文章 Articles

The road to credibility

The disclosure of company information about environmental performance could be an important way to improve Chinese companies' reputation. John Elkington and Jodie Thorpe explain.

Article image

The time may have come in China for “sustainability” or “non-financial” reporting: the disclosure to society of information on companies’ social, economic and environmental management and performance. Recent scandals to do with product quality, such as the melamine-in-milk scandal, are important reasons to adopt such practices. In today's global economy, the mistakes of some can impact the market prospects of many.

Although sustainability reporting has been practised globally for around 20 years, it is relatively new to China, whose first sustainability report was issued in 1999 by Shell China. Nevertheless, this type of reporting has grown rapidly, to the extent that in 2006, 18 Chinese companies produced sustainability reports.

So how does China measure up? For 15 years, SustainAbility’s “Global Reporters” programme has published a biannual survey of sustainability reporting that assesses how well major companies across the world disclose information regarding sustainability management and performance. Globally, we have seen enormous growth in sustainability reporting, with nearly 3,000 reports published in 2007. These reports increasingly come from emerging markets. While in 1998, Asia, Africa and Latin America only published a few reports, by 2007, countries like Brazil, China, India and South Africa published almost 10% of all reports globally. In Brazil, sustainability reporting has risen exponentially, having tripled in the last five years to roughly 80 reports published in 2007. China seems set to replicate this reporting boom, but at an even faster rate.

Partly as a result of these changes, SustainAbility has shifted the focus of its “Global Reporters” programme away from broad international surveys and towards exploring specific issues, sectors and countries. Our first report written along these new lines for the Brazilian Foundation for Sustainable Development, entitled The Road to Credibility, rates the quality of sustainability reporting by 10 leading companies in Brazil. 

Clearly, the findings of The Road to Credibility cannot be directly applied to China, as the drivers behind sustainability reporting are context-dependent. For example, Brazilian reporting is driven by various issues, including the increasing exposure of companies to the transparency demands of stock markets, and the rise of sustainability indexes such as the Sao Paulo stock exchange’s Corporate Sustainability Index (ISE). The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and pressure from NGOs are the two other factors. In China, although the GRI is having significant influence, the government has been the key driver behind encouraging the uptake of corporate social responsibility (CSR) by Chinese companies. Indeed, it is still the case that most of the companies reporting in China are state-owned enterprises. 

Nevertheless, The Road to Credibility offers lessons on best practice and potential pitfalls that are relevant for other countries going through an evolution in sustainability reporting. Although Brazilian reports achieved what appears to be a low-average score of 47% in the assessment methodology, this is not far behind the global average of 57% calculated in our 2006 international survey. However, a clear gap remains between the top-ranked company in our Brazilian survey, Natura (a leading cosmetics company), which scored 54%, and British Telecom, our top international scorer in 2006 with 80%. The Brazilian leaders are still three or four years behind the global leaders.

What accounts for this difference? For one thing, global leaders are much better at focusing their reports on “material” issues – those environmental and social issues where the company has a disproportionate impact, either positive or negative. Brazilian reports also have a tendency to report too much information without any clear prioritisation. For example, the ten reports we analysed, averaged a forest-unfriendly 161 pages in length.

A further issue is that while Brazilian reporters are good at articulating their commitment and ability to contribute to sustainable development, they are much weaker when describing systems to implement this vision or disclosing performance in a meaningful way. This suggests that for businesses in Brazil, sustainability reporting remains an extra-commercial CSR consideration rather than an integral component of the business itself.

Finally, the central challenge for Brazilian companies -- reflected in the title of our report -- is how to get readers to see sustainability reports as sincere and credible, as well as reflective of a real commitment to sustainability. This “credibility gap” is substantial in Brazil and is linked to the following factors: an overwhelming tendency to emphasise the good news and ignore the bad; a lack of hard indicators and business targets; an absence of credible stakeholder voices in reports; and a lacking sense of true leadership commitment. 

Extrapolating from these findings, our advice to Chinese companies looking to start sustainability reporting or improve their existing approach is three-fold: first, “less is more”. Although it is understandable that reporters wish to ensure that readers have all the information that interests them, a sustainability report overburdened with information actually impedes understanding. Instead, reports should identify the most significant issues – often no more than four or five – and concentrate on these.

Second, although providing information on corporate giving and philanthropy is useful, demonstrating how sustainability is being practically integrated into business activities in both the immediate and longer term is ultimately more convincing and compelling. Furthermore, this will separate your company as a leader ahead of the pack.

Finally, do not be afraid to report challenges, failures and dilemmas. Stakeholders know these exist and basic credibility demands an honest explanation of the challenges that arise from implementing the company’s sustainability vision. If the report fails to mention these obvious difficulties, stakeholders will wonder what else might be hidden. Other factors that raise credibility include having a sense of true leadership commitment, which is often achieved by an inspirational top management letter; the inclusion of stakeholder opinions; and the use of quantitative indicators and targets.

