.
BUSINESS RESPECT
The free email newsletter on Corporate Social Responsibility
The current edition: In this issue, we look at why 'health and safety' became a dirty word, and ponder where the balance lies.
Subscribe here
Arguments against CSR and some answers
Definitions of Corporate Social Responsibility
Discussion
The Global Reporting Initiative - is it fit for purpose?
Translations
Companies in the News
Case studies of managing a crisis
Odwalla
Johnson & Johnson
and Tylenol
Exxon Valdez
Snow Brand Milk
Products
Emerging Issues
Drugs companies and AIDS
When to quit a bad country
BUSINESS RESPECT - CSR Dispatches#9/28-July-2001
==================
An email newsletter with news and discussion focusing on corporate social responsibility globally, looking at the companies in the news and the emerging issues. Linked to the website at http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr and produced every two weeks.
In this edition we ask how bad things have to get on human rights before a company should pull out of a country, we consider the further development of the accountability standard AA1000, and we review the European Commission's Green Paper on Corporate Social Responsibility.
In the news:
1. Pfizer targeted on drugs pricing
2. Second King Report in South Africa calls for good governance
3. Canadian oil firms resist Kyoto
4. Daewoo executives jailed for unethical behaviour
5. UK Prince of Wales enlists business support for rural issues
6. Ethical Trading Code for Malaysia
7. France - Marks and Spencer suspend controversial store closures
8. New Website sorts Kyoto sheep from the goats
9. Shell under pressure over Ogoniland
10. European Commission launches CSR green paper
11. Glass ceilings still in place on Wall Street
12. Soekor denies plans to enter Sudan
13. Danish DLH accused over Liberian logging and arms trafficking
14. Monsanto at heart of Canadian GM crops concerns
15. Coca-Cola accused over human rights in Colombia
16. Philip Morris study provokes predictable storm
===================
Topics:
Welcome
New on the website
CSR News 28-July-2001
Should I stay or should I go? - When should companies just pull out?
Raising the Standard - From AA1000 to AA2000
Reviews: The EC Green Paper on CSR
This issue is also on the website at http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/nl/9.html
Copyright 2001 Mallen Baker. All rights reserved. For information on how to subscribe, go to http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/nl/subscribe.html
===================
Welcome
Another summit, another riot. If we focus on each one as they come along things will get very boring very fast. There are only so many times one can observe the distance between the aims of the protests and the end result achieved by the violence. And only so often that those aims can be scrutinised for the development of any kind of coherent message that may begin to communicate to the wider audience.
But there is a real challenge here for the key campaigning organisations who take part. It cannot be enough simply to uneasily distance themselves from the violent fringe element, whilst carrying on just as before. The fact is that the summits of leaders have now learned to ignore the people outside. And the touring circus that turns up just the same at every event is now being seen as a bunch of people protesting about the very principle that world leaders should get together to discuss problems such as world poverty - which is absurd.
Better event control could help to isolate trouble makers (the peace movement of the 1980s developed good techniques for this that could be learnt from) - but until the organisations can clarify exactly what it is they want to achieve and develop some kind of strategy that goes beyond showing up and making a noise, the events will remain quite irrelevant from the point of view of the promotion of corporate social responsibility.
And that's the last time we'll even mention it!
Mallen Baker
John March
editors@mallenbaker.net
===================
NEW ON THE WEBSITE
News updated at http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/CSRfiles/CSRNews.html
===================
CSR News 28-July-2001
1. Pfizer targeted on drugs pricing
Oxfam and South African Aids groups have called for global action against Pfizer on the grounds of its pricing policies. Fresh from their positive welcome for recent actions by GlaxoSmithKline, Oxfam accused Pfizer of "moral bankruptcy" for pricing drugs out of the reach of millions of poor people.
Oxfam has released a new report "Formula for Fairness: patient rights before patent rights" which suggests that Pfizer's protection of its patent rights has been aggressive, and has had the effect of forcing prices up. It suggests that, unlike some of its competitors, Pfizer has not cut the price of its branded drugs in the developing world. The donation scheme it offers is criticised as ad hoc, reversible and limited.
Pfizer produces three important drugs for infectious diseases including the anti-fungal Diflucan, the antibiotic Zithromax and the anti-retroviral Viracept. Last year, Pfizer announced the donation of Diflucan to the South African government. The company insisted that the overall programme of support showed that the company was playing its part.
