ENHANCING PROFITS BY NURTURING PEOPLE AND PLANET NHRDN ANNUAL CONFERENCE- MUMBAI NHRDN RESEARCH COMMITTEE: Prof. Dr. Uday Salunkhe, Chairperson, (Group Director- We School) Mr. Vijayan Pankajakshan, co- chair (Director-HR-CHEP India Pvt. Ltd) Mr. Mohandas Nair (Educator) Mr. Vivek Sharma (Training Director, Max HealthCare)
ACADEMIC PARTNER: WeSchool: Dr. Ketna L Mehta (Editor and Associate Dean, Research) Prof. Rimmi Joneja (Associate Dean, HR) Prof. Savitri Kulkarni (Associate Dean & Academic Head, HR) Prof Anuradha Mahesh (Associate Professor, Retail) Prof. Swar Kranti (Faculty, HR) Prof. Paridnya Soman (Faculty, Research) Prof. Rohan Athalye (Faculty, HR) Mr. Suyash Deshpande (Alumnus) Student Team Devanshi Vaishnav Merup Kapadia Anish Sohoni Neha Velani Anuja Misra Darpan Parsekar Neha Gupta Jyotsna Gujral Chintan Shah Adwait Atre
1
INDEX
SERIAL NUMBER
TOPIC
PAGE NUMBER
1
Preface
3
2
Abstract
9
3
Executive Summary
10
4
Triple Bottom Line- The Concept
12
5
TBL Reporting: Global Overview
13
6
Role of HR and Triple Bottom Line
14
7
GRI Reporting Framework
17
8
Globally Responsible Leadership Initiative
18
(GRLI) 9
CSR vs. TBL
20
10
TBL and Ethics
21
11
Literature on Sustainability
22
12
Profit, Planet, People
25
13
The Research
31
14
Methodology
31
15
Findings
32
16
Discussion
40
17
Conclusion
41
18
References
42
19
Appendix
45
2
PREFACE
“A stool is stable only if it has three legs”.
In Indian philosophy, the triad concept of Brahma (the creator), Vishnu (preserver) and Mahesh (destroyer) is the foundation of all life, and represents wholesomeness across generations and centuries. The forces of land, wind, fire, water and have always been as an ecosystem in harmony. All of the above represent the eternal and timeless value of balance and alignment. It means phenomena-living or otherwise- and systems search for that elusive 'perfect or optimum balance'.
The imbalance, over successive generations, was persisted due to the dominant model of development through industrialization and the relentless search for economic profits and surpluses. The test of a first rate business organization was/is almost entirely attributed to the financial numbers that it can deliver on the balance sheet and to the stock market.
The dimension of people, to a lesser extent, and the planet to a ravaging extent, has been ignored. We have now come to a momentous period in our lives, when the planet and its people have raised their loud voices - individually and collectively-against the inequities, misery and not so good outcomes of rampant single track industrialization.
This ‘close to breakdown’ reality has been accelerated by the demise of the big and the small- in the last many months. All ‘strategies of success’ and indicators of excellence have taken a knock on their head like never before. Seemingly, even working in the interest of the shareholders could not save many Humpty’s from falling over in a big heap.
3
Beyond the economic disaster, is the rapid deterioration in faith of the ordinary citizen-anywhere in the world- with his/her leaders, their employers and even the ‘so called regulators? In fact, the surge towards rapid globalization and hence market dominance in any sphere of living, made many governance and regulator institutions defunct or toothless. The psyche of nations, societies, young and old have been severely tested, coping with rapid and widespread job losses, compression in demand, scarcity of capital, weather and other natural catastrophes etc.
Trust has been at an all time low. When trust break down, relationships do not get sustained and strengthened. Sans trust between lenders and users, no value can be added. Trust is the only sustainable lubricant for greater human to human and human to systems interfaces. This alone can lead to generation of greater and better value and raising the quality of outcomes for the eco system of stakeholders.
Business organizations in India and elsewhere have most often chosen- as a default mechanism- the models of business success, leadership, from the West. Decades of education and training of those who are current business leaders and, now, the emerging business professionals have learnt how Wall Street is the supreme arbiter of success. This education, training has ingrained values/beliefs that propagate that it is smartness and intelligence that gets you ahead. Doing the right thing and doing it well, relying on wisdom and core values have been ignored, derided and if followed, more in lip service.
We have come to an important point in history. What is the definition of success for a business? Is success a reflection in the mirror of economic well being? Is economic well being a super set of all other measures of success? There has never been a greater dichotomy in the list of the so called ‘economically developed countries’, ‘the fast developing countries in economic terms’ and the list of countries in the Human Development Index (UN).The UN listing for 2009 is a wake up call that economic powerhouses do not necessarily lead to citizen wellbeing and better quality of life.
India is ranked as low as 134 in a list of 182 countries. In fact, it seems to suggest that those countries with lower intensity of focus on rapid economic growth have turned in higher scores as far as wellbeing is concerned. For example, in the 2009 listing, the top five spots have been occupied by Norway, Australia, Iceland, Canada and Ireland.( In 2000, the top spots were occupied by Norway, Australia, Canada and Sweden.
4
Readers must be aware of Bhutan having developed a 13 attribute driven Happiness Index for its citizens, and economic well being is only one of them.
In 2007, India’s overall ranking in HDI was a dismal 114 out of 128 countries surveyed. In economic participation and opportunities for women, it is 122; in educational attainment it is 116 (41 per cent of Indian women in the 15-49 age group have never been to school); in health and survival rate is 126 (maternal mortality rate is 301 per 100,000 live births) with only Azerbaijan and Armenia lower. Only in political empowerment does it score higher at 21- million and more women elected to Panchayati Raj institutions.
In India, the role played by industrial activity is central to facilitating large numbers of poor people to cross above the poverty line. Our dependence of large number of its citizens on agriculture cannot carry one for ever – for three reasons. Firstly, due to advances in productivity, lesser hands are required to feed the country. Secondly, many of our citizens in villages hold very small tracts of land (not very amenable to automation) and thirdly, agriculture sector is highly vulnerable to lack of rain/ too much of rain/ too little rain too late or too much rain too early.
Hence, leaders who influence industrial activity today and into the future will play a very important role in shaping the development and progress indicators, towards releasing a large proportion of our fellow citizens from the bondage of abject poverty.
The political class has also begun to understand- in no uncertain terms- that good governance is the key and differentiating factor for the voters to select a particular candidate or not. The message is that divisive and emotive subjects are not going to sway their rational thinking. Hence, it is not surprising that the language of the political class, in some quarters at least, is refocusing the agenda. We are hearing louder noises on arresting conspicuous consumption, limiting obscene levels of Executive compensation, pressure to diversity the workforce in companies in a ‘real sense’- beyond quotas and other window dressing. The meta-environment, even beyond our national borders, are also reinforcing the above messages- in some cases, the reality in many of their countries is even starker.
We opine, that, now is the time to focus thinking and thought leadership on how should businesses operate into the future and what would the tomorrow’s company look like? What would be the contours of its design? What will be given more importance than what is being given now? Would
5
relationships between employees and employers, suppliers and companies be increasingly based on mutually shared values based on trust?
Would the means to the end become important? Would new means become more important to current ends? Or would the means remain the same and the end would redefine? The list of possibilities and probabilities are long.
In this context, we are proud and gratified to submit this report, as a contribution to the conference theme. The theme is based on the Triple Bottom Line concept, articulated first by John Elkington. We are fascinated by this frame for a number of reasons:
a) The concept of three, to provide optimum balance b) The realization that planet is as central to our well being, as is profit and people c) It emphasizes, in a dynamic sense, the interdependence of means and ends d) There are organizations that have/are utilizing this frame and have/are experienced/ experiencing better and wholesome results. e) It provides a new lens to aid reframing any of the roles in a Business- be it the Board, CEO or HR Head or for that matter any functional manager or even a shop-floor worker.
We believe that if the Promoters, Board and the CEO redraft their vision/’mental models’ of success, it provides a new wave of ‘unexplored space’ for the organization, its people including the HR profession. It is quite clear that the HR profession has come to an inflexion point, where it should play a more a pivotal role in determining the future of the business or risk being marginalized and confined to the peripheries.
It is not that the above thought processes have come out of the blue. Many distinguished voices in India have alluded to the need for course corrections. However, these voices, hitherto have been outshouted by the louder voices. However, increasingly many more people are listening to these ‘low share of voice but strong signals’.
For e.g., Business World magazine and FICCI have instituted an award, way back in 1999, for companies who have done ‘stellar work and to commend the spirit of using corporate resources, core competencies and funds for the benefit of people and the environment.’
6
Our distinguished PM, Dr. Manmohan Singh articulating a 10 point social charter, way back , in May 2007 said , “in a modern society , business must realize its social responsibility. The time has come to ask what we can give back to India.’(BW, 26th may 2008). In 2008, the following quote appeared‘Today- nimbler CEO’s and promoters assess the consequences of their decisions and actions on various stakeholders.’(BW, May 26th 2008).
‘Social responsibility is a privilege- not a portal for publicity’ said Mr. Keshub Mahindra (ChairmanMahindra & Mahindra) on why his Group maintains a deliberate low profile of its CSR activity (Business World).
Even voices from outside of India have been alluding to a different configuration of thought leadership to shape businesses of tomorrow. e.g.: an article in the HBR talks of four justifications for CSR- moral obligation, sustainability, license to operate and the quest for enhanced reputation. (Harvard Business Review, 2006)
The Centre for Tomorrow’s Company reports, “40% of businesses now believe that a company cannot succeed unless it has accountability wider than shareholders.’(‘Business Ethics- Facing up to the issues’- published by The Economist)
“Hubris , born of success: undisciplined pursuit of more, denial of risk and peril, grasping for salvation with a quick big solution and capitulation to irrelevance and death- offer kind of autopsy for an economy on a stretcher’. Says Jim Collins (Leadership Guru) (article- DNA newspaper)
There is now increasing evidence-quantitative and qualitative – and from multi sources, that those business organizations which have focused on a more holistic and balanced approach have done well over time –financially and otherwise. Hence, there is no doubt that holistic thinking would not lead to superior performance- irrespective of the ‘lens’ used.
