“Continual Improvement” Using Sustainability Metrics Takes Planning, Accountability & Resources

"Jump Start" by Jenny P (CC License)

Note:  This post marks the 75th since I started writing in early 2009.  When I launched ValueStreaming, I did so with the intent of providing timely, relevant, quality content over quantity.  The feedback that I’ve consistently received  is that this blog gives readers detailed, value-added content and thought leadership in the sustainability, supply chain and environmental policy space.   I humbly thank you all for your readership and support…you are the sustaining “wind in my sails”.  Paz, Dave

“On your mark, get set”…BANG.  As a competitive swimmer in my youth, I learned the rhythm of a good start off the blocks, kept my head down and paced myself through to the finish line.  I never won the “big” race, but always went for my personal best.  It’s that way with sustainability initiatives. Having a good baseline and pushing the limits to improve to the next level

Back in the late 1990’s I was working with one of my many semi-conductor clients on their ISO 14001 Environmental Management System.  A hallmark of ISO 14001 is “continual improvement”, focused primarily on going beyond compliance to reducing the overall environmental impacts and footprints of operations.  This particular company had identified hazardous waste generation as a “significant aspect” of its operations and developed some programs and targets intended to reduce generation.

One of the facility engineers was very excited one day when I showed up at the facility, proudly telling me that the company had managed to reduce waste generation by 25% over the past several months since he’d started tracking metrics.  “That’s great!” I said. “How’d you do it?”  He responded, “Well I ‘m not sure exactly”.  So I prodded.  “How has production at the plant been the last quarter?” “Well, it’s down…um, about 25%”, he answered in a muted tone.  See a problem here?  The company didn’t “normalize” the data (pounds of waste generated per number of units produced, for instance).  So in effect, there was no “continual improvement.  Oh well, back to the drawing boards!

Setting the Sustainability Mark…and Missing It

So it was interesting to read a summary of Green Research’s latest report, “Setting and Managing Sustainability Goals: Trends and Best Practices for Sustainability Executives.  I had the pleasure of meeting Green Research’s founder, David Schatsky, at the recent Sustainable Brands ’11 Conference in Monterey,  California.  In this latest report, David seems to have touched on some issues which get to the core of a value-added sustainability initiative…that being, demonstrating “continual improvement”.

As  this week’s by Mr. Schatsky article in Environmental Leader notes, while a flood of public and private companies (across many sectors) are “increasingly using public goals to signal their commitment to sustainability and their superiority to rivals…many are unprepared to meet those targets”.  The report suggests that sustainability planning, implementation, and performance measurement are still in an early maturation phase compared to financial and other operational goals.  Some of the key findings were:

• A quarter of the 32 sustainability executives surveyed in Europe and North America for the study say their companies have set “aspirational” sustainability goals and lack a clear plan to achieve them.
• Over 40 percent said progress on sustainability goals is reported to senior management only semi-annually or annually.
• 57 percent of respondents characterized at least some of their sustainability goals as “stretch goals” – that is, challenging but probably achievable – and 54 percent said at least some of their goals are “realistic”.

 “Despite the best of intentions, even some excellent companies are challenged to execute on the sustainability goals they announce,” said David Schatsky, principal at Green Research

As I noted back in August 2010 in a post on Environmental Leader, there are two old axioms:

1)      “You are what you measure”, and

2)      “What gets measured gets managed.”

As Green Research’s study revealed, without an effective strategy to establish an internal benchmark for continual improvement, it becomes harder to innovate, advance and proactively respond to stakeholder expectations. Finally, good metrics if applied properly will foster innovation and growth.  Therefore, it’s vital that there be a systematic process in place that maintains focus on continual improvement.  Continual improvement is the primary driver for monitoring and measuring performance. If metrics don’t add value, they will not support continual improvement and eventually will not be used.  It’s a vicious cycle that can be avoided if the proper system is firmly implanted in organizational strategy and operations.

Setting Goals That Matter

Many times over the past several months, I’ve been asked by colleagues and clients”what can I measure that means something”.  And I answer them usually by asking “what matters to your organization and its stakeholders”?  “I see what your saying”, they say “but I can’t always see the payback”.  Well, sometimes the “payback” is hidden and can’t always be realized in tangible, hard dollar terms. Sometimes, especially if companies are not water, energy or resource intensive, or don’t produce a lot of waste byproducts, you need to peel off some layers.  What this often means is looking at other production, operational or worker activities that can’t be measured in hard dollars but in terms of “efficiency”.  Sometimes metrics can be measured in terms of avoided costs rather than actual expenditures.  As an example,  a client of mine “avoided” $2.4 million in accrued fines and violations (over a three year period) due to enhanced sewer infrastructure maintenance and reduced response times to effluent spills when they occurred.