Henry McKinnell, the Chief Executive of Pfizer Corp acknowledged that the company, and the industry, had been forced into a rethink. However, he defended the company from criticisms made on the basis of price and patents. He argued that the problems were mostly structural within the countries. There are, he said, cheap, non-patented drugs for malaria and tuberculosis, but the diseases kill more people in Africa each year than AIDS.
Meanwhile, Bristol-Myers Squibb has licensed a South African laboratory to make cheaper generic copies of two of its anti-AIDS medications for sale in sub-Saharan Africa. The licence to Aspen Pharmacare covers Bristol-Myers' Videx and Zerit drugs and is valid for five years. The company will not receive royalties from the deal. (Oxfam, Dispatch Online, UN Integrated Regional Information Network, AP)
2. Second King Report in South Africa calls for good governance
Mervyn King, the chairman of the King Committee on Corporate Governance, has launched his draft second report calling for companies to move towards triple bottom line reporting as part of their standard annual financial statements. He said that the reporting by companies of their financial issues only has failed shareholders dismally.
The report also calls for full transparency on executive remuneration, and the creation of properly constituted executive remuneration committees. The Code of Practice in the revised draft will replace existing codes from the beginning of next year.
The report also recommends that in South Africa, a company's board of directors should ensure that it adopts an HIV/Aids strategy, with policies to manage the potential impact of the disease. (SAPA)
3. Canadian oil firms resist Kyoto
The Canadian oil and gas industry is joining forces with the Alberta government to lobby the federal government against the recent deal reached on Kyoto and climate change.
The firms argue that many of their competitors are either in the US, which has rejected the deal, or in developing countries which are exempt. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers has argued that compliance would damage competitiveness. (CBC)
4. Daewoo executives jailed for unethical behaviour
Kang Byung-ho, the former head of Daewoo's trading division, and six other executives from the group, have been jailed for between three to seven years. The main charges against them were that they had falsified accounts and diverted company funds. The company's founder, Kim Woo- choong is on the run abroad.
The group were found guilty of diverting millions of US dollars. Cases such as this, where social responsibility and corporate ethics were trampled on, had to be sternly dealt with, the judge said. (FT)
5. UK Prince of Wales enlists business support for rural issues
Prince Charles has launched a practical programme to show how businesses can help to tackle deprivation in rural areas - an issue which has received particular prominence in the UK in recent months with the onset of foot and mouth disease. His audience of business leaders was brought together by Business in the Community - the UK CSR organisation for which he is President.
The programme included measures such as: encouraging purchases of local food; using professional experts to help revitalise market towns; making pubs the hub of local communities by encouraging landlords to take an services lost by the closure of post offices and banks; asking businesses to support community entrepreneurs and examine their business plans to assess their impact on rural areas.
Sir Peter Davis, chief executive of Sainsbury's and chairman of BITC, called on all business leaders to support the new initiative, saying: "there are good business reasons for investing in the countryside for the sake of UK plc. It is important we maintain our ability to feed ourselves and produce as much as possible. It is time for us all to do something significant to help rural communities." (FT, Guardian, Times, BBC)
6. Ethical Trading Code for Malaysia
The Malaysian Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Ministry has announced that it will introduce measures to promote ethical trade. This will include a code of practice to cover Ethical Trading from the Islamic Perspective. This code will be aimed at Muslim and non-Muslim traders alike.
The Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, speaking in Kuala Lumpur to mark Consumer Week, suggested that the code would be necessary to help protect the interests of consumers. (New Straits Times)
7. France - Marks and Spencer suspend controversial store closures
Alain Juillet, the French chairman of Marks & Spencer, has announced that the company is to temporarily halt the planned closure of its 18 stores with the hope of finding a buyer for the outlets who will be able to guarantee jobs for the 1,500 staff. A deadline of January has been given as the date by which the stores will be closed if a buyer cannot be found.
The initial decision led to a major series of protests - with M&S being used along with Danone Group as the main targets for May Day demonstrations. (Guardian, Le Monde)
8. New Website sorts Kyoto sheep from the goats
A new website has been launched which aims to identify the companies whose actions have demonstrated support for George W Bush's stance on climate change, and those which are free from this association. Called Families Against Bush, it identifies a "for" and "against" basket, matching brand against brand. The aim is to get into common currency knowledge about which brands are really environment-friendly, and which aren't.
So, according to the website, Coca-Cola is out, Dr Pepper is in. Mars is out, Cadbury's is in. And so on.