For example, Tom Peters and Waterman, in their ground breaking research, published in the best seller, ‘In Search of Excellence” identified a set of companies, who have used excellence as their overarching theme. These companies had outperformed competition on almost all financial metrics.
That list includes many well known names like: 3M, Boeing, Caterpillar, Walt Disney, Intel, Merck, J&J, Pepsi, IBM, Du Pont, Wal-Mart, McDonalds, and P&G. Most of these companies have
7
continued to remain relevant to date and still feature in similar lists- post 25 years of the above research.
In Jim Collins and J Porass’s list of ‘Built to Last- 18 visionary companies- the common names from the Peter & Waterman list are 3M, Boeing, P&G, Wal-Mart, Merck, IBM and J&J. This study was researched competitor performance, in the comparator class and came to the conclusion that the ‘built to last’ companies outperformed the competitor in all financial measurements- even though both were operating in the same business environment and had similar access to threats and opportunities.
In Jim Collins’ earlier research- “Good to Great-‘more than 1435 companies, over a 40 year period, were researched and a list of 11 great companies developed. Many names in this list are not as familiar as global brands example: Abbot Laboratories, Fannie Mae, Kimberly Clark, Nucor, Wells Fargo and Kroger.
According to Covalence Research (headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland), for the first time, IBM reached the top position in its ethical ranking (quarter ending September 2009). It was followed by Intel and HSBC, among 541 multinationals within 18 sectors. IBM benefited from continuous improvement over the last 3 years as well as from its recent green supply chain logistics announcements and new water-cooled supercomputer. Green initiatives, on the positive side, and working conditions and downsizing, on the negative, generated high volumes of news during the last quarter. The most active criteria during Q2 2009 have been: Environmental Impact of Production, Social Sponsorship, Downsizing, International Presence, Eco-Innovative Product, and Information to Consumers. In each of these dramatic, remarkable, good-to-great corporate transformations, we found the same thing: There were no miracle moments. Instead, a down-to-earth, pragmatic, committed-toexcellence process -- a framework -- kept each company, its leaders, and its people on track for the long haul. In each case, it was the triumph of the Flywheel Effect over the Doom Loop, the victory of steadfast discipline over the quick fix. And the real kicker: The comparison companies in our study -- firms with virtually identical opportunities during the pivotal years -- did buy into the change myths
8
described above -- and failed to make the leap from good to great”.(extracts from “Good to Great ‘by Jim Collins).
ABSTRACT This research attempts to study the correlation between financial profits and the planet and people practices of companies which actively practice Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Accounting. It attempts to examine the business sensibility of the sustainability philosophy and its relevance in the long-term for organizations that are practicing it and/or would be practicing it in the near future.
9
ENHANCING PROFITS BY NURTURING PEOPLE AND PLANET
A RESEARCH STUDY on TRIPLE BOTTOMLINE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
“The business of business is growth and profits or else it will die, but if only based on growth and profits then also it will die, for it no longer has a reason for its existence.”
-- Anonymous
Employees, shareholders, customers, suppliers, community, knowledge workers, team – all are different words used to describe one entity –human being. In today’s’ scenario ‘being human’ is more important than just a human being; not just towards one’s organization but also towards the environment and the society as a whole.
Humans are social animals. A society is just not made of people, but the environment that we live in; and to thrive and lead a meaningful life, resources are essential. Resources can be classified as those that are attained from nature, resources that generate monetary benefits and human resources around us; all of which are interdependent.
TBL is an acronym for Triple Bottom Line and is gradually becoming an integral part of our life.
10
TBL as we now know is an accounting practice and standard (John Elkington). TBL will soon become the raison d'etre (reason for existence) for companies.
The objectives of the study were:
* A perception study of TBL practices and their impact on profits in organization * To conduct a baseline study of sustainable best practices in organization * To identify role of CEO/HR Professionals in the TBL activities * To do an exploratory study of TBL practices in organization
This research, under the backdrop of “Reinventing the economy of tomorrow” is a maiden attempt to understand the what, who and how of TBL, and the three Ps –Planet, People and Profits.
This research study was carried out by WeSchool team and the research committee at NHRD network. The aim has been to conduct a quantitative study of the TBL practices followed by organizations and correlate a relationship between Profits and nurturing people and planet. 94 companies were researched and the study found that many innovative people and planet practices exist realizing that both actions and inactions have consequences.
Companies from across all sectors were tapped for this study. The respondent group varied from CEOs to HR Managers. The study concludes with some workman like practical solutions which can be implemented by organizations to become sustainable rather than only profitable. In today’s times corporates cannot narrowly focus on growth and profits for the well being of the organisation. A sustainable organisation is that which proactively nurtures into their vision, mission and core values in alignment with the planet and people.
The journey led to the conclusion that TBL actually means – TO BE LOVED; to "cherish" and "safeguard" what we love, whether it is people, planet and profits.
11
INTRODUCTION TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE - THE CONCEPT Sustainability, specializing in business strategy and sustainable development, introduced a term called the ‘‘Triple Bottom Line’’ (TBL). TBL is a framework for measuring and reporting corporate performance against economic, social and environmental parameters.
The TBL is used ‘‘... to capture the whole set of values, issues and processes that companies must address in order to minimize any harm resulting from their activities and to create economic, social and environmental value.’’
The three communities of TBL are:
1. Community I: Profits- economic rationality-The three bottom lines are all reported but key issues and decisions are made when profits are treated as the lead dog. 2. Community II: People-social justice- Organizations are made by and for people, when people are shown dignity and respect, feel safe and have enough food in their bellies they will take care of the planet and turn the workplace into a profitable and sustainable enterprise. 3. Community III: Ecological rationality- All is for naught if the planet collapses due to global warming or severe resource depletion. As a consequence, planet is the lead dog, social justice follows, and then we must look to profits—without this, we are due short term wins but long term disaster.
Viewing corporate performance using only economic measures is not regarded as sufficient. Stakeholders may be concerned about whether a company is following a socially responsible path
12
and may not want to invest in companies that employ child labour, purchase from companies that operate ‘‘sweat shops’’ for labour, or operate in countries that have questionable political systems/poor human rights records. Similarly, stakeholders are concerned about whether a company is acting in an environmentally friendly way. Global warming, the potential for ecological accidents, as well as the hysteria surrounding events such as’ mad cow disease,’’ have in recent years increased society’s awareness and concern about the quality of the environment, especially the corporation’s role and responsibility in that regard. Thus, it is emphasized in TBL that corporate performance must be measured against not only economic but also social and environmental criteria. In addition, while traditional financial statements primarily focus on profitability and other financial performance, the economic dimension of TBL is intended to capture and present a comprehensive view of corporate economic interactions with all stakeholders including share-holders, customers, employees, governments, the community, and the general public. The scope of the economic interactions with and impacts of the corporation on the stakeholders go beyond those of the traditional financial reports in that issues such as intangible assets gain more weight in TBL reporting.
There is a growing awareness of the necessity for a company to disclose information about its social and environmental performance. Many companies, particularly major multinationals, are working toward a balance between their financial/economic, environmental, and social performance, and are starting to report in all three areas. For example, General Electric recently announced that it would be implementing a major initiative to address environmental issues – particularly global warming and the shortage of water resources. JP Morgan Chase, a leading commercial bank in the United States, announced that it would join a group of other banks to adopt the ‘‘Equator Principles’’ – a set of guidelines for banks to follow when considering loaning money for development when environmentally sensitive issues are involved. Nike published a report outlining working conditions at hundreds of factories where its products are manufactured in an attempt to address criticism about working conditions at the factories.
TBL REPORTING: GLOBAL OVERVIEW
World over, TBL reporting is also known as corporate responsibility or sustainability reporting (KPMG, 2005).
13
Adams et al. (1998) examined corporate social reporting practices for a sample of 150 annual reports from six European countries. They split social disclosures into three categories: environmental reporting, reporting on employee issues, and ethical reporting.
Using content analysis and three measures (total number of items disclosed, the number of items for which either quantified or financial information is disclosed, and the length of the narrative disclosures), their findings indicated that the amount and nature of social disclosure varied significantly across Europe. In particular, the German firms disclosed the most information across all three categories. The UK firms were ranked either second or third behind the Swedish companies with respect to environmental or employee disclosures. In addition, the Swedish firms tended to disclose more quantified information. The Netherlands had the lowest disclosure level in terms of environmental information, and Switzerland disclosed the least across three measures of employee disclosures. Lastly, the results show that firm size and industry membership are important determinants of the level of social disclosures in all six European countries.
Countries with a high social conscience and/or developed capital markets voluntarily disclosed more environmental information. In particular, the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom had the highest disclosure level. Regarding the disclosure forms, the United Kingdom firms were major users of short qualitative discussion (SQD, which is not in the footnotes and less than a page in the annual report), Canadian firms were more likely to use extended qualitative discussion (EQD, which is not in footnotes but includes a page or more), and US firms were the major users of other disclosure forms such as footnote discussion or journal entries recorded in financial statements.
Hackston and Milne (1996) investigate the social and environmental disclosure practices of a sample of New Zealand firms. Their findings indicate that, consistent with prior research for US, UK, and Australian firms, New Zealand firms made most social disclosures on human resources. The environment and community issues also received significant attention. On an average, the amount of social disclosure made by New Zealand firms was about three-quarters of an annual report page, and the majority of the disclosure was declarative and good news in nature. Also, their results showed that both firm size and industry membership were significantly associated with the amount of disclosure, while profitability was not. Craig and Diga (1998) analyzed annual report disclosure practices in five Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries: Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Thailand. Their results indicated that, overall, ASEAN companies appeared reluctant to disclose information that was perceived to be politically or
14
socially sensitive such as information regarding labour and employment activities, environmental programs, and government subsidies. They concluded that corporate reporting in ASEAN was ‘‘oriented strongly towards the information needs of capital providers, rather than the needs of a broader set of stakeholders (including employees, government agencies, and the general community)’’ (p. 257).
