Category Archives: Corporate Responsibility

Trusty tools of the trade #2: storytelling

Here’s a really fun game to play with other film-loving and literary-minded souls (no Googling allowed!).

Name a dozen popular stories.

Okay, I’ll make a start for you.

Rags to riches. The prodigal son. David and Goliath. The hero’s journey. Man vs Nature. Man vs himself. Good vs Evil. Triumph over adversity. Teacher I’ll never forget/ the mentor. Loss of innocence/ coming of age. Love conquers all. Resurrection.

Stories with universal themes are mighty helpful to a professional communicator.

Fair enough, your annual or corporate responsibility report is not destined for a Pulitzer prize. Yet any communication should be planned with a story or narrative in mind. How else is your audience to make sense of it?

Stories help to make sense of a situation or event; to convey meaning to an audience. Stories help an audience remember a message or lesson and pass it onto someone else.

Narrative is what I come up with when I put my niece to bed and she says, “Tell me a story.” I tell her a story, I don’t tell her an article — Janet Rae Brooks, Salt Lake Tribune

I love that quote, sourced from a Poynter article titled by Chip Scanlan titled What is narrative, anyway?

So next time you’re asked to write something at work – a report, a briefing note, an article, a letter, whatever – think about the message you want to convey and the story or narrative that will help you deliver it.

Have you got any favourite stories I haven’t listed in this post?

Material that won’t lose the plot: part II

Leave a reply

I’ve been blogging for a couple of years and according to my analytics, the most popular post I’ve written so far is on the topic of materiality.

It’s still a hot topic in the sustainability reporting field. As it should be. Materiality is central to the strategy and story that a sustainability report seeks to communicate to an organisation’s stakeholders.

I came across this GRI blog post answering a question about how materiality will be examined as part of the GRI’s development of the next generation of its reporting guidelines, the ‘G4‘.

Two points stood out from the GRI’s answer:

1. The Materiality Principle is not under question in the G4.

2. One of the main focus areas of the G4 is to ‘improve considerably guidance around the definition of what is material (from different perspectives)’.

Point #2 is important. Reporters need as much help and guidance as they can get on establishing a robust materiality assessment process that is effective yet practical and logical. I’m looking forward to seeing how this materialises (excuse the pun) in the G4.

I’ve registered to take part in the G4 public comment period; what about you?

All quiet on the media sector reporting front

Leave a reply

What a week for the Australian media. Announcements and speculation about job cuts in the two major newspaper groups, restructures, digital acquisitions, ownership and governance debates. All good stuff that strikes at the heart of the media sector, the profession of journalism, the business of content creation and the responsibilities that come with it.

Yet I haven’t seen any reference to the Global Reporting Initiative’s new Media Sector Supplement. Have you? I’d be thrilled to be corrected. I really wonder about the levels of awareness of such reporting guidelines within Australian media businesses.

Reporting guidelines may not be considered by some to be particularly newsworthy. But context is important. I think some reference to and analysis of global trends and developments that directly correlate with the topics we’ve all been reading about this week would add value to the reader’s experience.

As for media businesses themselves, there’s no better time for leadership teams to take a serious look at sustainability reporting as it relates to their sector and what it can do to support their business strategy in relation to reputation, trust and innovation.

I know the ABC is aware of the Media Sector Supplement. I wrote some blog posts last year summarising an interview with the ABC’s Dr Mike McCluskey, who was a member of the working group that developed them. I think the posts are worth another look-see in the interest of context.

If you’ve seen any great examples of sustainability reporting in the Media sector (outside the UK’s Guardian – they’re the standard), please let me know.

Three big questions for every CSR Manager (and a few hints on the answers)

Leave a reply

So we’re off and running in 2012. Places to go, people to see. Work to do. Lots. So what should take priority for those with Corporate Responsibility reporting responsibilities? These three questions may help:

What are you doing to champion the value of integrated reporting within your organisation? It’s the latest push in the CSR/Sustainability field and for good reason. The case for greater integration between financial and non-financial performance is clear. Yet it’s always the how you go about adapting new concepts to your organisation’s strategy and culture that makes or breaks the change process. The IIRC’s discussion paper Towards Integrated Reporting includes some practical information on alternative pathways to integrated reporting (p20).
Is your materiality assessment process robust enough? Regardless of your approach to reporting (stand alone versus combined versus integrated), this is the cornerstone of any good report and it’s only as good as the inputs and the analysis and engagement process that supports it. Now is a good time to ask the hard questions: is your materiality assessment done frequently enough? Have you engaged the right people internally at the right time in the process? Have you linked your process to other strategic planning efforts within the organisation? Have you done our best to seek input from key external stakeholders? Can you prove it? Do you need to address gaps with further research? AccountAbility’s five-part materiality test is a good reference point for what information to consider and disclose as part of this process.
Are you communicating the right information to the right stakeholders in the right format and in the right forums? While the push towards integrated reporting is gaining pace, so too is the need to package up information for stakeholders that is relevant and accessible. So while the final reporting product is evolving into a more strategic, succinct and compelling performance narrative, there are additional demands to segment that story for key stakeholders. Communication planning is a core part of the CR reporting process and understanding stakeholder communication and engagement preferences should be a priority right from the start. What’s the point of all that work if no-one inside or outside your organisation uses the information?

If you’re still struggling with the answers to these questions and need a hand, let me know.

It’s what I do.

The five post(s) with the most: yours and mine

2 Replies

Dear readers

Thank you for your support during 2011. I really appreciate you sticking with me as I launched myself into the social media universe with this blog and my twitter account @thebriefingnote (by-the-by, most of you are fellow Aussies, half of you found me via Google, another 20 per cent found me via twitter or Linkedin referrals and the rest of you seem to know my URL. Perhaps these are my family members).

Engaging in social media has been and remains a very steep learning curve. I think that’s one of the main reasons why it’s become such a key area of interest for me.

In fact, I’ve evolved into a bit of an advocate for social media technologies as a learning and development, engagement and leadership channel for professionals.

I consult across a number of areas so my blog posts are varied in subject. According to my Google Analytics, the five posts you liked the most this year were:

Who Needs the King’s Speech When We Have Anna’s, which was about the speech Queensland Premier Anna Bligh delivered following the tragedy of the State’s extensive flooding;
Raising the Bar on Stakeholder Engagement, which was about AccountAbility’s Stakeholder Engagement Standard;
A Dozen Ways to Build a Better Corporate Culture (self-explanatory really);
Four Reasons Why Journalists Should Pay More Attention to Corporate Responsibility Reports; and (drum roll)
Material That Won’t Lose the Plot, which is about the importance of materiality in corporate responsibility strategy and reporting.

A highlight of the past year has been discovering the work of other bloggers. I’ve learnt so much from you all. The top five posts that I felt pressed my ‘Eureka’/great insight button over the past year are:

From a leadership, governance and social media perspective, Lucy P. Marcus’ post What it Means to be Connected Today (via HBR blog);
From a corporate responsibility reporting viewpoint, Elaine Cohen’s post Heretical Thoughts on Integrated Reporting;
From a blogging as a valuable personal and professional learning experience, Peter Bruce’s post Reflections on Blogging;
From a social media, leadership and career path perspective, Rosabeth Kanter’s piece (read in 2011, but written in 2009), On Twitter and in the Workplace, it’s power to the Connectors;
And for the ultimate reality check (and a quiet tear), Sally Sara’s piece on leaving Kabul, Afghanistan as the ABC’s Foreign Correspondent.

Wishing you all a very Merry Christmas!

Alexis

Sustainability, the media and holistic performance: a conversation with the ABC’s Dr Mike McCluskey (Part 2 of 2)

Leave a reply

The media sector is far more comfortable asking the questions about business ethics and responsible business practices than being asked questions about its own. The GRI’s Media Sector Supplement (MSS) offers the media a framework through which to consider its unique societal impacts and improve transparency and disclosure on a number of key issues such as ownership, editorial independence, content and promotion of local creative talent in the workforce.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is represented on the GRI’s MSS international working group by Dr Mike McCluskey, the Chief Executive Officer of Radio Australia and former Head of Corporate Social Responsibility.

This post is the second part of an interview I conducted with Dr McCluskey recently where he described his experience as a member of the MSS working group and shared some of his thoughts on corporate responsibility.