The criteria for selection could be seen as open to question, however, since they seem to equate an unwillingness to take a position on how governments should legislate as tantamount to opposing Kyoto. Some of the companies selected seem to be on the list more because of donations they made to the Bush election campaign.
To see for yourself, visit http://www.fabclimate.org.
9. Shell under pressure over Ogoniland
Ron Van den Berg, the Managing Director of Shell Petroleum Development Co, has appeared before the Justice Chukwudifu Oputa Human Rights Commission to make the case for a conciliatory way forward. He admitted that Shell is keen for a resolution so it can resume operations in what is an oil-rich area. The company pulled out in 1993 following attacks on installations by local people.
His position was attacked by the Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People (MOSOP) which suggested that affairs in the area were now as bad as they had ever been. Berg counters with the suggestion that he had received representations from various groups suggesting that MOSOP were not representing their views.
Berg said that while the company was committed to the development of the Niger Delta region, not much would be accomplished without government participation. (allafrica.com)
10. European Commission launches CSR green paper
European Commissioners Anna Diamantopoulou (Employment and Social Affairs) and Erkki Liikanen (Enterprise and Information Society) have formally launched the EU's major consultation on corporate social responsibility. The paper uses the concept of the triple bottom line, and is in line with the Commission's proposal for a sustainable development strategy for Europe.
Announcing the green paper's publication, the Commissioners said, "More and more firms are realising the link between profitability and best ethical and environmental practice. Conscientious firms not only attract and retain the best workers, they can also get ahead in the technology game, vital for that all-important competitive edge." (EU) (See separate review)
11. Glass ceilings still in place on Wall Street
A survey of men and women in seven big US securities firms has shown that women remain unsatisfied with the amount of progress in the workplace. They believe the industry remains hostile to them and their development.
Two thirds of the sample suggested that they had to work harder than men for the same rewards, and a third reported a generally hostile environment. Women also appear to be having to make more sacrifices in terms of their private lives, with many fewer having families than their male counterparts.
The good news is that the women surveyed praise the efforts of the firms to generally promote an atmosphere of respect, although the results of these efforts remain mixed.
12. Soekor denies plans to enter Sudan
Soekor, the South African state-owned oil and gas company, has issued a statement denying it has any intention to expand into the Sudan in the face of numerous stories in the South African press about how such plans were opening up divisions in the government.
Soekor had admitted it had arranged a high level briefing on the situation in the Sudan, but denied this focused on the political damage that could be done. Soekor representative Rima Tshishonga said "it was all about profits". (Mail & Guardian, UN Integrated Regional Information Network)
13. Danish DLH accused over Liberian logging and arms trafficking
Dalhoff Larsen and Horneman (DLH), a major European timber exporter, has been attacked in research conducted by Greenpeace, Global Witness and Nepenthes. The company, the campaigners claim, deals with logging companies which have been implicated by the UN Panel of Experts on Sierra Leone in arms trafficking.
The UN report was submitted last year to the Security Council, and showed the links between arms, diamonds and logging. The report led to sanctions on Liberia which blocked the diamond trade.
DLH has placed considerable importance in the past on tracing the origin of timber products in line with the company's sustainability approach. The campaigners suggested that the Liberian practices were incompatible with this policy, as well as with the company's membership of the Danish Amnesty International. (The Perspective, Georgia)
14. Monsanto at heart of Canadian GM crops concerns
Monsanto's moves to introduce genetically modified wheat into Canada has put the company once again at the heart of a storm. Canadian grain farmers have joined up with environmental and health activists to call upon the federal government to block the introduction of the wheat. Farmers are concerned that Canada's reputation for quality grain could be harmed, particularly in markets such as Europe, where concerns about GM are highest.
Meanwhile, Monsanto is taking an aggressive line against farmers in Saskatchewan whom it accuses of illegally growing its wheat. The company has confirmed it is taking legal action against a number of farmers for allegedly planting canola crops for the last three years that infringed Monsanto's patent rights. One farmer has already been successfully sued.
In Japan, GMOs are likewise the subject of controversy, with Procter and Gamble Far East Inc announcing it will recall its Pringles products following the discovering of some contamination with unapproved GM potatoes. The varieties, Monsanto's NewLeaf Plus and NewLeaf Y, have been approved in the US and Canada, but not yet in Japan.