ROLE OF HR & TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE
Leaders recognize that business and markets don’t operate in isolation, but are influenced by and have an influence on the environment, communities and society at large. These leaders see their companies as part of an “enterprise” – a rich, growing and continually evolving network of interdependent relationships. And they value the role that their organizations can and should play in enriching that enterprise. This is the essence of cross-enterprise leadership.
Most recently, Professor Klassen examined the reverse supply chain practices of more than 100 Canadian firms. Through a reverse supply chain, firms retrieve used products and materials from customers to recover their value – through recycling, remanufacturing or reselling. The study results demonstrate that when companies leverage their reverse supply chains in this way, they not only reduce the negative environmental impact of waste disposal, they also lower their production costs. In essence, “being green” saves money.
Professor Tima Bansal, who has focused much of her 20 years of research on triple-bottom-line issues, explored how corporate sustainability and social responsibility
affected both a firm’s
reputation and its profitability. Overall, she believes that “Business leaders who chose to ignore pressing social, economic and environmental issues did so at their own considerable peril - and their organizations.” This just isn’t simply a matter of staying in business or safeguarding corporate reputation. It’s about gaining competitive advantage and managing risk by being proactive and responsible. Over the long run, she believes that “it is the pursuit of both societal and economic value that yields long term and stable profits” for companies.
Taryn Vian, et al., provide a fascinating look at how Pfizer partners with global NGOs to create the Pfizer Global Health Fellows, a voluntary initiative that links Pfizer employees with organizations in several parts of the world to do grass-root work on health problems such as HIV-AIDS. The positive
15
benefits for Pfizer employees are noted. This article emphasizes the fact that TBL projects are inherently collaborative and require creation of partnerships, networks, and alliances to maximize benefits. Whether labour unions, NGOs, or supply chain partners, the organization must learn how to work with others to achieve shared ends.
There are many proven examples that the TBL concept is viable and critically important for organizations to understand and adopt. The linkages between initiatives and better performance are already established. A clear effort-performance linkage is enhanced when HR assumes an active leadership role in creating formal, sanctioned, and supported mechanisms, practices, and processes. Doing so requires conceptual clarity and sustained commitment by senior leadership.
There is a key role for the HR function to play in Triple bottom line sustainability i.e. helping generate dialogue, building consensus on the sustainability intent and building alignment capabilities to help realize that intent. Aligning sustainability with the business strategically is extremely crucial since the objective of sustainability is to leverage inclusive stake-holder view to create value for organization and broad global society. In the process, what is sustained is organization as an economic entity, corporate brand & global human welfare. Any sustainable framework utilised in such circumstances acts like a strategically provocative frame to re-orient business growth by broadening conceptions of context and capability. The primary role of leaders in such organizations is to identify opportunities and build organizational commitment. In parallel, organizational values act as a compass to set strategic direction. HR’s dialogue with all stakeholders broaden strategic reference frame and enrol stakeholders in a new direction of an improved way of doing business.
Implications for key HR processes: •
Organization effectiveness/change management: HR needs to drive dialogue on triple bottom line sustainability among senior executives and levels of managers to build consensus on conception of sustainability. Secondly it must develop communication processes to link functional work of all divisions toward key sustainability intent.
•
Strategic human resource planning: Focussing HR strategy content to support business directions under sustainability intent. Substantively aligning human and organizational capital to the sustainability vision and the business strategies.
16
•
Thirdly, developing HR staffing plans to support divestiture and acquisition of new businesses.
•
Talent management/staffing: Meaningfully integrating sustainability intent and objectives into recruitment and selection processes to seek fit and building commitment in new hires. Identifying critical talent families to support current sustainability intent objectives. Thirdly, building a pool of human capital (knowledge, skills) toward sustainability-framed strategies to help create new business opportunities from the inside out.
•
Training & Development: Developing leadership capacity toward sustainability alignment objectives—"role of leaders"—under relevant conception. Infusing development processes (mentoring, career development) with sustainability intent to give context to future capability building. Focus skill-building to support sustainability-framed business objectives.
GRI REPORTING FRAMEWORK
The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is a voluntary, dynamic multi-stakeholder process to “develop and disseminate globally applicable Sustainability Reporting Guidelines.”
GRI provides a template of “sustainability report” for use by various organizations regardless of size, sector, location and experience in preparing sustainability reporting. It is important to note that GRI does not prescribe standards example: Emission targets/similar targets for any single industry/ sector.
It is structured in such a way so as to serve as a toolkit for reporting company and external auditors to measure progress towards sustainable development viz. economic, environmental and social performance. In addition to “sustainability report”, GRI recommends organizations to adopt 11 principles, which are already being used in many organizations; these include such “intangible assets” as reputation, human capital, audibility and capacity to innovate.
An outstanding feature of GRI among other CSR related guidelines and regulations, is a quantitative approach, wherever possible, for measurement of the organization’s direct and indirect impacts (both positive and negative) and commitments. Quantification of a company’s sustainability is made possible through using various performance indicators: i. Economic, ii. Environmental and
17
iii. Social. Economic performance is measured through examining company’s indirect impacts on customers, employees, suppliers, public organizations, etc.
In particular,
the extent
to which a
community might benefit or lose from certain activities or the contribution to GDP is counted as economic externality. Environmental profile is weighted against such categories as products and services, biodiversity, emissions and energy consumption. Social indicator covers such aspects as human rights,
labour relations, diversity and security. This quantitative approach enables report
users to assess the relationship of each organization to the economic, environmental and social systems within which it operates.
The updated version of GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines known as G3 guidelines were published in March 2006. There is no organization governing GRI so far- it is a dynamic process driven by various organizations. The Board of GRI includes 14 members from various stakeholder groups. I includes various Working Groups which track and modify GRI reporting example: gathering inputs and feedbacks, developing recommendations on performance indicators, guide GRI members, etc. As of now more than 2000 companies are reporting using GRI guidelines. Some companies moved from just issuing sustainability reports to publishing a single annual report including environmental and social information. Moreover, GRI became a sole reference point on sustainability reporting for organizations with global presence and impact, such as the OECD, the EU Council of Ministers, the European Commission, WTO and even stock exchanges. GRI is likely to become a “license to operate” for businesses across the globe in the foreseeable future.
GLOBALLY RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP INITIATIVE
Business and Business education for a better world The challenges facing humankind are large, undeniable and global. Economic, social, environmental inequalities abound and are increasing. Businesses are among the most influential institutions worldwide. They have a tremendous opportunity to shape a better world for existing and future generations. Business schools and centers for leadership learning can play a pivotal role, alongside business, in developing the present and future leaders required to ensure that business is a force for good.
The Leadership Challenges Globally responsible leaders’ at all organizational levels face four key challenges. First, they should think and act in a global context. Second, they should broaden their corporate purpose to reflect
18
accountability to society around the globe. Third, they should put ethics at the centre of their thoughts, words and deeds. Fourth, they – and all business schools and centre for leadership learning – should transform their business education to give corporate global responsibility the centrality it deserves.
Re-defining the purpose of business The new global business context requires a definition of business that encompasses corporate aspirations, responsibilities and activities in realistic and contemporary terms that go beyond purely financially focused explanations.
Globally responsible leadership The leadership required now and in the future can be described as globally responsible leadership. This is the global exercise of ethical, values-based leadership in the pursuit of economic and societal progress and sustainable development. It is based on a fundamental understanding of the interconnectedness of the world and recognition of the need for economic and societal and environmental advancement. It also requires the vision and courage to place decision making and management practice in a global context.
Ethical principles Decisions made by globally responsible leaders rely both on their awareness of principles and regulations and on the development of their inner dimension and their personal conscience. These characteristics can be informed and developed through dialogue and debate. Guiding principles that establish a starting point for globally responsible leadership include fairness; freedom; honesty; humanity; tolerance; transparency; responsibility and solidarity; and sustainability. These are not fixed ethical points but need to be constantly refined and developed.
Transforming the business Key action areas through which corporate global responsibility can be nurtured and developed include: •
tuning into the societal and environmental business context;
•
overcoming key organizational, regulatory and societal barriers to change;
•
developing stakeholder engagement skills such as careful listening and the ability to engage in dialogue
•
transforming the culture of the firm by changing attitudes and behaviors;
19
•
understanding the purpose of change;
•
designing change management processes; and,
•
rewarding globally responsible behavior through improved performance measures and systems.
Transforming business education All learning institutions need to make corporate global responsibility their responsibility.
Change
can be driven by inspiring, involving, influencing and interconnecting with internal and external stakeholders. Globally responsible behavior must be internalized within the conduct and activities of the organization. Business education should also be broadened to reflect the global business environment and the knowledge, skills and attributes required of the globally responsible business leader. Corporate global responsibility issues need to be integrated across the business school curriculum, not just in stand-alone courses.
Curricula for both degree and executive programs need to be enriched by topics like: •
analysis of political, social, intellectual, technological and environmental trends;
•
analysis of existing ethical codes and study of successful implementation of organizational ethical codes and principles;
•
the development of globally responsible leader-linked attributes and behaviors (such as integrity, empathy, compassion, dialogue and self-awareness);
•
cross cultural understanding and language skills;
•
social and environmental accounting and reporting; and,
•
Sustainable business practices.
Last but not least, a range of innovative approaches to pedagogy and learning needs to be tested and utilized which engage more of the whole person in the learning experience.
A call for engagement Our vision of the future is of a world where leaders contribute to the creation of economic and societal progress in a globally responsible and sustainable way. Our goal is to develop the current and future generation of globally responsible leaders through a global network of companies and learning institutions. Coordinated through the European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD) and with the support of the UN Global Compact, the Globally Responsible Leadership Initiative will
20
reach its goal by taking action throughout the world on issues of new business practices and learning approaches, advocacy and concept development. Membership of the Initiative offers an opportunity to participate in creating a new generation of globally responsible business leaders and to be a catalyst for changed values and practices regarding corporate global responsibility.