"Bullseye" by TimSnell (CC License)

As the Green Research found, many companies initially establish said that “targets for realistic or stretch goals…through a bottom-up process, beginning with a baseline of current performance.”  I view this finding as similar to what I coach my clients to do in environmental management system or sustainability engagements- perform a risk-based evaluation of what poses the greatest environmental, social or governance risk and establish measurable (and achievable) objectives and targets.   Some of my clients like the Natural Step “back casting” process too , which attempts to envision a company’s “desired state”, measure a baseline “current state”, and fills in the gaps with programs and activities intended to reach the desired state.

Remember, when companies establish sustainability objectives (whether they are social, environmental, operational or financial) and define their targets, here are a few simple things to remember about metrics.  They must be:

• Representative
• Understandable
• Relevant
• Comparative
• Quantifiable
• Time-based and Normalized
• Unbiased and Validated
• Transferable

Staying on Track Within the Four Walls and in the Supply Chain

As I mentioned in last year’s post, once organizations decide what’s important to measure to meet sustainability related objectives, they needed to assure that they actually track metrics, report, calibrate and keep on measuring.  It’s called keeping your eye on the ball.  And this applies to supply chain management as well.  As I have reported in this space many times before, supply chain sustainability and responsible sourcing are two key ingredients for an organization to consider itself to be “truly” sustainable.  Many of an organizations greatest product and operations related impacts (like carbon emissions, resource or toxic chemical inputs, etc.) actually come from within its upstream supply chain.

Photo by HeraldMM (CCLicense)

A few tips to get your continual improvement process started:

1. Measure things that add value to organizational decisions. Measuring for the sake of measuring is a waste of time.
2. Make goal-setting a 360-degree exercise- Look inward through the organization rank and file for innovative ideas.  Seek advice and input from external stakeholders too (your suppliers and customers matter too!).
3. Commit to what you can control or influence.  Don’t make broad declarations that you cannot achieve because you’ve no influence. Don’t over commit ( although a few heretically goals here and there aren’t too dangerous)
4. Get some quick wins under your belt.  This will enhance the momentum behind the effort.  Remember to scale performance incrementally in line with the financial and labor resources that you’ve budgeted
5. Own the goal and be accountable.  It’s not likely that organizations will succeed in meeting their goals without someone keeping track.  Make sustainability performance part of personal or group performance evaluations.
6. Measure, Report, Repeat.  Don’t stop at the first sign of success or trouble.  Look for ways to press on, raise the bar and continually improve.  Report progress regularly (sometimes monthly, sometimes quarterly.  It all depends on what is being measured. 
7. Go Short, Go Long.  Set some targets as short term goals, but think long term too (three to five years out), and in alignment with corporate strategies.  Most large companies like my client (Johnson & Johnson), Unilever, Sony and many others usually set five to eight year planning horizons.
8. Measure things that compare well but slightly differentiate yourselves from your competitors. Novel and unique metrics are just as important to differentiating you as your products.
9. Seek out globally-recognized metrics (like the Global Reporting Initiative) to assure that multi-national companies who also measure sustainability metrics can apply the data to their own goals.
10. If you are a large company with multiple department, divisions or sites, the metrics of the subordinate organizations must be able to be “rolled up” in a way that addresses the entire organization but still meets site or department specific needs. 
11. Report the Bad with the Good:  No one’s perfect and a little self deprecation, even in business can pay handsomely from a reputational point of view.  In this WikiLeaks era, information moves swiftly.  Stay ahead of “the story”, own up to the shortfalls, you’ll be forgiven and given more credit for your successes.
12. Build off of prior continual improvement initiatives to track perform over longer periods of time.  It’s not like you flicked on a switch one day and became the sustainable organization that you aspire to be.  It takes time.

On second thought, I did win a “big” race.  My freshman year in high school I placed first in a 100 yard Individual Medley event against an arch rival high school in the Chicago suburbs.  That was my greatest moment in the pool…for a race many said I wouldn’t even finish.