The company is recalling around 800,000 of the products which were manufactured in the US and exported to Japan during the last 12 months. (CBC, Japan Times)
15. Coca-Cola accused over human rights in Colombia
Coca-Cola and Panamerican Beverages Inc are named in a lawsuit which is being brought by the United Steel Workers of America on behalf of the Colombian union Sinaltrainal. Lawyers for the union suggested that the companies had failed to ensure workers at the plant received adequate protection against persecution. Harassment of trade unionists is common in Colombia.
Coca-Cola disputes liability on the grounds that the company does not run the bottling plants in question - and the employees in question are not Coca-Cola employees. The company has also protested that it holds to high ethical standards wherever it operates.
The suit alleges a campaign of terror against unionists, carried out by paramilitaries acting as the companies' agents. In particular, it suggests that Coca-Cola bears indirect responsibility for the killing of Isidro Segundo Gil, a union leader shot dead by the paramilitaries. He joined more than 50 other union leaders killed during the past year. (Reuters, BBC)
16. Philip Morris study provokes predictable storm
The release of a study by Arthur D. Little for Philip Morris has provoked fury across the world. The study, which was a response to suggestions that tobacco smoking acts as a financial drain on national economies, suggested that on the contrary the early deaths of smokers may be a boon to the economy - in this particular case that of the Czech Republic.
Economic drawbacks in the form of health-care and other smoking- related costs were admitted. These, however, are allegedly overshadowed by the cost benefit of early deaths of smokers plus the tax-take on tobacco.
Quick as a flash, Philip Morris, which has recently announced its intent to become seen as the most socially responsible tobacco company, was accused of being callous about the health of its customers.
Philip Morris denied the claim, arguing that the report was simply an economic impact study - not a moral case for smoking. However, the company was quickly forced into a grovelling apology.
The company admitted "For one of our tobacco companies to commission this study was not just a terrible mistake, it was wrong".
"The study exhibited terrible judgement as well as a complete and unacceptable disregard of basic human values." (CBC, CNN, FT, BBC)
#########
Should I stay or should I go? - When should companies just pull out?
For companies finding their way through the interesting maze that constitutes corporate social responsibility, the challenges that are easiest to face are those where the company has direct control. CO2 emissions, employment terms and conditions, codes of conduct re. the taking of bribes - and so on. It's not that these issues are always necessarily straightforward, but at least it is clear where ownership for the issue lies.
Indirect impacts - where the company may have an influence but not overall control - are another matter. One of the trickiest of these is where the mere act of doing business at all in a country becomes a point of the fiercest contention.
Companies such as Talisman Energy have found to this to their cost - their operations in the Sudan provoked fierce attacks from human rights activists who argued that company's oil revenues helped to feed the government's war of repression. They countered with a CSR report on their operations, and the argument that the oil revenues would come through in any case, but they as a company were committed to supporting and investing in the community - which others might not be.
To some extent then this is just symptomatic of a profound difference of view. For some people, you just don't operate in such countries - full stop. Others will say that there is benefit to being there that outweighs the harm. So far so simple.
Except it's never so simple. Very few companies will go along with the suggestion that they should not operate in China. They can argue that the Chinese government is hardly propped up by the operation of a few foreign firms, and if the world can grant the Chinese the Olympic games in spite of their human rights record, then why should there be expectations on companies to do likewise?
So where does the line get drawn? What sort of guidance is there for companies wanting to decide for themselves? There are a number of considerations that companies should ask about the nature of the country they are operating in.
First a couple of easy points. If the country is the subject of widely held international sanctions, then the terms of any operations in the country should not breach those sanctions. Companies should never be seeking to operate outside the international framework of law - even if it sees the effects of that law as less than perfect.
Secondly - if the country is demonstrably under the occupation of a foreign or repressive power, which is clearly not supported in any way by the will of the people, it should not operate there. This is not the same as saying that all countries should become democracies along the lines of the Western model - but there is a difference between a state which has different traditions of government and one which is occupied by a foreign or repressive power.
This is not always such an easy line to draw. Burma would seem to be a clear case of occupation, when the NLD overwhelmingly won the 1990 election, but was prevented by the military from taking power. But the same approach would probably rule out Pakistan. Many would argue that Pakistan is very different. Yes, it has a military ruler who removed the democratic leader. Pakistan has seen the scenario before. Its people are as likely to feel that they have suffered from the quality of their politicians and benefited by the intervention of the military as they are to feel otherwise. So they may both be business environments that present special challenges - but they are not necessarily the same.