CSR vs. TBL
Corporate social responsibility (CSR), also known as corporate responsibility, corporate citizenship, responsible business, sustainable responsible business (SRB), or corporate social performance, is a form of corporate self-regulation integrated into a business model. Ideally, CSR policy would function as a built-in, self-regulating mechanism whereby business would monitor and ensure its adherence to law, ethical standards, and international norms. Business would embrace responsibility for the impact of their activities on the environment, consumers, employees, communities, stakeholders and all other members of the public sphere. Furthermore, business would proactively promote the public interest by encouraging community growth and development, and voluntarily eliminating practices that harm the public sphere, regardless of legality.
Essentially, CSR is the deliberate inclusion of public interest into corporate decision-making, and the honoring of a triple bottom line: People, Planet, and Profit. Therefore CSR is a subset of TBL.
The practice of CSR is subject to much debate and criticism. Proponents argue that there is a strong business case for CSR, in that corporations benefit in multiple ways by operating with a perspective broader and longer than their own immediate, short-term profits. Critics argue that CSR distracts from the fundamental economic role of businesses; others argue that it is nothing more than superficial window-dressing; others argue that it is an attempt to pre-empt the role of governments as a watchdog over powerful multinational corporations.
TBL & ETHICS
TBL benefits are unlikely to ensue in an environment where board members and Top Management regard ethics as a soft issue on the periphery of their organization’s main business concerns. If boards are to begin seeing the real significance and value of codes of conduct, a paradigm shift of sorts is required, a shift that eliminates the distinction between core business interests and ethical concerns. Only when business organizations begin to appreciate that ethical concerns are intimately interwoven
21
with all business decisions and actions will their codes of conduct become ‘living documents’. The parallelism holds special reference to application of the triple bottom line measurement of business and aligning with the GRI.
An analysis of some of the objections that are typically raised against the employment of codes of conduct will reveal how a failure to acknowledge the crucial interdependency of business and society is instrumental in stripping codes of their potential significance and value. It will also demonstrate how fragmentation in the way that an organization manages its various business relationships, as well as a lack of congruence between its code statements and actual business practice, diminish the ability of its code to affect business decision-making. It will be argued that the success of codes of conduct relies on a social grammar that emphasizes interrelatedness, interdependency and integrity in all business operations. In a business environment saturated with the logic of self-interest, individualism and fragmentation, codes will become essentially meaningless. What is needed to transform such a radically atomized and ruthlessly competitive environment is a change of mindset. Of course, it is never a simple affair to alter the entrenched habits of the mind.
The introduction of the triple bottom-line reporting in various parts of the world is a promising indicator that business practitioners around the world are beginning to invest more in the restoration of a social grammar that articulates the proper role and position of business in society. Triple bottomline reporting addresses some of the main issues and concerns around global codes of conduct. Its main thrust is to emphasize the importance of contextual relevance, stakeholder relationships and integrity in all business operations. Three concepts that are central to triple bottom-line reporting include stake-holder engagement, organizational integrity and stakeholder activism which could be used to reconstruct a ‘social grammar’ that would place business in a more sustainable relationship with society.
LITERATURE ON SUSTAINABILITY
In his book called Cannibals with Forks, John Elkington (Elkington, 1997) looks at sustainability as the three forks: economic prosperity, environmental quality and social justice. He identified seven revolutions which are already beginning to transform the world of business and drive major corporations and leading economies towards these goals.
22
Revolution 1: Market - Revolution 1 will be driven by competition, largely through markets. Domestic and international will blend to bring out major economic challenges for products and services that organizations will provide.
Revolution 2: Values - Business will have to adjust from the transition from “hard” commercial values to “softer” triple bottom line values. Focus shall be more from changing the engineering of manufacture to attitudes and behavior of people
Revolution 3: Transparency - Revolution 3 will be fueled by growing international transparency and will accelerate. As a result, business will find its thinking, priorities and commitments and activities under increasing scrutiny worldwide. The transparency revolution now will be “out of control”.
Revolution 4: Life-cycle technology - Revolution 4 will be driven by and will be in turn driving the transparency revolution. We are seeing a shift from companies focusing on the acceptability of their products at the point of sale to their performance from cradle to the grave, i.e. from the extraction of raw materials right through to recycling or disposal.
23
Revolution 5: Partnerships - Revolution 5 will dramatically accelerate the rate at which new forms of partnership springing up between companies, including leading campaigning groups.
Revolution 6: Time - Revolution 6 will promote a profound shift in the way we understand and manage time. An incident occurring at one point on the globe is reported almost instantaneously across the globe. We find more and more happenings every minute of every day. The current time is becoming “wider”. However, the sustainability agenda is pushing us in the other direction, towards “long” time, i.e. needing to think across decades, generations and in some instances, centuries.
Revolution 7: Corporate Governance - Ultimately, whatever the drivers, the triple bottom line agenda is the responsibility of the corporate board. Revolution 7 is being driven by each of the other revolutions. It was observed that better the system of corporate governance, the greater the chance that we build towards genuinely sustainable capitalism.
In their book on Triple Bottom Line, Savitz and Weber prefer the word sustainability to the word responsibility emphasizing that the latter speaks more about benefit to the society instead of benefit to the company. The need to be pragmatic and not just altruistic seems to be the need of the day (Jossey & Bass, 2006). The book also talks about how sustainability is only a transitory phase and gradually would lead to planet and people being seamlessly integrated in the company’s strategy. The need to measure the environmental and social factors quantitatively is also mentioned in the book (Chennel, 2006). Richard Stengel in the TIME magazine (Stengel, 2009) observes that in American companies and American markets as its base. It looks at redefining sustainability by asking companies to respond to financial incentives and not do it because it is just a nice thing to do.
From a consumer point of view, it divides Americans into 3 varieties – •
Responsibles – Constitute 38 % of Americans. They are well off but not wealthy. They are concerned about the environment but more so about federal taxes for social causes. They are the youngest and the most diverse of the lot.
•
Toe-Dippers – The belief in the principles of responsible consuming but do not act on many of them.
•
Skeptics – They are the oldest of the lot and believe that the purpose of business is only to do business.
24
The article thus tries to convey that whether or not you are philanthropic, sustainable business is the way of the future as the markets and the consumers would also respond to it.
PROFIT
The word profit comes from Latin meaning ‘to make progresses. It is normally defined in two ways – accounting and economic profit. While the former is the difference between the price and the costs, the latter is the difference between the revenue and the opportunity costs.
Optimum profit refers to just the right amount of profit a business can achieve. Any profit below it would follow the theory of exploitation where in profits would be pocketed just by an elite section of the society and the creation of capital for a socio-economic augmentation would cease to happen. (Guevara, 1964)
Thus, the need for sustainable profit not just as a philanthropic notion but as a way of sustaining the socio-economic factors becomes critical. One school of thought states that sustainable business with a TBL-like investment will reduce the uncertainty. Another school of thought states that brand value will be associated with sustainability. Thus, just like brand value is included in the company’s evaluation, so can be done with sustainability. Another point of view is that with the increasing shortage of resources in the near future, sustainability and conservation will become financially viable. (Heskett, 2008) Profits thus seem to share some relationship to sustainable business practices. A point of view (Cullinane, 2008) stated that sustainability is a method of harvesting in a resource so that the resource is not depleted and in the long-term helps sustain business.
A recent McKinsey report listed that there are 250 reduction opportunities in 5 different categories of greenhouse gas abatement. Out of these, 50 % had negative cost associated with them. Negative costs can generate cash and thus a little alignment to sustainability can help one generate economic profits.
25
The article (Heskett, 2008) continually reinstates the fact that sustainability and maximum profits are not mutually exclusive especially if the sustainability aspect is integrated right at the beginning in the way we do business. Moving to the concept of profitability, it is a relative index with profit as the numerator and assets as its denominator. A sustainable strategic path might increase the denominator in the short-term but will increase the numerator in the long-term thus maintaining the balance between income and expenditure. In some scenarios, a sustainable initiative can actually help reduce the denominator directly as one goes for more cost-effective assets.
Let us understand 2 cases – that of Exxon Mobile with profits of $ 40 billion which are comparatively huge if compared to the company’s environmental record. On the other hand, Interface Inc., a truly visionary company when it comes to sustainable development is profitable but not quoted on the stock markets so often.
Thus, with profitability as the common end goal, companies clearly have a choice of integrating sustainable growth. But the future will decide whether the choice remains.
PLANET “Planet” also referred to as Natural Capital, deals with sustainable environmental practices. It is an extension of the economic notion of capital to environment and the products that emerge out of the natural ecosystem.
The term was most closely identified with Herman Daly, Robert Costanza, the Biosphere 2 project, and the Natural Capitalism economic model of Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and Hunter Lovins. "Cradle to grave" is uppermost in the thoughts of TBL manufacturing businesses which typically conduct a life cycle assessment of products to determine what the true environmental cost is from the growth and harvesting of raw materials to manufacture to distribution to eventual disposal by the end user.
It is a well accepted fact that environmental sustainability is the more profitable course for a business in the long run. Arguments that it costs more to be environmentally sound are often invalid when the
26
course of the business is analyzed over a period of time. Generally, sustainability reporting metrics are better quantified and standardized for environmental issues than for social ones. A number of respected reporting institutes and registries exist including the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), CERES, Institute 4 Sustainability and others.
A concept of Ecological footprint is essential when studying the Planet aspect of TBL. It is a measure of human demand on Earths ecosystem. The ecological footprint concept and methodology was developed by Mathis Wackernagel under Prof. William E.Rees at the University of British Columbia, Canada (1990-1994). Originally the concept was termed as “Appropriated carrying capacity”. Ecological footprint analysis compares human requirement with planets need to regenerate and thus support resource demand. This is done by assessing the biologically productive Land and Marine area that is required to produce resources that the population consumes and absorb the corresponding waste generated as a result of the day to day technological operations.
For example: manufacturing of a product will result in consumption of certain raw materials which would in turn result in generation of a finished product and waste. If the waste generated is toxic in nature, it will have an adverse impact on the environment. Measuring this impact is the core essence of ecological footprint and hence it has fast become a popular accounting standard in Planet aspect of TBL.