On encouraging other Australian media organisations to examine the GRI Media Sector Supplement

It’s slightly disappointing – not just in Australia but internationally – in relation to the level of engagement and feedback for the GRI. I think there may be many reasons for that. But it is important to say that those involved with it think it’s very important. Media organisations have a very special and significant role in society because of the massive influence that we have.

Recent events in the UK [News of the World] would indicate that when the public finds out and the corporate world and governments in different countries find that their media has not been self regulating properly and not been accountable in terms of their social imprint being for the good of the community, then there’s wide dissatisfaction and wide backlash at the media organisations that haven’t been acting responsibly, as well as the ones that have been acting responsibly. Effectively being tarred with the same brush.

We tried to have one of the working group meetings here in Australia and host a stakeholder meeting yet unfortunately it proved too difficult to organise. That was disappointing because I think it would have engendered a great deal of interest and a lot more support for what we have been trying to achieve.

On the challenges of measuring social impacts in the media sector

That’s the area that’s hard [social impact] for media organisations to measure. Environmental impact and social impact are addressed through the GRI’s framework and can be measured reasonably well through your capacity to educate and provide equity to a community. It’s not necessarily easy to succeed in, but moderately easy to measure. However, it is not so easy when you try and measure brainprint and influence. It’s difficult to measure but perhaps as important to measure because we are having an impact on people’s lives on a daily basis.

The ‘brainprint’ concept was coined by debate in the UK and is used in the supplement; we adopted it like a footprint that is measuring environmental impact. Some of it is extremely subtle, some not so subtle. For example, the brainprint of a book publisher as opposed to a game publishing organisation. They have just as much responsibility to think about their social impact and influence as a news and current affairs organisation does.

The role of trust in an increasingly complex media environment and greater choice for audiences as consumers and content creators

Media organisations are faced with the issue of how we manage debate that at least goes through our portals and platforms. It’s complex. It’s not just about our editorial content, it’s about an editorial focus of engagement with the community and feedback from the community. We still have the capacity to influence people significantly.

What all that means is that’s it’s a much more complex world for media organisations to operate in, far more than it ever has been before.

It also comes back to the issue of trust. Who do you actually trust in the community – the media and their platforms of social engagement, or do you go outside these because you don’t trust the media and you want true social engagement? These are issues that media organisations have to come to terms with because we have to demonstrate to the public that we are valuable and trusted and the place to engage in this discourse and what we offer is educative, informative and valuable. That we are a safe and a trusted place to have this type of discourse and that you can air a huge diversity of views as part of this discourse.

On whether journalists should pay more attention to CR reports

During a visit to New York for one of the MSS meetings, and in discussions with CSR practitioners, I had the opportunity to meet with the head of CSR for New York City who oversaw the retirement funds for NYC. Their first principle is to look at the financial risk of an organisation, yet they also want to look at the sustainability risk as part of their investment purposes. Is an organisation socially and environmentally sustainable in the long-term? Do they have responsible business practices? And then they rank them. They analyse those [CSR] reports with a fine tooth comb.

If organisations with billions of dollars to invest are analysing social and environmental reports as a way of checking if their investments are secure, why wouldn’t media organisations be more interested in these issues? We should. And that’s not to undervalue financial and economic data and analysis. We should be focusing on a more holistic approach to performance.

The public consultation period for the final draft of the GRI MSS was between May and August 2011; release of the final supplement is expected in early 2012.

You can read my post Four reasons why journalists should pay more attention to CR Reports (May 2011) here.

Sustainability, the media and holistic performance: a conversation with the ABC’s Dr Mike McCluskey (Part 1 of 2)

Leave a reply

In the wake of the News of the World phone hacking scandal in July this year, I wrote a post suggesting media organisations would do well to explore the Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI) draft Media Sector Supplement (MSS). Why? Because it contains some important and timely signposts in areas such as governance, content quality and product responsibility that if adapted, could point some media organisations in the direction of building or rebuilding trust between themselves and their audiences.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation Chief Executive Officer, Radio Australia and former Head of Corporate Social Responsibility, Dr Mike McCluskey became a member of the MSS Working Group at its inception in 2009.

I spoke with him recently about the experience of participating in a GRI multi-stakeholder process and why he thinks the MSS is a valuable tool for assessing the sector’s performance through a more holistic framework.

