do not spend that much time on entering data. Our aim is to provide them with better impact management by entering the CR index. Another step to help better measure the CR practices of a participating company is that the BITC will start to visit companies in the next CR Index cycle and do something similar to an audit process with interviews of the people involved with data gathering and CR index submission. This will enable the BITC to less resource intensive and will provide the company with an easier way to manage their submission. Our main aim is to create value for companies with the CR Index and this is the first step of many to make the CR index better.

What where the “lessons learned” from this years index in comparison to last year? What where the highs and lows?
The topic of governance needs to be expanded within the index next year. The reason is that through governance we can increasingly engage the senior management to take a more active part within the participating companies.

We have also seen that we need to expand on the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for stakeholder engagement within the participating companies as this topic is becoming more and more important. In this way we can indirectly support the efforts of the CR people within the individual companies to form a set of KPIs on stakeholder engagement.

Where is the index going in the next years?
I have already partly answered this question I think in question 2 but these are the key development in the next years:

1. We need to make the index a better tool in measuring the impact of CR practices and programs for companies.
2. We will also try to make the index lighter in the sense that the amount of time and effort for the participating company will be going down. This especially applies for the amount of data collection efforts a company needs to undertake when submitting information.
3. Then it is also our aim to encourage companies to be bolder in embracing CR and what it means for them. The BITC sees itself as an important part in this and the Index is an important tool for companies to be bolder.

How do you see the mid and long term future of CR reporting? Will we have CR Reporting in ten years time at all or will it be the norm for organisations to report on CR topics then? What is your personal and professional opinion?

In general I see the future of CR reporting very positive. We will have a lot more companies providing CR reports in the future in my opinion. But to make reporting truly important for companies governments across the globe need to embrace reporting as a tool for the accountability of organisations nowadays. Without governmental support CR reporting will be only an add-on but nothing more. We have a long way to go but it is possible.

What has been the most interesting news item on CR in the last few months for you? And why?
Good question. For me the news that law firms are now starting to do more and more in terms of CR is really encouraging. This is a sign that other industry sectors are seeing the growing importance of CR and are beginning to take actions.

What would be your top 5 CR reporting tips to someone new managing CR reporting within a business?
Okay here they are:

• 1. See and use CR as an opportunity to raise your company profile not just a bolt on to the already existing company communication.
  2. Define and set Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) as soon as possible to be able to measure and benchmark your CR projects and activities.
  3. Look for the business wins when it comes to your CR activities and project.
  4. Spread the workload of your CR activities during the year to have a constant impact not just at several points during the year
  5. Engage with the BITC to share ideas, best practice and much more.

by Robert Barnard-Weston, 2008

So, once again, we’re in an economic downturn. After almost twenty years in Corporate  Responsibility (CR), I’ve seen several of these already and they always seem to trigger the same response among corporate leaders. Those who are not doing anything decisive in CR tend to defer any plans they may have had while they wait for the economic climate to improve. Those who are already doing something have a habit of curtailing their CR activities or cancelling them altogether.

What this clearly demonstrates is that CR is seen by most as a luxury, a ‘nice to have’ element of their corporate tactics. It is a cost that cannot be justified when the economic going gets tough, since it doesn’t yield a worthwhile return on investment (ROI).

There are two very important issues here that corporate leaders ignore at their peril:

1. Under company law in most industrialised countries, a prime requirement of senior executives is that they provide maximum returns for their investors. Therefore, those who have been operating CR programmes while knowing ROI was shaky or non-existent have been breaking the law.

2. CR programmes, appropriately designed, implemented and managed, can be extremely powerful and reliable profit and shareholder value boosters. Astonishingly, very few business leaders seem to realise this.

So, the conclusions from these facts, particularly in an economic downturn, are clear: if your CR programme is not commercially successful, end it now or make changes so that it becomes commercially successful. If you don’t have a CR programme, now is a very good time to launch one if it can add profits and shareholder value.

There are three essential, inter-related disciplines required to make CR improve your financial numbers:

a. appropriate CR strategy

b. integrated communication

c. dedicated measurement systems

An Appropriate CR Strategy is one that is aligned completely with the overarching  corporate strategy. It does not require (indeed, it should avoid) trite vision statements and homilies from the Chairman at the front of the Annual Report. It requires a clear understanding of precisely what the organisation exists to achieve and careful articulation for all stakeholders of what CR can contribute to that achievement.