A Company which undertakes TBL accounting into consideration ensures that its operations benefit or at the most create no harm to the Planet. A TBL enterprise reduces its ecological footprint by carefully measuring and managing its consumption of energy and reducing wastage and disposing it in safe and legal manner. To set the context a little more, the authors behind the Ecological Footprints concept have come up with the notion of the “Earthshare”, which is the bio-productive area of the world divided by its total population (it amounts to around 1.92 “area units” or ha, currently). Ideally, any institution attempting sustainability needs to manage its processes so that, over time, it can demonstrate that it is living well within the Earthshare, and thus living sustainably.
When embarking on sustainability through Planet initiatives, Ecological Footprint offers a quantitative instrumental analysis of an Organization. Once this is done the enterprise needs to focus on human side of engaging people and accepting that there may be disparities in views about what should actually happen in practice. In this context, the use of facilitators to draw together the best possible solutions, no matter where they originate from within the organization is important (Kaner et
27
al., 1996, Shivakoti et al., 1997; Warburton, 1996) though it is accepted that this will need doing with both wisdom and care (Cooke and Kothari, 2001).
This is where the role of Human Resource professionals will play a crucial role in understanding the perceived challenges and institutional barriers However, perhaps the most important may be at personal, psychological level, where people are trying to understand Planet sustainability against an almost continual background of anti-sustainability rhetoric (e.g. see Jucker, 2002).
PEOPLE
Gary Becker, the Noble prize winning economist quotes that in today’s modern industrialized economy, around 75-80 % of a person’s output comes from human capital as opposed to land or machinery. The increased usage of the term ‘capital’ appended to human beings is indicative of not just the importance but also the measurability of the ‘people factor’ in and around organizations today.
In sectors like I.T. and Telecom, it is knowledge workers who are employed. In that case, human capital remains not just a part of capital but also the critical component that forms the basis of all other forms of capital.
In the I.T. sector, research (Mahalingam, 2001) classified human capital into five broad areas: domain expertise, technology, project management, initiative and leadership. This was a skill-based division to measure the breadth of human capital. To measure the depth of experience, four levels of expertise were established: exposed experienced, expert and excellent (Mahalingam, 2001).
He further hinted towards measurability indicating that be it a skill or experience, the capital value can be calculated by measuring the returns on it over a period of time. For example – measuring the revenue per person (for a job profile) Lev & Schwartz advocated the estimation of future earnings during the remaining life of the employee and then arriving at the present value by discounting the estimated earnings at the employee's cost of capital. Many Indian companies like Infosys and BHEL use it to benchmark the efficiency of their human resources with other companies.
28
Capital can also be forecasted by valuing each relevant competency at a point of time. Every person possessing some/all of these competencies forms the sum measure of the value perceived of these competencies at that point of time.
The human capital theory (Sakamota & Powers, 1995; Psacharopoulos & Woodhall, 1997) states that formal education is highly instrumental and even necessary to improve the production capacity of a population. Economists (Psacharopoulos & Woodhall, 1997) also assert that human resources are the ultimate wealth of nations and that they are active agencies which accumulate capital, exploit natural resources, build social, economic and political organization, and carry forward national development.
This clearly indicates that to enjoy long-term benefit, organizations would not just have to look at developing the internal human capital (Mahalingam, 2001) but they would also have to look at broader bases like human resource development of the nation and community education (Sakamota & Powers, 1995) for their own sustainability.
The increased impetus on sustainability initiatives in the last few years is noteworthy. Organizations today are emphasizing societal values in their values, marketing strategies, structures and functions. (Karna et al., 2003). Kopperi (Kopperi, 1999) points out that people who work in business should consider how their economical decisions affect other people, the environment and the society. The concept of societal marketing (Kotler & Keller, 2006) reiterates that companies will be differentiated from their competitors based on how they preserve or enhance not just the customer’s but also the society’s wellbeing.
Research (Oliveira, 2006) established a lot of areas of convergence where in societal marketing and strategic marketing meet. •
Both of them rise above being mere functions and are suggestive as a way of doing business.
•
Both are long-term in nature with the impetus on preparing the organization and its environment in regards to forthcoming events.
•
Both work in favor of stakeholders; a concept broader than customers. Stakeholders include the community and the society around the organization.
29
Aditya Birla Corporation has targeted rural and tribal areas for development with a focus on healthcare, sustainable livelihood, education, infrastructure and espousing social causes. Each project has a 1 yr and 3 yr rolling plan. They have crossed 3700 villages and have reached to 7 million people annually.
Rural marketing and rural entrepreneurship (Markley et al.) also opens up big avenues for merging people practices into the strategy of a company. All of this is suggestive of a wider definition of human capital and social sustainability which is not restricted to corporate social responsibility.
Strategic initiatives harmonizing, developing and utilizing the human capital in and around the organization ends up being mutually beneficiary for the organization. From being a voluntary participatory mode, today sustainability initiatives demand continuous employee participation to
avoid it fromthe being a one-time E-Choupal, world's largest activity. rural digital infrastructure empowers 4 million farmers, Social and Farm Forestry programs that have cumulatively generated 40 million man-days of employment for poor tribals and marginal farmers, and Watershed Development programmes that irrigate nearly 44,000 hectares. The Company’s community engagement projects encompass Rural Supplementary Education reaching out to over 1,80,000 children, Women Empowerment programmes that have created over 20,000 rural women entrepreneurs and Integrated Livestock Development services provided to over 2,70,000 milch animals.
Houdre (Houdre, 2009) has suggested four means of engaging the employees more in sustainability initiatives. It starts from communicating to the employees the intent of the sustainability with it having a more strategic perspective. This is followed by the accountability part which speaks about assigning committees and process-owners to do the job. The third step talks about setting roadmaps and frequent measurability which would help one know where one’s heading. The fourth talks about recognition to employees who actively are aligned to the sustainability strategy.
A unique kind of ESOPs (Employee Social Options) was launched to enable Mahindra & Mahindra employees to enroll themselves into social activities of their choice.
From a Triple Bottom Line (TBL) point of view, it is clear that the people aspect of it has more to do with integrating societal growth and human capital development with strategy and making it a way of doing things and not just random initiatives of philanthropy.
30
It would be interesting to look at the measurability of these people practices and examine their linkages with financial profits post their integration with the organization’s strategy.
THE RESEARCH
Title – Enhancing profits by nurturing people and planet. Hypothesis Ho: Organizations perceive a relationship amongst people, planet and profit practices. Ha: Organizations do not perceive a relationship amongst people, planet and profit practices. Purpose – To find practical (application-oriented) ways of building sustainable Indian organizations and societies.
Deliverables: a) A perception study of Triple Bottom Line practices (people and planet) and their impact on profits in organizations b) To document, based on baseline study, sustainable best practices in organizations. c) To identify the role of CEO/Company Board/Parent Company/HR Professional in the Triple Bottom Line activities d) To do an exploratory study of Triple Bottom Line practices in organizations.
METHODOLOGY The research methodology used in this study was survey research. The research instrument used was a questionnaire. The questionnaire developed was both web hosted and circulated in hard copy format among the respondents. Few face to face interviews were also conducted. The questionnaire format was quantitative which used Likert Scale and qualitative (openended) as well. The survey was web hosted on www.surveymonkey.com to ensure wide reach over large geographically dispersed respondents and being as paper free as possible.
31
Respondent mix: This included all India NHRD databases of approximately 13,000 members, We School database, and the research team’s personal contacts. Mainly respondents above general manager level designation were approached in order to gauge the understanding and existence of strategic TBL amongst senior management members since strategic decision making in businesses usually follows a top down approach. Almost all respondents are Indian companies. Rest are Indian subsidiaries of foreign multinational companies. The sample size was 94 and 56.2 % of the questionnaires were fully complete.
FINDINGS
1. Respondent profile: Response Percent CEO 6.4% President 6.4% MD 10.6% Head-HR 70.2% CXO 6.4% Other: includes Associate, analyst, Director, Dean, DGM, Manager, GM, Deputy CEO, VP. Answer Options
2. Key Initiatives taken in the last 5 years to increase profits, include: COST REDUCTION Video conferencing Operational efficiency
SRATEGIC INITIATIVES/ INNOVATIONS Investment in technology Research focus
Move up the value chain Cost control
Improvement in SCM Global delivery models
War on waste
Launching
MARKETING INITIATIVES
H.R/QUALITY
OTHERS
Brand building exercise Expand into different verticals End to end solutions Strategic accounts and brand equity New markets
downsizing
Employing a consultant Automation
Focus on quality initiatives Reorganization of structure Talent factory
M&A Inv in technology
Investing in
32
Management of overheads
Resource rationalization Process improvement
innovative solutions Sustainability driven business and strategic adoption Strategic shift in biz model Process reengineering
Eco friendly products and run on alternate fuels
talent New products and services
Organisational effectiveness and reorganization
Co promotion initiatives Greater customer focus and customer centricity Identification of customer pain points, eliminating loss making clients, hiving off divisions, expand into new geographical markets
New leadership structure/team Employee empowerment
Employee connect, value cascade, review skill sets for future, change management xxxxxxx, Q3C, freeze on recruitment, succession planning, capacity building in people, international exposure.
Sectors included in the survey: Logistics & Shipping, Hospitality, Telecom, Banking & Financial services, Pharma, Manufacturing and heavy industry, Consulting, Information technology, Media & advertising, educational institutions, Telecom etc.