How the ABC got involved with the GRI’s Media Sector Supplement

The ABC was involved with the Corporate Responsibility Index (CRI) through the St James Ethics Centre, and at that time while we were undertaking that Index I got to know a number of people. The St James Ethics Centre was asked if they knew any Australian media practitioners who would be interested in participating in the MSS. I didn’t know anything about it at that time and was put in touch with a number of people who were from the GRI and some associated organisations to see if the ABC would be interested. We discussed it extensively to see if there was merit in the ABC participating and agreed that there was.

What it’s like to participate in the GRI’s multi-stakeholder process

I found it to be particularly good, actually. I think if we work in the media, we deal with multiple stakeholders every day. Whether it’s more than any other industry, I can’t say. But what I can say is that our total business is involved with stakeholder involvement and engagement one way or another. I think it’s tremendous for us to be considering the impact of media in its broadest context by considering the opinions of a wide stakeholder group. Is it wide enough or truly representative of the wider community or is it specific interest groups? Only time will tell but I think every effort is being made by the GRI and the working group to reflect as broad a cross section of stakeholder interests as possible.

We’ve had some wonderful debates and conversations that assisted us in addressing issues that some of us might not have thought about. While sometimes we may have got down into a narrow focus on a specific area, and even though many people come with a specific vested interest from a stakeholder group, what they bring to the table is a viewpoint that could be applied in a variety of different ways.

On the impact of the multi-stakeholder process on his approach to corporate responsibility

I’ve learnt an enormous amount. I think I’ve learnt a lot not just about how we operate in Australia but how the media operates universally. I learnt a lot about the struggles that many media organisations have in trying to be transparent, trying to apply the principles of ethics, independence, accountability, accuracy and balance. All easy words to say. Yet put yourself in a country where journalists’ families may be threatened if they do a story and it’s a totally different ballgame.

Here in Australia we have high governance principles at the government and corporate sector, we have open and huge debates when that governance is shown to be wanting, but in many countries that isn’t the case. Media organisations struggle to have that level of transparency, independence and accuracy; even finding people willing to talk is extremely difficult in some countries. So I think there’s nothing wrong with us understanding that it’s not a level playing field in the media across the world – it’s quite healthy for us to understand.

Nevertheless, it’s also important for us to acknowledge that the principles we aspire to are identical. We all aspire to have independent content that is accurate, balanced and demonstrates the plurality of thought that might be in our countries. Now I can’t say every country of the world and every media organisation, but everyone at the table shared that view and they wouldn’t be participating if they didn’t share that view. That was easy – coming up with the principles. The hard part is working out how you actually measure the impact of media organisations. We’re not just talking about news and current affairs, but a very broad cross section of diverse media organisations as well from gaming to entertainment organisations.

Part 2 of my interview with Dr McCluskey will be published on The Briefing Note soon.

The ABC’s Corporate Responsibility performance is included in its 2010/11 Annual Report.

The public consultation period for the final draft of the GRI MSS was between May and August 2011; release of the final supplement is expected in early 2012.

10 things I like about mecu’s winning report

Leave a reply

The 2011 Australasian Annual Reporting Awards were announced recently and their special awards category for Sustainability Reporting was won by Australian credit union mecu (142,877 members, $2.43b in assets, $26.8m net profit before tax, 371 staff and 33 service centres across Australia). This is the second time mecu has won this award.

Here are 10 things I like about mecu’s 2009/10 Sustainability Report structure and approach:

This is their sixth Sustainability Report. Chairman Peter Crocker’s introductory statement references mecu’s commitment to responsible banking and I think it’s important to hear this message from a credit union via their corporate reporting given the dominance of the big four banks in Australia.
Their Sustainability Covenant. A series of commitments have been made between mecu and the Victorian State Government agency EPA Victoria in a voluntary covenant arrangement, which is reviewed regularly and renewed every three years. To my mind, this partnership and agreed goals and commitments (and public accessibility of the document) further ups the ante on transparency and accountability. This can only be a good thing for management in both organisations as they strive to achieve stated goals.
Things you can do. The Covenant includes a goal to assist members to live more sustainable lifestyles and there is a neat theme through the report which reinforces practical tips in a ‘be the change you want to see in the world’ kind of way across the categories of communal, food, garden, goods, house, recreation, services, transport, waste and work.
Sustainability governance. mecu’s Board structure includes a Sustainable Development Committee which meets quarterly. This is best practice and in line with one of the 20 key expectations for the 21^st Century Corporation as outlined in Ceres’ excellent Roadmap for Sustainability which states “a committee of the board will assume specific responsibility for sustainability oversight within its charter”. Governance also includes a staff Sustainability Reference Group called ‘Footprints’ which indicates a commitment to integration of sustainability principles throughout the organisation.
Global commitments. mecu is a signatory to the UN Environment Program Statement by Financial Institutions on the Environment (UNEP FI), the UN Global Compact and the UN Principles for Responsible Investment (UN PRI). It appears mecu aims to leverage these leadership initiatives for responsible investment accreditation for some of its products, which would be a good move in order to promote innovation and product differentiation.
Their honesty. In the ‘reporting structure’ section which describes how mecu sought feedback on its 2008/09 report, the company conceded a low response rate to the reporting section of its online Sustainability Strategy and Reporting Survey with “the majority of questions only answered by three respondents”. Ouch. That must have been difficult to disclose. However, what I would hope for as a reader is that mecu seeks to find other ways to engage their stakeholders to obtain a more robust level of feedback in the future.
Only five of mecu’s 142,877 members reportedly lost their cards in 2009/10 – impressive! The Card Fraud table under ‘Ethics and Governance’ discloses the total cost of reported fraud at $307,659 which impacted on 312 of its members. The significant line item in the table is ‘fraudulent use of card number’, affecting 238 members at a total cost of $156,576, which explains why mecu invests in fraud awareness training with its staff and participates in public awareness campaigns to reduce their members vulnerability to fraud.
Hyperlinked materiality table. The materiality assessment is segmented by environment, community, workplace and marketplace and is hyperlinked to the relevant section of the report which makes it easy to cross-reference and investigate further. There doesn’t appear to be any external stakeholder involvement in determining material issues, which is something I advocate to clients to ensure internal assessments of what’s important to the future of the business is compared and contrasted with expectations of key stakeholders.
Its brevity. The report is succinct, easy to read and written in a plain English style. Report navigation is good, aided by the break out headings on the right hand side of the page. A separate summary report is available as well.
If it wasn’t for their Sustainability report, I wouldn’t know as much about mecu as I do after reading it. mecu’s Victorian heritage is strongly reflected in its membership base with only 5% of its members residing in my home state of New South Wales. We Aussies tend to be a parochial lot. Sustainability reports can fulfil an important reputation and branding role in the marketplace, which has certainly been the case for me in the case of this organisation.

I referred to the hyperlinked material issue table in point #8. It was a shame the GRI G3 Content Index didn’t follow this format as it’s very handy when you’re benchmarking company performance. Next year perhaps.

Who doesn’t love to bask in the warm glow of peer and industry recognition for a job well done? Have you won a report for your sustainability report lately or read any award winning reports you think warrant a look?

Will phone hacking be the media sector’s watershed corporate responsibility moment?

4 Replies

The profession of journalism has News International and News of the World to thank for launching a period of intense global scrutiny of the media sector – who regulates, owns, manages and creates content and to what ethical standards.

So will this crisis of credibility in journalism be the media sector’s watershed moment in relation to corporate responsibility? Pretty much every other sector of the economy seems to have had theirs or moved onto the next one.

It may be too late for the media sector to avoid the regulatory stick. However I would argue that those companies that have already made serious attempts to demonstrate and communicate a commitment to corporate responsibility – accountability and transparency above and beyond compliance – will be in a far better position to be heard within a hostile stakeholder environment.

Perhaps the inevitable inquiries and reviews may have a positive outcome – we may start to see more corporate responsibility or sustainability reporting from the sector.

As luck would have it, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)’s latest sector supplement is designed specifically for the Media Sector and is open for comment until 4 August 2011 (note for Australian readers, the ABC is represented on the global working group). This presents an obvious starting point for those media organisations that want to learn more about how to start or further develop their reporting approach and in the process, share information and practices with stakeholders that builds (or restores) trust.

Yet reporting alone will not guarantee any improvement in reputation, corporate culture or ethical standards. In fact, corporate responsibility reporting that follows hot on the heels of crises inevitably raises eyebrows. Authenticity and motivations are questioned. Rightly so. Stakeholders expect to see evidence of real change and improvement in performance and not a tokenistic effort that tells them what they want to hear.