Integrated CR Communication differs from most communication programmes that we have seen in that it combines several core characteristics:

· It brings to bear both interpersonal and artefact-based communications

· It makes full use of both internal and external communications

· It is dialogue-based, not monologue-based

· It is iterative – building over time to achieve metamorphic performances

All four of these criteria must be met for integrated CR communications systems to deliver their benefits. When they do, the results can be staggering in their potency.

A Dedicated CR Measurement System provides a means of bringing together tangible and intangible benefits, quantitative and qualitative analysis, into a cohesive, easily understood picture which shows clearly the financial benefits that a CR programme has activated.

For the system to deliver optimal results, all three of the above disciplines need to be deployed simultaneously in a ‘tuned whole’. CR strategy alone tends to be seen as empty promises, lacking substance; CR communications without strategy and measurement is meaningless; and the best measurement systems are of no use if there’s nothing to measure.

The ‘tuned whole’ that results from appropriate design and delivery of an integrated CR strategy, communication and measurement system can be likened to a highly trained athlete. The athlete needs to be laser-focused on the goal in mind: no amount of fitness wins the gold medal if you veer away from the racetrack. All the body’s organs need to be in the best of health – if any one of them fails, the whole system goes down – and dialogue between the heart, the lungs and the other organs needs to fast, accurate and complete. Finally, we need to know when we’ve achieved our goals – for every event, there’s a finishing line at a carefully measured distance from the starting blocks.

Pass that finishing line first and you win gold for everyone concerned.

The author, Robert Weston lives with in Bath, England. He has been a CSR consultant, writer, speaker and facilitator for fifteen years. He holds degrees in Philosophy and in Responsibility and Business Practice; he has also co-launched the UK farmers’ markets movement, Bath’s first eco-hotel and five children. His clients include a wide range of high-profile corporations, along with numerous NGOs, government departments, national governments and supragovernmental organisations.
You can e-mail him at: robert@organismics.org or call him on +44 7074 661166
You can write to him at the following address:
Bloomfield House,
146, Bloomfield Road,
Bath. BA2 2AS, UK

This weeks interview is with Anne Gadegaard Larson from the Stakeholder Relations Department of Novo Nordisk, a global healthcare company and a world leader in diabetes care based in Copenhagen, Denmark.

The interview:

1)    Could you tell us a little bit about the history of CR reporting at Novo Nordisk?

Novo Nordisk published its first environmental report in 1994 (covering the year 1993), and was the first company in Denmark and one of the first internationally to do so. This was one year ahead of Danish legislation requiring that certain companies (in total around 2,000 at the time) disclose information about their environmental impacts. The report included information about resource consumption, emissions and use of experimental animals – issues that reflected stakeholder concerns at the time, and indeed still do. Since then, the company has continued to set new targets every year aimed at raising environmental and bioethical standards in the company’s operations. Reporting helps maintain focus and create transparency about environmental impacts, performance and goals.

In 1998 Novo Nordisk published its first social report. The report set targets and followed up on the company’s efforts to live up to its social responsibility – towards employees and as a corporate citizen.

In 1999 these two supplementary reports were merged into one document, the environmental and social report. In addition, since mandatory environmental reporting remains applicable for some of the company’s Danish sites (Bagsværd, Gentofte, Hillerød and Kalundborg), annual green accounts are prepared for these sites and submitted to the Danish Commerce and Companies Agency.

In November 2000 the enzyme business was demerged from the healthcare company, and the two businesses continued as two separately listed companies, Novozymes A/S and Novo Nordisk A/S. The ownership structure remained unchanged, and a holding company, Novo A/S, was established as the link between the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the operating businesses. That is why the 2000 environmental and social report is published under the name of Novo A/S, covering performance for both companies.

As of 2001 Novo Nordisk began to include socio-economics, and the 2001 report was entitled ‘reporting on the Triple Bottom Line’. The Triple Bottom Line approach has guided the company’s development of its sustainability agenda, and from 2001 the company became more proactive – internally and externally – in ‘branding’ this Triple Bottom Line concept as its interpretation of sustainable development.

In 2002 and 2003 the company’s voluntary reporting on environmental, social and economic performance and key issues was published in Sustainability reports. In 2003, for the first time, the Sustainability Report was published at the same as the Annual Financial Report and distributed to shareholders. This move was very well received by shareholders and other stakeholders, as the two documents together provided a more comprehensive overview of the company’s performance, progress, positions and strategic initiatives.