3. Perceived definition of ‘people’ to respondents: Answer Options Employee Customer Shareholders Government Community Knowledge Resources (Professional bodies, educational institutes etc) Others Other (please specify):
Response Percent 62.8% 41.5% 36.2% 21.3% 43.6% 29.8% 18.1%
33
What does the word "People" mean to your organization? Please select. 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% Others
Community
Shareholders
Employee
0.0%
4. Perceived definition of ‘planet’ to respondents: Answer Options Energy resources Air supply Water resources Noise Flora & Fauna Climatic conditions Others Other (please specify)
Response Percent 68.1% 34.0% 47.9% 18.1% 41.5% 50.0% 25.5%
34
What does the word "PLANET" mean to your organization? Please select. 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Energy resources
Air supply
Water resources
Noise
Flora & Fauna
Climatic conditions
Others
5. People & planet practices undertaken in organizations sampled: Popular people practices for employees like work life balance, succession planning, employee satisfaction annual survey, leadership building, diversity measures, integrated online performance management system coupled with reward management scheme, improved talent management programs, supplier selection & development ensuring that significant share of inputs sourced from those located close to the company's operation/unit. Employee engagement, community building practices in the vicinity of the organization. Group medical insurance, interest free loans for social upliftment, extra long maternity and paternity leave, flexi hours on request, company annual day get together for better interpersonal communication at work. Popular planet practices included reduced energy and water consumption, effective waste management, planting trees, streamlining with ISO 14000, UL, CSA, VDE, SEMKO, TUV and CE certification norms, reducing physical travel as much as possible, partnering with NGO’s. Employee Social Obligation Plans, using CFL bulbs, infra red sensors on all water taps, recycling paper and printing only when necessary, OHSAS 18001 & SA 8000 certification & their maintenance, effective interaction with SPCB & CPCB, incineration of global warming chemicals, monitoring and reducing effluent discharge.
6. List of people and planet practices that ARE PERCEIVED TO have had a significant impact on profits: PLANET Cutting down energy Sustainable biz solutions Community awareness
35
Tech for waste/water Cost rationalization Go green initiative Carbon footprints Waste management Recycling PEOPLE Investment in technology and development Leadership development CSR, non profit organization Employee welfare programme Customer workshop Employee engagement practices Supplier solution and development Incentives based compensation Rewarding innovative ideas Inclusive development
7. Perception of the importance given to various practices in their organizations: Practices Practices in enhancing economic value generated & equitable distribution amongst all stakeholders. Practices in integrating environmental impact while designing products/services, including packaging. Practices in promoting organizational learning through R&D, improvement initiatives, involving stakeholders for ideas and inputs, best practice sharing and benchmarking. Practices in Supplier selection & Development including ensuring significant share of inputs sourced from those located close to the company's operation/unit. Practices in providing infrastructural investments & services, primarily for community/larger public good. Practices in contributing to charitable causes. Practices in upgrading the learning of all stakeholders through training, education, development. Workforce & customer community Diversityrace/religion/color/gender/nationality/disability/sexual preferences/age/geographic origin/skills/different ideas, thinking, academic disciplines & perspectives. Human rights & labour law practices towards all stakeholders. Practices on co-operative initiatives in Technology, Operating standards, developing visions-scenarios. Practices on relations with legislators & regulatorsincluding political parties & government regulators. Practices related to stakeholder engagement including customer satisfaction measurement, promoting customer retention & loyalty & customer advocacy to recommend your brand/product
Not important
Somewhat important
Important
Very important
N/A
Rating Average
1.3%
12.0%
34.7%
52.0%
0.0%
3.37
5.3%
6.7%
26.7%
54.7%
6.7%
3.40
2.7%
9.3%
24.0%
62.7%
1.3%
3.49
5.3%
14.7%
38.7%
34.7%
6.7%
3.10
5.3%
20.0%
36.0%
30.7%
8.0%
3.00
9.5%
16.2%
39.2%
29.7%
5.4%
2.94
4.1%
5.5%
24.7%
64.4%
1.4%
3.51
8.0%
9.3%
33.3%
46.7%
2.7%
3.22
2.7%
6.7%
33.3%
53.3%
4.0%
3.43
1.3%
9.3%
45.3%
42.7%
1.3%
3.31
6.7%
21.3%
44.0%
24.0%
4.0%
2.89
5.3%
5.3%
22.7%
60.0%
6.7%
3.47
36
offerings.
8. Perception of the implementation of the above practices in their organizations: Answer Options Practices in enhancing economic value generated & equitable distribution amongst all stakeholders. Practices in integrating environmental impact while designing products/services, including packaging. Practices in promoting organizational learning through R&D, improvement initiatives, involving stakeholders for ideas and inputs , best practice sharing and benchmarking. Practices in Supplier Selection& development, including ensuring significant share of inputs sourced from those located close to the company’s operation/unit. Practices in providing infrastructural investments & services, primarily, for community/larger public good. Practices in contributing to charitable causes. Practices in upgrading the learning of your workforce( includes all stakeholders) through training, education and development opportunities. Practices in valuing and benefiting from “Diversity� in workforce hiring and serving customer communities variables including race/religion/color/gender/nationality/Disability/sexual preferences/age/geographic origin/skill characteristics/difference in ideas, thinking, academic disciplines & perspectives. Practices towards Associates (includes suppliers, outsourcers, contractors) engagement, to ensure they follow letter and spirit of the law, including labor laws and Human Rights. Practices on cooperative initiatives in Technology, Operating standards, developing visions-scenarios. Practices on relations with legislators & regulatorsincluding political parties & government regulators. The organization works against corruption in all forms, including extortion and bribery. Practices related to stakeholder engagement-including customer satisfaction measurement, promoting customer retention &loyalty & customer advocacy to recommend your brand/product offerings etc.
No progress
Good start
Significant progress
Benchmark in industry
Rating Average
2.7%
53.3%
40.0%
4.0%
2.45
9.5%
41.9%
39.2%
9.5%
2.49
8.0%
33.3%
52.0%
6.7%
2.57
13.3%
54.7%
28.0%
4.0%
2.23
23.0%
33.8%
37.8%
5.4%
2.26
14.9%
44.6%
33.8%
6.8%
2.32
5.3%
37.3%
49.3%
8.0%
2.60
8.0%
54.7%
30.7%
6.7%
2.36
11.0%
42.5%
42.5%
4.1%
2.40
2.7%
54.0%
39.2%
4.1%
2.45
20.0%
37.3%
33.3%
9.3%
2.32
8.0%
34.7%
49.3%
8.0%
2.57
9. Perception of the importance given to various practices in their organizations: Answer Options Practices -Reducing noise created by operations/manufacturing. Practices-reducing air emissions in production/related processes. Practices-minimizing the quantity of key input materials used and reduction of
Not important
Somewhat important
Important
Very important
N/A
Rating Average
12.9%
11.4%
17.1%
25.7%
32.9%
2.83
8.5%
12.7%
14.1%
33.8%
31.0%
3.06
4.3%
4.3%
36.2%
31.9%
23.2%
3.25
37
waste in output. Practices -reuse/recycling –including Percentage and major inputs used. Practices-reducing the consumption of key energy source in manufacturing/operations. Practices-reducing the consumption of water and the quantity of effluents. Practices-minimizing the contamination of land, arising from operations of the company and remedification. Practices -to protect/restore-endangered immediate environmentPlant/Animal/Cultural/Historical. Practices-minimizing the transportation of materials and goods. Practice on collecting back sold productsafter its life- for reuse and/or environmentally sound disposal. Practices – environment spending, accounting.
2.9%
12.9%
30.0%
40.0%
14.3%
3.25
2.9%
11.4%
22.9%
42.9%
20.0%
3.32
4.3%
12.9%
28.6%
38.6%
15.7%
3.20
8.5%
9.9%
18.3%
33.8%
29.6%
3.10
7.0%
11.3%
25.4%
29.6%
26.8%
3.06
5.6%
18.3%
33.8%
23.9%
18.3%
2.93
9.9%
21.1%
21.1%
19.7%
28.2%
2.71
5.7%
5.7%
45.7%
28.6%
14.3%
3.13
10. Perception of the implementation of the above practices in their organizations: Answer Options Practices -Reducing noise created by operations/manufacturing. Practices-reducing air emissions in production/related processes. Practices-minimizing the quantity of key input materials used and reduction of waste in output. Practices -reuse/recycling –including Percentage and major inputs used. Practices-reducing the consumption of key energy source in manufacturing/operations. Practices-reducing the consumption of water and the quantity of effluents. Practices-minimizing the contamination of land, arising from operations of the company and remedification. Practices -to protect/restore-endangered immediate environmentPlant/Animal/Cultural/Historical. Practices-minimizing the transportation of materials and goods. Practice on collecting back sold products- after its life- for reuse and/or environmentally sound disposal. Practices – environment spending, accounting.
No progress
Good start
Significant process
Benchmark in industry
Rating Average
35.3%
26.5%
32.4%
5.9%
2.09
30.9%
32.4%
32.4%
4.4%
2.10
20.6%
33.8%
39.7%
5.9%
2.31
21.7%
43.5%
29.0%
5.8%
2.19
22.4%
37.3%
32.8%
7.5%
2.25
20.3%
37.7%
36.2%
5.8%
2.28
30.3%
33.3%
31.8%
4.5%
2.11
30.3%
39.4%
24.2%
6.1%
2.06
29.4%
45.6%
20.6%
4.4%
2.00
36.2%
39.1%
21.7%
2.9%
1.91
23.2%
39.1%
33.3%
4.3%
2.19
38
11. Does your organization evaluate Best Practices for people & planet initiatives in terms of cost-benefit? Yes: 50% No: 50% 12. Organization's experience with respect to evaluating Best Practices for people and planet initiatives in terms of cost-benefit? Answer Options People initiatives Planet initiatives
No benefit
Only adds to costs
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
8.8%
No gain no loss
Successful
Highly successful
38.2%
17.6% 17.6%
38.2%
8.0% 14.7%
No concrete figures of how implementing any of the benchmark practices have impacted the bottom line. The respondents mention few of the practices being imbibed by their organization to make a difference/from a CSR perspective however the absolute quantification of the same in terms of their impact on the company’s bottom line is not stated.