A Roadmap to Perform Supply Chain-Focused Materiality Assessments

Note:  this is the final part of three-part series exploring “materiality” and  the intersection of supply chain management, sustainability and  corporate social responsibility.

Part One of this three-part series explored materiality as the “nexus” point that linked sustainability, corporate social responsibility (CSR) and supply chain management.  Conflict minerals were explored in detail and highlighted the key role that developing nations and commodity goods are playing in driving supply chain management and CSR.   The second post in this series highlighted the roots of materiality analysis in the sustainability space, case studies and highlights of interviews conducted with two key sustainability and corporate responsibility thought leaders, @Jefferyhogue and @ElaineCohen.

From a corporate social responsibility reporting point of view, a materiality analysis is an ordered, rigorous evaluation of the sustainability (environmental, social, financial) issues significant to the company and its stakeholders.  This type of analysis can provide an organization with critical, informed insight that can drive strategic direction as well as tactical change management.

Typical elements of the materiality analysis process include:

1. Identification of a universe of relevant economic, social, environmental, and policy/governance issues for consideration,
2. Evaluation and ranking of the level of internal and external stakeholder concerns regarding each issue,
3. Evaluation and ranking of the potential impact on the company of each issue
4. Development of a matrix-based prioritization of the issues, and
5. Execution of a structured, collaborative strategy planning, implementation and reporting process.

Materiality Assessment Templates

The CERES 21^st Century Roadmap for Sustainability 2010 provides a high level overview of materiality analysis.  The first step is to identify which stakeholders there are that interact with an organization. In this first phase, CERES recommends that organizations “engage with stakeholders to obtain feedback on the relevance of existing and proposed policies and to identify gaps. These policies should guide the company’s activities across its operations, the supply chain, logistics, the design and delivery of products and the management of its employees.

When engaging stakeholders, organizations should identify key business and operational issues of concern to the company and share this analysis with external stakeholders. CERES recommends that “stakeholder dialogue can be to identify additional issues, prioritize efforts, and recognize emerging risks that could become increasingly important to the business over the long-term. The company should then explore the links between identified material issues [that are considered significant to stakeholders] and the leadership team’s vision and strategy…and provide an explicit response to that feedback”.

AA1100 Assurance standard creator and international institute AccountAbility has established what they refer to as a “Five-Part Materiality Test” .  Like the CERES approach, this robust test is designed to help organizations 1) identify what issues are most material, or relevant, to their business and its stakeholders and 2) what information should be disclosed or reported in corporate social responsibility reports. The five different materiality tests (shown in the graphic below) are:

Test 1: Direct short-term financial impacts: Evaluate short-term financial impacts resulting from aspects of social and environmental performance

Test 2: Policy-based performance: Consider policies that are core to a business rather than add-ons

Test 3: Business peer-based norms: Issues that company peers deem to be important

Test 4: Stakeholder behavior and concerns: Identify issues relevance to stakeholders in terms of reasonable evidence of likely impact on their own decisions and behavior; and

Test 5: Societal norms:  Considerations taken from both a regulatory and non-regulatory point of view.

The issues of most significant concern would be vetted with stakeholders and validated by an external party and set the framework for ongoing action and demonstrated continual improvement.

8-Phase Supply Chain Focused Materiality Assessment

Taking a cue from CERES, AccountAbility, the ISO 14001 based environmental aspects and impacts process, and basic principles of risk management, I offer my eight point plan to effectively engage internal and external stakeholders in querying, assessing and prioritizing supply chain materiality.

1. ID Key Supply Chain Products re: Environmental Loading Characteristics and Operational Practices
2. Identify Governance, Operational and Regulatory Constraints versus Supply Chain Practices/Policies
3. Risk Management Evaluation-Screen internal  & external supply chain issues against current  business objectives & strategy, policies, current processes  & programs
4. Materiality Risk Ranking Matrix and Determination of Threshold Action Levels (Internal and External Stakeholder Specific & Aggregated)
5. Development of Materiality Mitigation Action Plans- Prioritize, Assign Resources, Timeframes & Measurement Metrics
6. Stakeholder Engagement and Issues Identification (against major supply chain variables)
7. Management Review including Strategy Performance and Reporting, and
8. Internal/ External Stakeholder Alignment; CSR Reporting

As a general rule when evaluating the ‘materiality’ of any issue (supply chain driven or not) , significance must consider a company’s short and long-term business objectives and strategy, policies, risks, and current processes and programs. Also, in order to factor into account resource management variables, it’s advised that companies consider the levels of control or influence they have over an existing or future issue to determine its significance, and ultimately management strategies and tactics.