In March 2004 the Annual General Meeting adopted an amendment to the company’s Articles of Association to specify in the objectives that the company will ‘strive to conduct its activities in a financially, environmentally and socially responsible way’. In this way, the commitment to the Triple Bottom Line (which was already included in the Novo Nordisk Way of Management) was further anchored as a business principle.

In order to reflect this approach, Novo Nordisk merged its financial report and its sustainability report into one inclusive document. The 2004 Annual Report was the first inclusive report and, although recognised as a ‘beta version’ of a more comprehensive approach to reporting, it was very well received.

Novo Nordisk has a long track record as a leader in sustainability reporting. In 2007 – for the eleventh time – Novo Nordisk’s Annual Report 2006 was awarded ‘best non-financial annual report’ by the Danish association of state-authorised accountants, FSR, and the business daily, Børsen.

In addition, Novo Nordisk won the award for ‘best Corporate Responsibility report’ issued in Denmark in 2006 and an award for second-best online information amongst C20-index companies.

In March 2008, Novo Nordisk was selected as the winner of the first-ever, global CR Reporting Award for best integrated report.

See all reports here

2)    Novo Nordisk has won a lot of CR awards for their reporting over the course of the past 10 years. What do you do different then other companies?

Novo Nordisk has chosen to report on the company’s financial and non-financial performance in one inclusive document, the Annual Report, which is published in English and Danish.

Novo Nordisk continues the process to drive integration of the financial and non-financial perspectives on business and seeks to reflect this in the approach to reporting. In the absence of global standards for inclusive reporting, this approach takes its point of departure in current standards for mandatory financial reporting and current guidelines for voluntary non-financial reporting. The aim is to drive business performance and enhance shareholder value by exploring the interactions between financial and non-financial objectives. This entails alignment of key priorities, target-setting and definition of key performance indicators, in consultation with internal and external stakeholders.

We recognise the challenges of reporting within two distinctly different frameworks. However, we deem that the benefits of presenting one view of the company’s performance outweigh the drawbacks, and we are continuously working to improve disclosure and transparent reporting.

The Annual Report is prepared in respect of current best practice and the principles of materiality, completeness and responsiveness. Stakeholder engagement informs the process, which also incorporates independent expert reviews of the company’s annual reporting. The selection of information included in the annual reporting reflects evolving priorities in response to business and societal challenges.

3)    What is your opinion on stakeholder engagement? Will companies ever be able to properly communicate to their stakeholders? What does Novo Nordisk do?

Stakeholder engagement is a key principle of corporate responsibility – it helps an organisation stay attuned to stakeholders’ concerns and interests, and it is a key element of organisational learning and development. Any organisation wishing to work and report proactively on corporate responsibilities needs to define whom to engage with and how. It is important to recognise that stakeholder engagement is not just the annual meeting with the local NGO, but regular contact either directly or indirectly through media, formal or informal, with top management or on an individual employee level. Therefore stakeholder engagement is not to be perceived as a process that can be managed in its completeness by a central department. However, it is important to secure coordination of engagements with key stakeholders.

The SR report has for some years been one way to communicate with stakeholders. Novo Nordisk’s learning has been that also other communication channels need to be developed, as stakeholders’ interests are very diverse. The annual reporting on our sustainability website therefore serves as a reporting repository through which all stakeholders can find updated information on Novo Nordisk’s performance in regards to their key area of interest. This is supplemented with updates during the year on specific topics.

4)    Where is CR reporting at Novo Nordisk going in the future? What are the priorities?

Novo Nordisk’s reporting strategy considers developments in reporting standards and regulatory initiatives. We recognise that, unlike financial reporting whose format is now well-established by international standards, sustainability reporting is still at a stage of experimentation. We believe that with the approach to integrated reporting we are getting closer to a reporting format that works well for Novo Nordisk, our shareholders and other stakeholders. However, we will continue to seek inspiration from reader and stakeholder feedback, independent external reviews and benchmarks with peer reporting.

As part of this work, Novo Nordisk is working to develop more long-term non-financial targets, indicators and metrics.

5)    Where do you think CR reporting is going in the next 5-10 years? Will it be more important for companies in the future then now?

Novo Nordisk believes in the value of integrated reporting and predicts that in 5 to 10 years financial and non-financial reporting will have blended into truly inclusive reporting. The reports will convey information thatthe organisation’s stakeholders regard as material for their decision-making, whether it is about engaging with the company as an investor, a potential new employee, an authority or other.