The Guardian in the UK and it’s “Living our Values” sustainability report is an excellent model to examine. Not only does it report extensively on its sustainability performance, it has its performance externally assured and publishes this statement on its website. Read the introduction to its 2011 Sustainability Report and you’ll get a seat in the front row feel for the complexities of managing a media business these days. Or if you don’t have time, they’ve even written a condensed 15-minute version. Nice. The important point to note is that the Guardian has been doing this for a while and it shows, not only in their performance but in their governance.

In Australia, it appears our media sector has still got its trainer wheels on in respect to consolidated external reporting on its corporate responsibility or sustainability efforts and governance of these issues at the Board level.

Australian media organisations should be encouraged to adopt corporate responsibility reporting as a means of demonstrating accountability and transparency to their audiences, employees and external stakeholders.

The only way is up.

Should I stay or should I go now? Parental leave retention rates a new addition to the G3.1

1 Reply

There was a scene in the recent ABC production Paper Giants where Cleo Magazine Editor Ita Buttrose steeled herself to announce to her powerful media magnate boss, the late Kerry Packer, that she was pregnant. In the drama that unfolded, he says all the right things to her face and all the wrong things behind her back.

This mini-series was based on events that happened in Australia in the 1970s. Yet three decades on and ask any working mum-to-be about breaking pregnancy news to her boss and I’ll bet she’ll recount her own anxious experience. It’s a vulnerable time for women and their partners. I’ve been there. Twice.

Parental leave retention rates (by gender) has recently been added to the latest version of the Global Reporting Initiative’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (the G3.1) under Labour Practices (LA15, Core).

It’s an important and timely addition for Australian organisations given our first fully Government funded paid parental leave scheme started in January this year, about the same time ASX gender and diversity reporting changes became effective for listed companies.

Large Australian companies such as the ANZ report parental leave data (32% of Australian staff who took parental leave in 2009/10 returned, as compared to 30% in New Zealand and 100% in India).

There are many factors that will influence a new mother or father’s decision to return to work and when, such as their employment status (part-time/ full time/ casual) and what this means for eligibility to the organisation’s parental leave policy (which may or may not exceed government requirements), availability and access to quality childcare, the number of children they have and personal and financial circumstances.

I would also suggest that how a boss responds to his/her employee’s pregnancy news – setting in motion the organisation’s maternity and paternity leave policies (assuming they have some) will speak volumes for the corporate culture and play a big role in their organisation’s parental leave retention rate.

A 2009 report from the Productivity Commission on Paid Parental Leave found that of mothers in paid work prior to childbirth, 11 per cent return to paid work within three months of childbirth, 26 per cent within six months, 57 per cent within 12 months, and 74 per cent within 18 months.

Yet recent research suggests that for some Australian women, it’s not a case of will I stay or will I go now, it’s will I go somewhere else? Increasingly it’s to work for themselves (I’m a case in point).

According to research from Bankwest, the number of women setting up their own small business in Australia is growing at twice the rate of men. One of the reasons cited for the trend was women’s preference to work part-time whilst raising small children.

It’s clearly in the interests of organisations to keep their talented women and the link between flexible working arrangements, corporate culture and corporate policy is critical.

A letter to the editor from The Sydney Morning Herald (March 12-13, 2011), written by Dr Anne Reeckmann, captured this point so succinctly:

“Having children is not inconsistent with a career at the top of the corporate ladder, as most men will attest, but it is still the filter that removes a lot of women. Unless corporations have flexible working arrangements and actively support the needs of their women who choose to have children on the way up the corporate ladder, they will find their promising women leaving or opting out of the leadership track.”

The opportunity for competitive advantage in maintaining a strong parental leave retention rate is pretty obvious. Yet in Australia, ask any working mother or father about the effort their organisation makes to ensure employees return after parental leave, and you’ll find there are still some dramas unfolding. We still have a long way to go in changing attitudes and corporate culture to support parental leave policies before performance on this indicator improves.

I’d like to learn more about your experiences – whether it’s in Australia or elsewhere – about parental leave policies and what you think contributes to the decision to return (and when) or not.