Likely outcomes of using a structured continual improvement approach in addressing and documenting supply chain materiality are:

• Targeting and prioritizing the most significant supply chain issues to manage in the short-term, at a scale that matches existing labor, financial and capital resources
• Proactive planning to budget future resource allocations to address capital or resource intensive activities for long-term management
• Acknowledging and integrating a wide variety of interested party concerns and perspectives into strategic business planning at an early stage
• Providing a foundation for continual improvement through structure risk assessment, action planning, communication and reporting.

Materiality Assessments- The Sustainable Value Proposition

Materiality analysis can help organizations to clarify issues driving long-term business value; identify, prioritize and address risks; and capture new market opportunities.  Through structured efforts to align sustainability and business strategies with supply chain management, materiality assessments that account for financial and non-financial issues will not only strengthen business relationships with suppliers but forge collaborative bonds with external stakeholders.  This targeted focus on collaborative innovation, adaptive management, performance measurement and reporting has the potential to drive stronger brand reputation and competitive advantage over time.

“First Movers” Use Materiality Analysis to Link Sustainability, Supply Chain Management & CSR

By Dave R. Meyer (SEEDS Global Alliance)

Note:  this is the second of a three-part series exploring “materiality” and  the intersection of supply chain management, sustainability and  corporate social responsibility.

My first post in this series suggested that there was an intersection or cross-walk between sustainability, corporate environmental responsibility and supply chain management.  This “sweet spot” can be found in conducting “materiality” analyses.  Although the concept of materiality in the finance sector has a long track record in accounting circles, its application in the sustainability space is much newer.  Whereas financial reporting has taken a more short-term view and approach to handling performance and risk, sustainability generally factors in a much longer, strategic planning and implementation horizon.

Businesses have learned that in a world that has grown more transparent, they need to clearly identify what is material to their operations and stakeholders, and communicate this in trustworthy and convincing ways in order to drive creativity and innovation.  Materiality determination is a lot like the aspects and impacts analysis that is common to ISO 14001 based Environmental Management Systems.  ISO 14001 seeks to identify those elements of their activities, processes, services and products that have the greatest impact on the environment.  Materiality analysis does not only that but dives deeper into operations and stakeholder issues.  Let’s take a moment to explore materiality’s origins in the sustainability space.

Roots of Materiality in Sustainability Reporting

In 2003, The UK- based think tank, AccountAbility developed the  AA1100 Standard.   AA1000AS (2008) assurance provides a “comprehensive way of holding an organization to account for its management, performance and reporting on sustainability issues by evaluating the adherence of an organization to the AccountAbility Principles and the reliability of associated performance information. It also provides a platform to align the non-financial aspects of sustainability with financial reporting and assurance through its understanding of materiality”.    The framework for a materiality assessment is depicted in the adjoining graphic, jointly developed by AccountAbility, BT Group Plc and LRQA (The Materiality Report- Aligning Strategy, Performance and Reporting- November 2006).

The AA1100 Standard was revised in 2008.  In it, the AA1000 Materiality Principle requires that the “Assurance Provider states whether the Reporting Organization has included in the Report the information about its Sustainability Performance required by its Stakeholders for them to be able to make informed judgments, decisions and actions.”  Materiality norms taken into account by this standard are:

(a) Compliance performance (considering those aspects of non-financial performance where a significant legal, regulatory or direct financial impact exists).

(b) Policy-related performance (considering identification of aspects of performance linked to stated policy positions, financial consequences aside).

(c) Peer-based norms (considering how company’s peers and competitors address the same issues, irrespective of whether the company itself has a related policy or whether financial consequences can be demonstrated; and

(d) Stakeholder-based materiality (taking into account stakeholder behaviors and perceptions).