In Denmark, authorities are currently discussing whether the regulatory requirements to the annual report should be expanded from reporting on material environment and knowledge information to a broader requirement that all larger Danish companies should produce a CR report. We see the same trend in other countries.

6)    What would be your top 5 CR reporting tips to someone new managing CR reporting within a business?

Novo Nordisk’s top 5 CR reporting tips are:
1.    Make sure to have a robust CR strategy in place, which will serve as the point of departure for reporting, and set clear, communicable targets and indicators that are meaningful to the organisation and which can drive performance
2.    Make sure that the CR reporting is balanced
3.    Involve stakeholders in the reporting as well as the shaping of the CR strategy – including selection of material issues to report
4.    Assure CR content according to the AA1000AS
5.    Have fun while developing the CR report. It IS a huge effort, but it’s worth it!

Business & Society Belgium, one of CSR Europe’s 25 national partner organisations, has recently published a practical guide on CSR reporting available in French, Dutch and English.

The guide aims to set out the latest trends in non-financial reporting in response to stakeholder expectations. It provides answers to questions such as:

1. What are stakeholders’ expectations with regard to non-financial reports?
2. How can these reports be used as dynamic communication tools in coherence with sustainable development strategies?
3. Which tools are available to businesses?
4. What are the phases and success factors in producing a quality report?

The guide, developed by a working group of 15 B&SB member companies, is available at: www.businessandsociety.be/display.asp?lang=2&nav=311&art=1467&mode=showarticle

CR News Source: CSR Europe

At the third annual Financial Times Sustainable Banking Awards in London this week, Brazilian bank Banco Real took home two of the top prizes: the top Sustainable Emerging Markets Bank and the overall Sustainable Bank of the Year. The awards are given to banks and other financial institutions that demonstrate both leadership and innovation in incorporating triple-bottom-line considerations into their operations.

Banco Real was honored for its broad commitment to sustainability in financing. In addition to adopting development strategies like microcredit loans, the company also includes consulting services intended to guide customers in ways to use their finances to achieve both sustainability and financial goals. In a statement released about the award, the company said, “Even though it is difficult to objectively prove the relationship between sustainability and financial results, our results have improved year after year, and our performance has strengthened the bond with our clients and other stakeholders.”

Judges for the awards, which included the Financial Times’ business editor as well as leaders of financial advisory, responsible investment and sustainable development organizations, said of Banco Real’s practices: “This is a bank that goes beyond all of the sustainable business principles (UNEP-FI, Global Compact, Equator) and applies sustainability practices across every aspect of its business.”

Two new awards were also presented at the event, a one-day gathering addressing the theme, “How Sustainable is Sustainable Banking when the Bottom Line is Under Threat?”. The award for Banking at the Bottom of the Pyramid was given to Bangladesh’s ASA Bank, which currently provides microfinance services to nearly 7 million residents of that country. Another new prize, for Sustainable Investor of the Year, was awarded to E+Co, a U.S.-based nonprofit organization that invests in clean energy businesses around the globe.

Finally, the award for Sustainable Deal of the Year was given to a partnership project between Swiss investment firm BlueOrchard Finance and Morgan Stanley for the “BlueOrchard Loans for Development” program, which took microfinance to a new level by bringing together a wide international base of investors, swapping currencies into local denominations and distributed to 11 developing countries around the world.

Source: GreenBiz.com

The Federal Government has commissioned St James Ethics Centre to undertake a three-year project to expand responsible business practice nationally. The funding was announced at the 9th National Business Leaders Forum on Sustainable Development held at Parliament House,Canberra, on Monday evening (May 19).

The purpose of the funding is to:
* expand the number of Australian companies that are actively engaged in identifying and adopting more responsible business practices including SMEs; and
* consider options to improve, and where necessary refine, the tools that are available to promote responsible business practices across all levels of corporate management.

“A range of excellent initiatives is already underway in Australia and an important dimension of the project will be to work with key stakeholders and innovators to facilitate national networks and laboratories of best practice.” says Rosemary Sainty, head of the project.

The announcement was followed by the presentation of the 5th Corporate Responsibility Index awards. In total 40 companies participated in the 5th Index (including 16 new companies). Flexible entry options introduced last year include a private benchmark which has proved popular for new companies, with 10 taking up the option this year.

Dr Simon Longstaff, executive director of St James Ethics Centre said, “this year’s Index is evidence of a corporate sector that is beginning to lose its fear of candid and transparent reporting. This suggests a deeper commitment to learning than has been evident in the past.”

Source: GovernmentNews.com.au