13. Functional responsibility for TBL in respondent companies: HR 26%
FIN 9.25%
MKTG 12.96%
OPS 9.25%
OTHERS 44%
14. Designations as perceived by respondents handling TBL activities in their respective companies: CEO 9.25%
FH 11.1%
VP MD 12.96% 5.5%
ED 3.7%
DIR 5.5%
CFO 1.8%
GM 3.7%
CLO 1.8%
NA 35%
OTHERS 9.69%
FH: Functional head CLO: Chief legal officer
15. Does your organization currently have any major Triple Bottom Line initiative in the pipeline? -Yes: 40.7%, No: 59.3% 65.7% of these 40% feel some major TBL initiative would be implemented within the next 5 years. 75.9% respondents believe that their organization does not have any reporting mechanism with a national or international body specifically for triple bottom line initiatives. Of the 24.1% respondents who do believe such reporting exists, they stated reporting of the likes of Tatas Business Excellence Model, Global Compact, Global Reporting Index, World Economic Forum, G3 Guidelines of USEPA.
39
16. Does your company have any reporting mechanism with a national or international body, specifically for triple bottom line initiatives? Yes: 24.9 % No: 75.1 %
DISCUSSION
To begin, it is evidently clear that today companies do not just look at cost reduction when it comes to maintaining profitability. The impetus is clearly on income generation as the various initiatives focus on making new business developments, marketing and HR interventions and quality enhancements. Process improvements, recycling of products and a more holistic understanding of business seems to be the popular practices for profitability maintenance in these economic times. The findings reinstate that this is perhaps a good time to introspect on the way we function and integrate changes which bring in greater internal stability.
The fact that the majority of the employees handling sustainability initiatives are HR indicates that the sustainability drive is still in the corporate social responsibility mould and a minority with the top management is indicative of the fact that the perception of sustainability is still social and not strategic. TBL would account for greater top management interest in the integration and each function spearheading it in the implementation.
Social responsibility is further reinstated in the perception of ‘people’ being viewed as employees followed by community. With a move towards TBL, we can look at changing this perception to stakeholders being viewed as ‘people’. Perceptions of what ‘planet’ is are more inclusive. However, the nature of planet initiatives focused more on how to not waste resources and on going green. Greater effort should be taken on ‘doing things’ in a planet friendly way instead of it being restricted to a waste reduction, planting trees. The same needs to be made more measurable by getting in quality systems and auditory measures. ‘People practices’ were well-implemented with developmental activities being carried out for the employees as well as for the community. However, while this is done for employees with due diligence and measurability, we need to ask whether the same is done for the community as a social initiative or as a strategic initiative to actually develop and build human capital.
People and planet practices in organizations were perceived high on a relative scale of importance. However, there were gaps seen almost everywhere when it came to the implementation part of it. The
40
gap between the perceived importance of certain people practices and their actual implementation is 25.71 %. The gap between the perceived importance of planet practices and their actual implementation is 30.54 %. This means there is a consistent perceived reduction in that which is ideally perceived and that which is actually implemented though the intent of sustainability is genuine. This is clearly indicative of a fact that the initiatives might have individual agreement but not an organization-wide implementation. The second dimension to this agreement is the lack of measurability which makes it difficult for people to capture the extent of implementation. This was reinstated by the 50 % response to the cost-benefit analysis which is important from a TBL perspective. Out of the 50 % who do, around 48 % (average) felt that the proposition was actually beneficial while around 34 % were neutral in their comments. This is fairly good as in most cases; TBL initiatives are long-term and would take some time to actually manifest the benefits. The fact that only 40 % of the sample size have a TBL mechanism in place opens the window of opportunity for other companies to check how aligned are they to doing business in line with sustainability. If they are not, it is a good time to start reconsidering the strategy and getting a reporting mechanisms like GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) in place. The level of pro-activity and time will decide whether companies imbibe sustainability as a smart strategic move or as a means for survival.
CONCLUSION
The research focused on the perceptual measures of people and planet practices and the impact they make to profits. While there was a plethora of people and planet practices in organizations, the need to strategically align it to increase profits was missing. Besides this, the need to use global reporting mechanisms to give measurability to ones sustainability efforts also came out strongly.
However, the perceptual relationship between profits, people and planet being positive points towards exploring TBL more seriously in Indian organizations. Further research can be undertaken through exploratory research on how organizations can take TBL forward not just as a philosophy but as a strategic implementation tool in line with their business and the Indian context.
41
REFERENCES
Alberta, C. Moving towards Sustainability – Rural Entrepreneurship and Triple Bottom Line. Pp. 13.
Adams, C., Frost, C. and Webber, W. (2004), “Triple bottom line: a review of the literature”, in Henriques, A. and Richardson, J. (Eds), The Triple Bottom Line – Does it all Add Up?, Earthscan, London, pp. 17-25.
Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2004), “Doing better at doing good: when, why and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives”, California Management Review, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 9-24.
Beckette Robert & Jonker Jane ,”Accountability 1000: a new social standard for building sustainability”, Managerial Auditing Journal 17/1/2 [2002] 36-42
Berthelot, S., D. Cormier and M. Magnan, ‘‘Environmental Disclosure Research: Review and Synthesis,’’ Journal of Accounting Literature 22 (2003), pp. 1–44.
Carol Stephenson, C. (2008). “Boosting the Triple Bottom Line,” Ivey Business Journal.
CERES – The Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies, USA
Corporate Social Responsibility: A Global Profile. Institute for Financial Management and Research Centre for Development Finance.
Craig Deegan, Barry J. Cooper and Marita Shelly,” An investigation of TBL report assurance statements: UK and European evidence” Managerial Auditing Journal Vol. 21 No. 4, 2006 pp. 329371
Craig, R. and J. Diga, ‘‘Corporate Accounting Disclosure in ASEAN,’’ Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting 9(3) (1998), pp. 246–274.
D. Jamali,” Insights into triple bottom line integration from a learning organization perspective” Business Process Management Journal Vol. 12 No. 6, 2006 pp. 809-821
42
Elkington, J. (1997). “Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business”, Capstone, London.
Global Reporting Initiative www.globalreporting.org
Hackston, D. and M. Milne, ‘‘Some Determinants of Social and Environmental Disclosures in New Zealand Companies,’’ Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 9(1) (1996), pp. 77–108.
Hart, S. (1995), “A natural-resource-based view of the firm”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 986-1014
Houdre, H, (2009). Four Ways to Engage Staff in Sustainable Development. Hotel News Now.
Isaksson Raine & Garvare Rickard, “Measuring sustainable development using process models” Managerial Auditing Journal 18/8 [2003] 649-656
Jeremy Galbreath (June 2008),” Building corporate social responsibility into strategy” European Business Review Vol. 21 No. 2, 2009 pp. 109-127
Karmayoga CSR Ratings, 2008. http://www.karmayog.org/CSR/
KPMG; (2005). KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2005, Amsterdam, Netherlands: University of Amsterdam.
Li-Chin Jennifer Ho and Martin E. Taylor,” An Empirical Analysis of Triple Bottom-Line Reporting and its Determinants: Evidence from the United States and Japan”, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
Melissa J. Markley and Lenita Davis( October 2007),” Exploring future competitive advantage through sustainable supply chains” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management Vol. 37 No. 9, 2007 pp. 763-774
43
Maloni, M. and Brown, M. (2006), “Corporate social responsibility in the supply chain: an application in the food industry”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 68, pp. 35-52.
McCann, J. III & Wright, P. (2002). Human Resource Planning 30.1, pp 7- 8.
Norman, W. and MacDonald, C. (2004), “Getting to the bottom of ‘triple bottom line”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 243-62.
Mahalingam, S (2001). Perspective of Human Capital. Proxis Business Line, pp. 1-4.
Olaniyan, D A and Okemakinde, T, (2008). Human Capital Theory: Implications for Educational Development. European Journal of Scientific Research, pp. 1-6.
Oliveira, T, (2006). Society versus Business Organization: The Strategic role of Marketing. Electronic Journal of Business Studies & Organization Studies, pp. 1-4.
Shrivastava (1995a), “The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 936-60
Shrivastava (1995b), “Ecocentric management for a risk society”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 118-37
Shrivastava (1995c), “Environmental technologies and competitive advantage”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 183-200
Sarah E.A. Dixon and Anne Clifford (June 2006),” Ecopreneurship – a new approach to managing the triple bottom line” Journal of Organizational Change Management Vol. 20 No. 3, 2007 pp. 326345
Taylor, M.E. & Jennifer Ho, L.C. (2007). “An Empirical Analysis of Triple Bottom-Line Reporting and its Determinants: Evidence from the United States and Japan”, Blackwell Publishing, London.
44
Willard, B. (2002), “The Sustainability Advantage: Sever Business Case Benefits of a Triple Bottom Line” New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island.
Wexler, M. (2008). “Strategic ambiguity in emergent coalitions: the triple bottom line” www.emeraldinsight.com.