The Global Reporting Initiative has developed a framework for materiality determination as part of the G3 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines The GRI considers materiality as “ the threshold at which an issue or indicator becomes sufficiently important that it should be reported.”  The GRI defined a series of internal and external criteria to be considered when performing a materiality analysis.  Later in 2009, the GRI convened a to evaluate and create more specific guidance for determining materiality.  The draft content recognized that materiality analysis was one of the “least systematized aspects of reporting”:

“Identification of material issues and boundaries are core challenges for any standard risk assessment process. Despite the importance of these challenges to good reporting processes, they represent the most difficult and underdeveloped areas for most companies.” – Draft Report Content and Materiality Protocol, page 2.

The draft Report Content and Materiality Protocol review period closed last fall and is in review at this time.

Materiality “First Movers”

A number of companies have taken a “first mover” position in documenting materiality in their corporate sustainability reports.  Most have used a format similar in scope and criteria as the GRI or AA1100 frameworks, with some modifications.  Companies that have reported on materiality and that reach out to stakeholders what they find to be material to their interest and have some “reasonable control” over include companies from diverse manufacturing sectors such as automotive (Ford[1], BMW, Volvo), communications (BT), energy development (Exxon, Mobil) pharmaceuticals (Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson), electronics and control Systems (Cisco, GE, Omron), consumer products (Gap, Starbucks) and mining (Holcim, Rio Tinto), among many others.  One such company is Danisco A/S.

I recently had the opportunity to visit with Mr. Jeffrey Hogue (@jeffreyhogue) of Danisco.  Mr. Hogue is Sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Global Leader at Danisco A/S.  Danisco is a worldwide manufacturer of food and beverage products, including cultures, emulsifiers, gums & systems and natural sweeteners.  The company does business with the world’s largest food manufacturers.  Daniscos’ 2009/2010 Sustainability Report is extremely comprehensive and has been awarded some of the highest honors for corporate social responsibility reporting in the past year.  The company looked deeply into materiality issues in its report and has developed  strong operational programs to manage its supply chain in a proactive manner.  It’s web site indicates that they have developed and implemented a “new supplier management system…to strengthen our global supplier and material assessment programme through better audit portfolio management tools, detailed assessments, prioritised audits and improved collection of supplier and raw material data.”

Danisco catalogued and assessed stakeholder input from a variety of internal and external surveys and other sources, then indexed them according to their impact on its business. Issues emerging from the data were ranked according to their impact on the business and the degree of importance to stakeholders, forming the basis for the Materiality Matrix (see Figure 1 below).  The company strategically decided to address sustainability risks and opportunities identified as having “medium-to-high impact” on its business and being of “medium-to-high” interest to our stakeholders.

I asked Jeff if he could shed some insight on the company determined materiality and its resulting high ranking for supply chain (criteria, indicators etc).  I also asked Jeff if he’d share his thoughts on the critical nature of supply chain management relative to triple bottom line based materiality (as well as risk management).

“I think that there are three dimensions of this subject and why our supply chain is very important to our success.

Risk reduction – With a supplier base of over 3000 key suppliers it is crucial for us to manage any risk that may be present in our upstream value chain to eliminate the impact on our operations and our customers.  Therefore it is a baseline requirement that we scrutinize our supply chain and develop robust and systematic programmes to address and mitigate risk. Most of our customers expect it — and although it is in a lot of ways a compliance programme, we do derive value in knowing that we will maintain consistent raw material quality, avoid issues related to labor and human rights, and supply security.  We also have the ability to anticipate and mitigate other sustainability related endpoints like the impacts on agricultural raw materials from climate change, water scarcity, regulation, etc.

Opportunity harvesting – We also see the need to understand the potential synergies between our organization and our suppliers.  In many cases we do this to provide shared value in terms of capacity and livelihood building for our suppliers alongside our need for more secure raw material sources.  We often do this on a case by case basis — mainly on a regional level where it makes sense

Value chain pressures and expectations – We are experiencing a world where retailers and our largest customers see these issues in the light of their entire value chain and are actively seeking ways to reduce their indirect impacts.  This of course is cascaded down their supply chains through our organization to our suppliers.  We also see a tremendous opportunity in this area to be first movers and to act now based on how the retailers are moving.  This will put us in a position where we can be proactive and are faster to respond to value chain pressures.”

Materiality in CSR Reports of the Future

I also had the pleasure of several e-mail exchanges with Ms. Elaine Cohen (@elainecohen).  Elaine is a well known CSR consultant, Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional (and self-avowed ice cream addict).  She’s  the Founding partner at BeyondBusiness Ltd (www.b-yond.biz/en) and consults to companies on CSR strategy, processes and sustainability communications. I asked Elaine what trends she has seen in CSR reporting these past few years where supply chain has been classified as having “high materiality” to a company’s operations and to their stakeholders.

