All U.S. S&P 500 companies except one report some form of sustainability disclosure. This widespread reporting indeed is good news. But, isolated sustainability disclosures have proven to be of limited value to corporate management trying to improve the bottom line, and for investors seeking to gauge risk and opportunity.

New research from the Investor Responsibility Research Center Institute (IRRCi) and the Sustainable Investments Institute (Si2) – the first to benchmark the status of integrated reporting in the U.S. – finds that nearly all S&P 500 companies are failing to connect the disclosure dots. A mere seven companies are integrating financial and sustainability reporting. These trendsetters include American Electric Power, Clorox, Dow Chemical, Eaton, Ingersoll Rand, Pfizer and Southwest Airlines.

The study also finds companies typically are beginning to place a dollar figure on sustainability – about 74 percent of corporations. But, these disclosures frequently mention other initiatives without quantification of the benefits and costs. Also interesting is that some 44 percent of companies link executive compensation to sustainability criteria.

What’s driving increased disclosure is a combination of factors – rules, regulations, fines, and even the increased volume on the climate change debate. What’s problematic, however, is that the rules are disjointed. As a result, companies and investors don’t have a clear vision so they can factor sustainability into corporate planning and financials.

But this disorderly backdrop doesn’t mean companies lack the capability to quantify the impact of sustainability.

…continue reading: Are Companies Connecting the Sustainability and Financial Disclosure Dots?

In a Director Note recently published, The Conference Board assesses how and to what extent social and environmental issues are integrated into the strategic agenda of the board of directors of U.S. public companies. The report is based on findings from a survey of 359 SEC-registered business corporations conducted by The Conference Board in collaboration with NASDAQ OMX and NYSE Euronext. Data are categorized and analyzed according to 22 industry groups (using their Standard Industrial Classification [SIC] codes), seven annual revenue groups (based on data received from manufacturing and nonfinancial services companies) and five asset value groups (based on data reported by financial companies, which tend to use this type of benchmarking).

The study updates a previous edition of “Sustainability in the Boardroom,” released by The Conference Board in June 2010.

The following are the main findings discussed in the study.

…continue reading: Sustainability in the Boardroom: A 2013 Update

My newest book, Citizens DisUnited: Passive Investors, Drone CEOs and the Corporate Capture of the American Dream, has been in the works for the last year, and is really the culmination of thirty years of work in corporate governance, activism and government. It was prompted by frustrations and failures, in many ways. But it was through those frustrations that I gained clarity on the problems facing our nation. Not just problems in the boardroom but the larger issues of power that tie corporations to the power structure in Washington and how it affects our society. The specific thoughts that led to this book began almost two years ago with a speech I gave at ICGN in Paris and are further illuminated in some new research done for the book by GMIRatings’ Ric Marshall.

In the course of planning the book, I had begun to think of some corporations as “drones” – in the sense that they are untethered from reality and responsibility. We define them as corporations, “in which no single shareholder retains a principal position, defined by the SEC as 10 percent or more.” The owners aren’t at the helm — but manager-kings are. And there are no limits to prevent these CEOs from enriching themselves at the shareholder expense or from shifting the burden of externalities onto society.

Ric, in the meantime, had begun to find empirical data that showed that,

…continue reading: Citizens DisUnited

The recent study by the well-respected women business leadership group The Boston Club, in their Census of Women Directors and Executive Officers in Massachusetts Public Companies exposed “We are frustrated by the large numbers of companies that persist in ignoring the business imperative for a diverse board.”

The diversity quotient is indeed problematic as the Census found that across Massachusetts’ largest 100 public companies, only 12.7% of board directors are women – and this a 1.6 % increase over 2011. More than a third of the top 100 companies still have all male boards. And, interestingly, less than 2% of the 850 director seats in the Census are held by women of color.

So while diversity is championed by many with virtually no opposition, the progress is slow to materialize at the highest levels of corporate governance. Some ponder that the mindset of a “culture of the familiar” permeates people decision-making in the boardroom, where like meets like and relationships have historically been key to nominations and ultimately appointments of new board members. And, since only a select number of openings arise each year on boards, the slow turnover process only exaggerates an already lagging pace of change.

…continue reading: Time for Self-Reflection and Pragmatism in the Boardroom

Major companies across industrial sectors are putting more effort and investment into demonstrating good corporate citizenship on environmental, social, and related governance factors. However, research shows that it may be getting harder for companies to gain recognition for doing so.

Last year, Brandlogic and CRD Analytics prepared the 2012 Sustainability Leadership Report: Measuring Perception vs. Reality, marking the second year for the annual report and continuing our pioneering work in measuring and comparing real sustainability performance to the perceptions of key stakeholders. This follow-on study used the same methodology established for the inaugural report, as described in a November 2012 issue of Director Notes (see “About the Sustainability Leadership Report,” p. 2, for a summary). [1] Moreover, the follow-on study validated the methodology’s usefulness as a management framework for making decisions about if and where to invest in sustainability, both on the operational and communications fronts.

With a second set of data in hand, we are able to observe year-over-year movement. Overall, real performance on sustainability is rising, reflecting ongoing and intensifying corporate efforts to define and achieve sustainability goals.

However, perceived performance, on average, is declining. The findings suggest that it is becoming more difficult to achieve differentiation among those audiences who are most attentive to sustainability, despite a better track record. This finding is both striking and surprising. Why is perception slipping despite an increasing volume of communications around sustainability? In what follows, we explore possible answers.