Having passed these two considerations, the company may in any case find itself operating in a country where human rights violations occur - and where they may occur to quite a considerable extent. The company at that point would need to weigh up the extent of its own contribution to any such behaviour.
There will be some countries where the violations are so great, and so awful, that any common sense approach would dictate a speedy exit. The Khmer Rouge's Cambodia would have been such a place.
In other cases, the company needs to look long and hard at any evidence that its presence directly contributes to the problems. There are plenty of companies who have found, on investigation, that their own people - perhaps local people employed as security guards - have been directly implicated in abuses. Where this has happened as an aberration of company practice, it is relatively simple - the culprits are found and removed. There is no need for the company to pull out, unless its reputation with the local communities has become so tarnished that continued presence will lead to continued and significant unrest.
Companies can also have a direct impact where their operations are made possible only by the removal of people's rights. Forcible relocation, for instance. Where such an action would be the inevitable consequence of the company moving in to a country, such a move should not be entertained.
The company then needs to consider how significant will be its relationship with the government of the territory - and whether the government itself is the agent of human rights abuses. The charge against Talisman was that its oil revenues gave a significant source of support to a repressive regime. Sometimes it may be valid to argue that, since others would pay those revenues in any case, it is better to have a company there that will use its influence to restrain the government, and to support the communities. Again, there must be a line drawn somewhere. Companies who knowingly provide the lethal components of gas chambers should not be able to claim that there is no moral responsibility - because if they didn't do it, someone else would.
Equally, if you do find yourself operating in such a country, you should make sure that your operations distance themselves from the activities of the government, and support wherever possible the health of the communities within which you're based.
Does that give companies carte blanche to import the human rights values of their head office wherever they operate? Not in the real world. Take a country like Saudi Arabia for instance. A company which operates there and insists that it will ignore the legal position that women should not work will be in deep trouble very quickly. Successful business with honour is not a process that judges all local approaches with the eyes of the outsider.
And because there are plenty of moral absolutists out there, that means that whatever you choose to do, someone will attack you for it. The choice is whether you make deliberate decisions based on clear analysis and a strong set of core values, or whether you cruise blindly until you hit the iceberg.
Sources of further information:
http://www.csrforum.net
http://www.business-humanrights.org
#########
Raising the Standard - From AA1000 to AA2000
Corporate accountability may be in its infancy, but it is evolving rapidly. One of the most significant aspects of this is the speed with which the industry of accountability verification is professionalising. Just as the environmental management standards quickly become underpinned by bodies such as EARA - the Environmental Auditors Registration Association - so now ISEA - the Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability - is taking a lead.
Accountability 1000 (AA1000) was launched in November 1999 as an accountability process standard - focused on improving the quality of business social auditing and reporting. The AA1000 standard has quickly become influential - with many businesses drawing from it for their own stakeholder discussions and reporting. We know this because they have started to say so. British Airways and CIS from the UK, CEMIG from Brazil, the Ford Motor Co. from the US, Southern Sun Group from South Africa, Van City from Canada, and a growing list of others.
Now there are moves to extend the standard. No timid software-style numbering here - AA1000 is due to leap straight to AA2000 subject to the outcome of stakeholder consultations now taking place.
What will be the difference? ISEA defines accountability in terms of transparency, responsiveness to stakeholders and compliance with the law and voluntary codes. AA1000 has brought a systematic focus onto one of these elements - that of transparency. It is hoped that AA2000 will extend the definition to bring in aspects of performance improvement.
AA1000 focuses on stakeholder engagement. But it does not show whether or not that engagement has led through to changes in business practice - and particularly in changes that have benefited the running of the business and the company's overall impact on society.
AA2000 will seek to really embed social accountability as an integral part of a business learning model - explicitly tying social responsibility in with business excellence.
It is early days - the full proposals will be published as an exposure draft in October 2001, with a launch targeted for April 2002. Undoubtedly the process will evolve considerably in the mean time.
One of the key challenges seems to be that the closer the AA standard moves towards integrating into a mainstream approach to quality management, the more it strays into territory which is quite crowded with players. It is one step away from a management standard for a sustainable business. This is perhaps inevitable. Good quality social responsibility should be something which becomes fully integrated with sound management - to the point where it is impossible to separate them out. But that makes a system like AA2000 much more challenging than its predecessor, which clearly was the sole occupant of its particular niche.