APPENDIX
1. List of companies who participated in the research:
S.No
Companies
1
Chep India Ltd AkzoNobel Sodexo SVC India Pvt. Ltd Tata Communications Ltd TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES FCH Centrum Wealth Managers DHL Express Solvay Pharma India Ltd... Pitney Bowes Canada Aditya Birla Group Saintgits Institute of Management Andhra University Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd Hindustan Dorr Oliver Ltd. Thomas Assessments P Ltd nugrid consulting pvt ltd
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
IKYA HUMAN CAPITAL SOLUTIONS PVT LTD Larsen and Toubro Patni Computer Systems Ltd. ICICI Bank Alcatel-Lucent Accenture JSoft Solutions (Part of JSW Group) Dr. Reddy's Intergraph (www.intergraph.com)
45
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
THE MEHTA GROUP Netmagic Solutions Duarz HR (R-Rolls Consultants Pvt. Ltd.) Famy Care Limited Deloitte O&M India pvt Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Tieto.in Ahli Bank S.A.O.G TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED WATCH DIVISION Blue Star Ltd. Perfect Relations Ltd Blue Star Ltd The Bombay Samachar limited Trent Ltd Quantum Infotrainers and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Resource Management Consultants Magnasoft IDBI Bank Ltd Arvind Limited SurgeForth Technologies Sky Touch ABC Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Malleswaram Ladies Association First Grade College for Women National Aluminium Company Limited Born to Win Learning Services Pvt Ltd Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd. RPG Enterprises National Institute of Open Schooling Loyola Academy Degree and PG College SRF Limited siva sivani institute of management Intergold diamonds pvt ltd (rosyblue group) Aurigene Discovery Technologies Ltd International Combustion(India) Ltd Vardhaman Pharma Jobzebra
46
65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91
Chiron Panacea Vaccines Ltd AMDOCS J.P.Morgan MCX G4S Security Services(India) Pvt Ltd. ICFAI Aurigene Discovery Technologies Limited IFMR TRUST Kan-Doki Ltd ITC Limited CONNECTWELL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Fisher Investments TalentPro India HR Pvt Ltd., ADP Private Limited Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. (The Taj Group) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd Flextronics Varun Shipping Company Ltd Apar Industries Ltd Hughes Tata Teleservices Limited The Tata Power Company Ltd. Strategic Electronics Division Arbitron India Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co Ltd., Binani Zinc Limited Synthite Ltd. Mansha Enterprises
2. Comparative Analysis of Best Practices of Companies practicing TBL
comparative ikea and others171109.xls
47
3. The Questionnaire
13th National Conference of NHRDN-Mumbai- November 2009 RESEARCH PROJECT Profit Plus: Enhancing Profits by nurturing People & Planet
Business Card
8. Please describe the two most important strategic initiatives taken by your organization in the last 5 years that has led to a significant increase in profits: Instructions
1. Name: _____________________________________________ 2. Email id: ___________________ 3. Contact Number:____________________ 4. Organization:____________________________ 5. Office Address:____________________________ 6. Designation: CEO/President/MD/Head-HR/Other___________ 7. Interview Date(DD/MM/YY):__________________________ ______________________________________
Descriptive Question
9. What does the word “PEOPLE’ mean to your organization? Please circle.
Employee
Customers
Shareholders
Government
Community
Knowledge resources
1
2
3
4
5
6
Instructions
1.
10. What does the word ‘PLANET” mean to your organization? Please circle.
Knowledge resources: Professional bodies, schools, colleges, educational institutions, Industry associations etc 2. Please Specify if ,Others: Energy Air Supply Water Noise Flora & Climatic Resources Resources Fauna Conditions 1
2
3
4
5
6
48
Ot her s 7
Ot her s 7
Instructions
1.
11. Please list practices around PEOPLE & PLANET undertaken in your organization. 12. In your opinion which of the PEOPLE & PLANET practices mentioned by you have had a significant impact on profits? Instructions
Please Specify if, Others:
Descriptive Question
13. Please indicate the importance to the following practices in your organization.
People Practices
Not important
Somewhat Important
Important
Very important
N/A
Practices in enhancing economic value generated & equitable distribution amongst all stakeholders Practices in integrating environmental impact while designing products/services , including packaging Practices in promoting organizational learning through R&D, improvement initiatives ,involving stakeholders for ideas and inputs , best practice sharing and benchmarking Practices in Supplier Selection& development, including ensuring significant share of inputs sourced from those located close to the company’s operation/unit. Practices in providing infrastructural investments & services, primarily, for community/larger public good Practices in contributing to charitable causes Practices in upgrading the learning of your workforce( includes all stakeholders) through training, education and development opportunities Practices in valuing and benefiting from “Diversity� in workforce hiring and serving customer communities - variables including race/religion/color/gender/nationality/Disability/sexu al preferences/age/geographic origin/skill characteristics/difference in ideas, thinking, academic disciplines & perspectives Practices towards Associates( includes suppliers, outsourcers, contractors) engagement, to ensure they follow letter and spirit of the law , including labor laws and Human Rights Practices on cooperative initiatives in Technology, Operating standards, developing visions-scenarios-
49
Practices on relations with legislators & regulatorsincluding political parties & government regulators. The organization works against corruption in all forms, including extortion and bribery. Practices related to customer engagement-including customer satisfaction measurement, promoting customer retention &loyalty & customer advocacy to recommend your brand/product offerings* *customer includes end user and /or intermediate purchasers/users Instructions 1. Evidence in terms of collaterals, house journals, certificates, awards etc.
Single Code Only
50
Kindly provide supportingNo evidence People Practices progressfor your choices: Good start Significant progress Benchmark in industry Practices in enhancing 14. Please value indicate the extent to which these practices are being implemented on a sustainable basis in your organization. economic generated & equitable distribution amongst all stakeholders.
Practices in integrating environmental impact while designing products/services , including packaging. Practices in promoting organizational learning through R&D, improvement initiatives ,involving stakeholders for ideas and inputs , best practice sharing and benchmarking. Practices in Supplier Selection& development, including ensuring significant share of inputs sourced from those located close to the company’s operation/unit. Practices in providing infrastructural investments & services, primarily, for community/larger public good. Practices in contributing to charitable causes. Practices in upgrading the learning of your work force( includes all stakeholders) through training, education and development opportunities. Practices in valuing and benefiting from “Diversity� in workforce hiring and serving customer communities variables including race/religion/color/gen der/nationality/Disabil ity/sexual preferences/age/geogr aphic origin/skill
51
Planet Practices Practices -Reducing noise created by operations/manufacturing Practices-reducing air emissions in production/related processes Practices-minimizing the quantity of key input materials used and reduction of waste in output Practices -reuse/recycling –including Percentage and major inputs used Practices-reducing the consumption of key energy source in manufacturing/operations Practices-reducing the consumption of water and the quantity of effluents Practices-minimizing the contamination of land, arising from operations of the company and remedification Practices -to protect/restore-endangered immediate environment-Plant/Animal/Cultural/Historical Practices-minimizing the transportation of materials and goods Practice on collecting back sold products- after its lifefor reuse and/or environmentally sound disposal Practices – environment spending, accounting Instructions 1. Evidence in terms of collaterals, house journals, certificates, awards etc.
Not important
Somewhat important
Neutral
Important
Very importa nt
Single Code Only
Kindly provide supporting evidence for your choices:
16. Please indicate the extent to which the following practices are being implemented in your organization on a sustainable basis.
52
Planet practices Practices -Reducing noise created by operations/manufactur ing. Practices-reducing air emissions in production/related processes. Practices-minimizing the quantity of key input materials used and reduction of waste in output. Practices reuse/recycling – including Percentage and major inputs used. Practices-reducing the consumption of key energy source in manufacturing/operati ons. Practices-reducing the consumption of water and the quantity of effluents. Practices-minimizing the contamination of land, arising from operations of the company and remedification. Practices -to protect/restoreendangered immediate environmentPlant/Animal/Cultural /Historical. Practices-minimizing the transportation of materials and goods. Practice on collecting back sold productsafter its life- for reuse and/or environmentally sound disposal. Practices – environment spending, accounting.
No progress
Good start
17. Does your organization evaluate Best Practices for people and planet initiatives in terms of cost-benefit? Please tick:
Significant progress
Yes
Benchmark in industry
No
53
Single Code Only
18. If Yes above, what has been your organization’s experience(s) with respect to evaluating Best Practices for people and planet initiatives in terms of cost-benefit ? People initiatives No benefit Only adds to No gain no Successful Highly costs loss successf ul Planet initiatives
No benefit
Only adds to costs
No gain no loss
Successful
Highly successf ul
19. Please share your organization’s experience to the previous question in detail.
20. What is the functional specialization of the person/s who spearheads the Triple Bottom Line initiatives in your organization?
21. What is the designation of the person/s who spearheads the Triple Bottom Line initiatives in your organization?
22. Does your organization currently have any major Triple Bottom line initiative in the pipeline?
Yes
No
Instructions
Single code only
23. If Yes to the previous question, when is this initiative most likely to be implemented?
Within next 5 years
Beyond 5 years
24. Does your company have any reporting mechanism with a national or international body, specifically for triple bottom line initiatives?
Yes
No
If yes, please give details:
Instructions
Single code only
54
25. To what extent does your organization use technology for the empowerment and enhancement of value for all stakeholders?
Never
Rarely
Instructions
Single code only
26. Please describe how your organization uses technology for the empowerment and enhancement of value to all stakeholders. 27. How does your organization leverage on knowledge/research to give your business a competitive edge and nurture thought leadership? Instructions
Descriptive Question
Sometimes
Mostly
Always
28. When your organization is faced with a dilemma of aligning the people-profitplanet dimensions, how does your organization resolve the same? Please share with example(s).
Instructions
Descriptive Question
29. At an individual level, inorder to imbibe the values of sustainable living, which of the following practices due you practice?
I segregate waste into wet/dry category at home
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Mostly
Alw ays Alw ays Alw ays
I avoid usage of plastic bags, including while shopping for groceries I switch off the lights and other electric appliances, when not in use
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Mostly
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Mostly
I practice/participate in earth hour and other similar initiatives I avoid printouts and, if required, use recycled paper
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Mostly
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Mostly
I am an active member of groups-e.g. Greenpeace /Bombay natural History Society/NGOs
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Mostly
Alw ays
I practice no car days, car pooling, use of Public transport
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Mostly
Alw ays
I factor “ food miles� before purchasing products
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Mostly
Alw ays
I choose to gift plants and biodegradable articles I reduce the use of water and make a conscious effort to save it Specify other initiatives, if any:
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Mostly
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Mostly
Alw ays Alw ays
Alw ays Alw ays
55
Author’s Profile
Prof. Dr. Uday Salunke Director - Welingkar Institute of Management is a mechanical engineer with a management degree in 'Operations', and a Doctorate in 'Turnaround Strategies'. He has 12 years of experience in the corporate world including Mahindra & Mahindra, ISPL and other companies before joining Welingkar in 1995 as faculty for Production Management. Subsequently his inherent passion, commitment and dedication toward the institute led to his appointment as Director in 2000. Dr. Salunkhe has been invited as visiting fellow at the Harvard Business School, USA and European University, Germany. He has also delivered seminars at the Asian Institute of Management, Manila and has been awarded "The Young Achievers Award-2003" in the field of Academics by the Indo American Society recently.
56
57