…continue reading: The Bar Is Rising on Sustainability Leadership

Operational sustainability performance is becoming increasingly important to corporations and their stakeholders, but operational performance is not the only measure that matters. There is also considerable value in communicating the corporate sustainability story. This report looks at the potential benefits to corporations of demonstrating good environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance and discusses five common characteristics of sustainability “leaders”—companies that excel in both the operational and communication dimensions of sustainability.

As economic and societal priorities change over time, so do the criteria that define corporate leadership. The world’s “best” organizations have, at various times, been identified as those that excel in research and development and new product development, those that display excellence in operational and process reengineering, or those best able to focus on core competencies. More recently, the yardstick has been the ill-defined term “innovation”—the ability to be a game changer via breakthrough products or business models.

…continue reading: Charting a Path to Sustainability Leadership

A growing number of corporations are releasing stand-alone sustainability reports. To provide insight into corporate sustainability performance, many reports contain sets of performance indicators. However, questions remain about what should be reported and the indicators disclosed vary widely. This report presents an analysis of the indicators disclosed in 94 Canadian corporate sustainability reports.

Sustainability policies, plans, programs, and projects have been initiated in corporations around the world. Given the broad nature of sustainability, the breadth and depth of these initiatives varies widely. For example, initiatives as diverse as measuring a corporation’s carbon footprint, fostering diversity in the workplace, and supporting community development could all be classified under the umbrella of sustainability. These initiatives are of interest to a variety of internal and external stakeholders. Depending on the issue, these stakeholders may include employees, investors, customers, suppliers, regulators, nongovernmental organizations, and local communities, to name a few.

One important way corporations share information about their sustainability initiatives is through the release of publicly available reports. Although the titles of these reports differ, they typically include words such as “sustainability,” “responsibility,” “accountability,” or “citizenship,” and they focus on addressing the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of corporate performance through a review of both qualitative and quantitative information. (For the remainder of this issue, the term “sustainability report” is used.)

…continue reading: Reporting on Corporate Sustainability Performance

Hispanic Heritage Month

Latinos are a heterogeneous and growing group. We originate from different parts of the world. Moreover, some Latinos may be recent immigrants, while others may have had ancestors who lived on American soil prior to the founding of the United States. Despite our varied backgrounds, we share a deep appreciation for the freedom, values, and opportunities promised by the United States of America. We also share a strong belief in the “American Dream” and its promise of a better life.

The first official presidential observance of our country’s rich Hispanic heritage was in 1968. [1] Back then, Latinos represented only about 4½ % of the total U.S. population. [2] Today, the Census Bureau estimates that Americans of Hispanic origin make up 16.7% of the United States. [3] The growth of this diverse community is reflected in a growing awareness that Hispanic-Americans must play an important role as our nation faces the challenges of the 21st Century. [4]

Today’s young Hispanic-Americans are future leaders of our nation. Recently I met with an inspiring group of Latino college students from the “Latinos on Fast Track” Institute (LOFT). These students are on their way to becoming future teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, entrepreneurs, and community leaders. Moreover, as part of their commitment to LOFT, they have also agreed to return to their communities to serve as leaders and mentors. I was inspired and impressed.

…continue reading: Working to Achieve the American Dream

The global market has created a complex political environment for corporations. On the one hand, they seem less beholden to state control, but on the other hand they have become more concerned with brand, image, and reputation as assets used to gain customer loyalty, stakeholder support, and regulatory freedom (Klein 1999). Their reliance on reputation as an asset has meant that they have become more committed to impression management tactics, like philanthropic activity and improving firm environmental standards, in order gain the approval of the stakeholders that matter most.

Having a good reputation has numerous positive consequences for firms. In our study, Good Firms, Good Targets: The Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility, Reputation, and Activist Targeting, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, we suggest that it also creates certain liabilities. Belonging to the top tier of most reputable firms and engaging in reputation-building actions, like announcing prosocial activities, exposes a firm to activist attention, making them more likely targets of boycotts. Activists, ever eager for media coverage and the agenda-setting influence attached to it, use firms’ reputation-seeking as a weapon against the firm. By targeting firms that are already committed to reputation-building, they put those firms in a position where they must react by conceding or by doing more CSR activities if they wish to maintain their lofty status in the field. Our findings suggest that scholars who have asserted that CSR and other reputation-building activities have insurance-like properties that protect a firm from future activist challenges may be wrong. Rather than serving as a form of insurance against future criticism, CSR may in fact just make firms more attractive targets. Insofar as activists are eager to target companies that the media and other stakeholders will notice, companies that built reputations for being socially conscious are certainly on their radar. Such companies offer a visible stage for activists.

…continue reading: The Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility, Reputation, and Activist Targeting

Consistent with corporate social responsibility (CSR), firms strive to engage stakeholders through various initiatives aimed at fostering dialogue between managers and external stakeholders. Diverse forms of dialogue and broad involvement are critical to the success of stakeholder dialogue (SD) initiatives. This Director Notes describes the results of an international survey on 249 SD initiatives undertaken by firms in Germany, Italy, and the United States. The survey results highlight the limitation of current SD practices and identify a strong link between the national approach to corporate social responsibility and the firm approach to SD.

Firms seek the involvement of stakeholders in order to maximize the alignment of business activities with the interests of different organizational and social actors. [1] In particular, SD refers to all initiatives undertaken by firms to listen and communicate to stakeholders regarding a vast array of topics. [2] Many researchers have noted the positive effects SD is expected to produce:

…continue reading: Stakeholder Dialogue in Germany, Italy, and the United States