These recommendations are challenging for Brazilian and Chinese companies alike, making the road to credibility a long and bumpy one. However, for companies that aspire to become leaders of the sustainability agenda, building trust with and support from society is a journey that cannot be avoided.

 

John Elkington is co-founder and director at SustainAbility (www.sustainability.com) and at Volans Ventures (www.volans.com). 

Jodie Thorpe is director of SustainAbility’s Emerging Economies Programme.

The Road to Credibility is available at www.sustainability.com/roadtocredibility.  

 

Homepage photo by romeo

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

中国企业的表现

中国企业也越来越注重发布企业社会责任报告,但有跟风之嫌,报告内容差强人意,正如文章中提到的,报告页数很多,实质性的信息却很少,好的信息多于不如意的信息,报喜不报忧。
而且并没有在自己的业务中融入可持续发展的理念,很多只是列举一些他们的慈善之举,这是在混淆可持续发展的概念。

Disappointed view of Chinese Enterprises on CSR

Chinese enterprises are devoting more efforts
to the CSR reports. But just like travellers, the contents of their CSR reports are not satisfactory.

As mentioned in this article, "They have a tendency to report too much information without any clear prioritisation and to emphasize the good news and ignore the bad" and "a lack of hard indicators and business targets".
Moreover, they had not yet taken actions to re-engage their businesses with "sustainability" and many of them just listed their charity behaviors. That is a confusion about "sustainability".

(Translated by Guoxiangyang)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

不仅仅是中国

可持续发展报告内容差强人意不仅仅是中国的问题。我在法国一家银行工作过,内容主要是编写可持续发展报告。该工作的实质主要就是报喜不报忧,显示公司的“责任感”和“慈善”;或是对本公司一些广为人知的有争议的举动进行辩护。不管怎么说,这些报告的存在多少还是会迫使企业公布一些信息,增加了透明度。但同时也要看到,几乎所有企业的可持续发展部目前都仅仅是一个工作人员极少的边缘部门,存在的目的也仅仅是企业可持续发展方面的信息沟通工作,并不对企业的战略和行为作出任何介入。公布可持续发展报告在现阶段在很多公司很大程度上都只是一个时尚的举动。

Not only just China

The content of sustainable development reports being barely meaningful is not just a Chinese problem. I have worked in a bank in France, mainly to write and edit sustainable development reports. The real task of the job is mainly to report on happy matters, not worrying matters, to show the company’s ‘sense of responsibility’ and ‘charity’; or else the job is to defend the company’s controversial issues which are widely known. However it is put, the existence of these reports forces enterprises to publish communications, thus increasing transparency. At the same time, it should be recognised that for now, almost all sustainable development departments in these companies are only peripheral departments with very few staff. The reason for their existence is just that these companies can communicate on sustainable development. Such departments do not involve in the companies’ strategy or operations. At this stage, publishing sustainable development reports is, to a large degree for many companies, a fashionable move.

Translated by Somui Cheung 14/1/09

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

可持续发展

可持续发展对于很多主动与它靠近的企业来说,只是一套华丽的服饰,在内心上企业是不愿意让可持续发展伤害自己的核心利益的。

怎么让企业在可持续发展的框架下还能实现其营利的目标,是个关键问题

Sustainable Development

Sustainable development is but fine words for many companies who chose to move closer to it. But deep in their hearts, they won't allow sustainable development to cut into their profit, which they cherish so much.

How to win profit and carry out the policy of sustainable development at the same time? This is the key to the problem.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

事实胜于雄辩

文章中提到的建议并不是没有道理,但真正推动企业采取行动还需要真正打动这些企业。比如作者能给出个例子来说说哪些企业发布的报告很实在,它们通过报告负面的信息得到了怎样的正面效果。如果没有这些例证,我想中国的企业还是很难相信的。

Facts speak louder than rhetoric

The suggestions mentioned in this article are not irrational, though you have to persuade these enterprises before they will take action. For instance, the author provided examples of enterprises that had published honest reports, and how they received a positive result from reporting negative information. Without the examples like this, I think it will be hard to convince Chinese enterprises to follow the suggestions.

Translated by Ming Li

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

怎样去鼓励他们

鼓励良策的最佳方法是投资者对可持续发展报告的坚持。 任何长期的投资者 – 投资入养老基金的,保险业的 - 都需要知道生意经营不单明年是有利, 但十五年或二十年都如是。 他们需要知道这些企业对其在社会中采取有责任感的观点, 亦不会暴露于未公开的风险 (例如因为有害的污染而被起诉)。如果某间机构不能提出这种保证,投资者应另找别的机构。

张素梅翻译

how to encourage them

The best way to encourage good practice is for investors to insist on sustainability reporting. Any long term investors -- pension funds, insurance companies -- need to know that the business will be doing well not just next year but in 15 or 20 years time, that the business takes a responsible view of its place in society and it is not exposed to undisclosed risk (for instance, being sued for damages for harmful pollution). If a company can't provide these reassurances, the investor should look for one that can.