But a professional standard that would help advisors and auditors to support businesses in integrating CSR into their overall quality management would be a hugely valuable tool. It could begin to make clear the distinction between those who pursue CSR as an add-on without really identifying the business opportunities, and those who use it to create a learning, innovating dynamic business - an outcome which is still too rarely realised.
For further information go to http://www.accountability.org.uk
#########
Reviews: John March on the CSR Green Paper - Promoting a European framework for Corporate Social Responsibility
"The European Union is concerned with corporate social responsibility as it can be a positive contribution to the strategic goal decided in Lisbon: to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion".
For those who believe that governments rarely make good legislation to promote best business practice, the European Commission's recent and growing interest in Corporate Social Responsibility may be a distinctly mixed blessing. There were certainly some who interpreted comments made at last year's European conference as a threat that legislation would follow in the absence of sufficient voluntary activity.
There is a shadow of this threat in the green paper. It says "Corporate social responsibility should nevertheless not be seen as a substitute to regulation or legislation concerning social rights or environmental standards, including the development of new appropriate legislation. In countries where such regulations do not exist, efforts should focus on putting the proper regulatory or legislative framework in place in order to define a level playing field on the basis of which socially responsible practices can be developed."
Saving graces at this stage are that - in spite of the murmurs - there is no evidence of a rush to regulate. And even more importantly, the Green Paper actually shows a thoughtful, well informed approach to the issues.
The central tenet of the paper's approach to CSR is that of a business case approach. It takes a canter through the issues, focusing on workplace issues (including health and safety, diversity, equal pay, restructuring and downsizing), the environment and human rights.
I particularly liked the way the paper tackles business relationships with local communities. It talks about how "Corporate social responsibility is also about the integration of companies in their local setting .. Companies contribute to their communities, especially to local communities, by providing jobs, wages and benefits, and tax revenues. On the other hand companies depend on the health, stability, and prosperity of the communities in which they operate". This description succinctly paints the business case for strong local community investment - but moves this beyond the typical model of simple philanthropic activity.
One major failing, however, was the lack of focus on how CSR issues influence the top level strategic decisions of the business around the nature of its core products and services, its pricing policies and customer engagement. So soon after the major controversy of the pricing of AIDS drugs in the third world, this is a curious omission.
Particularly since the paper argues for a holistic approach to the management of CSR. This is defined as the extent to which the companies embed their approach into their overall business practices. Business cultures vary considerably across Europe - and so the context within which CSR can feature has to fit local conditions. But what is consistent for all is the benefit of avoiding the temptation to do a few things as an occasional add-on to the more important process of making money.
The paper also describes the current state of play with regard to social reporting, the involvement of small to medium sized companies, and the development of informational labels for ethically-minded consumers to be able to make an informed choice.
Which is all very well, but the question remains - what should the EU, as a legislative body - intend to do about any of it? As a Green Paper, it is the purpose of the document to invite others to provide the answer to that question. Potential roles floated for the EU include:
- The development by the EU of an overall European framework, in partnership with the main corporate social responsibility actors, aiming at promoting transparency, coherence and best practice in corporate social responsibility practices
- Promoting consensus on, and supporting, best practice approaches to evaluation and verification of corporate social responsibility practices
There are a lot more questions - the main aim of the paper is to stimulate debate on a European and a national level. But the main focus must surely be whether the EU has a role that can be central to driving CSR across the continent - or whether it must remain a benign observer.
As a prompt for debate, the Green Paper is well done. It gives a good summary of some of the key issues, and gives a comprehensive reference sheet for the current state of the CSR universe.
The deadline for submissions is 31st December 2001.
The green paper can be downloaded from the website address http://www.csreurope.org/csr_europe/Activities/Dialogue/
EBNSCandEU/Commission%20Green%20Paper%20July%
202001.rtf
*********
All content may be quoted with appropriate acknowledgement by any non-profit or non-commercial organisations. Others please contact editors@mallenbaker.net. No guarantees are made to the accuracy of any articles. This electronic publication is independently produced, and should not be taken as representing the views of any organisation.
For information on how to subscribe and for a website archive of issues, go to http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/nl/index.html
Send comments and editorial contributions to editors@mallenbaker.net
To unsubscribe email unsubscribe@mallenbaker.net
|
INSTANT CSR VOTING! |
In the news from the latest issue
To make any comments / suggestions re. this site, please contact mallen@mallenbaker.net
Business Respect - most recent edition added on 18th January 2012