“I believe supply chains have been becoming increasingly more important over the past few years, as the effects of inadequate supply chain accountability are more and more visible in our market place. We can split these issues broadly into two: the human rights issues in supply chains and the sourcing issues in supply chains.  The HR issues surfaced mainly with the apparel issues in the late 90’s. But the last five years have been characterized by significantly greater transparency  due to the spread of the internet and ease of access to information.”

“… Additionally, I believe the increasing focus on Human Rights and the work of John Ruggie [Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General on Business & Human Rights], have been clear about squarely placing the responsibility for clean supply chains on the manufacturer. There is almost nothing more material for apparel suppliers than human rights in their supply chains – just take a look at some of their Sustainability reports. Regarding sourcing, this has also become a major issue – Starbucks and Ethiopian coffee farmers, Unilever and others in palm oil issues, Nestle and the Greenpeace KitKat campaign . Manufacturers are getting clearer that sourcing decisions are now much more visible than in the past, and much more risky. So for these companies, raw materials sourcing is most definitely high materiality. Sustainability reports are reflecting these trends and the space allocated to human rights, responsible sourcing and factory auditing is significantly greater that it was some years ago.”

Trending forward in 2011, I asked Elaine to read the tea leaves on supply chain management, CSR and materiality.

“I believe these issues will continue to maintain high-profile and ultimately move towards cross sector alliances to resolve issues that affect all players in a sector such as the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil , work done by the apparel sector and the electronics industry  to determine common standards. We might see multi-company collaboration on third-party factory inspection and evaluation. We might see a set of industry wide agreements on core issues….countries such as China and India are also aware of risks, and greater legislation and enforcement in these countries may help resolve some issues.

Takeaways on Materiality in the Supply Chain.

Jeff related to me that a key NGO with a critical stake in Daniscos’ supply chain affairs remarked that supply chain management and sustainability go hand in hand and is basically a foundational aspect of business operations and risk management.   The challenge, according to Jeff, is in finding the “shared value proposition” that is often difficult to achieve, especially across multiple layers of an often globally distributed supply chain.  Finding localized suppliers and establishing multi-stakeholder collaborations hold promise as models where stakeholder interests and large-scale products manufacturers can find the needed common ground to advance supply chain sustainability.

Elaine summed up our dialogue with the following suggestions: “For manufacturers, don’t underestimate the importance of high-quality supply chain management – get it right before it gets you right, learn from the mistakes of others, think of supply chain management as a core business issue which goes to the heart of strategy and brand decisions, not just something that is tacked on to a new project as a deliverable…In terms of materiality, make sure you “engage, engage, engage” at [the] local level with a wide range of stakeholders, so that you are not demanding deliverables which are not reasonably  feasible. Report transparently on all aspects of supply chain because, if nothing else, this will assist in identifying hidden costs and areas of potential risk.”

Thanks Elaine! I couldn’t have said it better myself.

In Part 3 of this series, I’ll lay out the business case for materiality assessments to strengthen supply chain management and a straightforward framework for materiality analysis.

---

[1] Ford’s 2008/09 Sustainability Report includes an interactive materiality matrix that categorizes issues based on two dimensions: the degree of stakeholder concern and the extent of the current or potential impact on the company.

How ‘Materiality Analysis’ Can Drive Corporate Social Responsibility & Sustainability in the Supply Chain- the Case of Conflict Minerals

By Dave R. Meyer (SEEDS Global Alliance)

Note: this is the first of a three-part series exploring “materiality” and the intersection of supply chain management, sustainability and corporate social responsibility.

As the ongoing Wikileaks controversy has made very clear, the political and business world is on information overload.  Some of the information that is disclosed can reveal damaging and often jaw dropping news- and somewhere, interested stakeholders either celebrate or shudder. If a company is questioned about its work practices, environmental impacts of its products or services, it’s too late to claim “it’s not my problem”.  By the time the conversation happens, it’s already a “material” issue.  We are (as former Beatle George Harrison penned) indeed “living in the material world”.

“Materiality” is a term that is frequently used in corporate financial circles, especially as it relates to corporate responsibility, risk and liability management.  A “material issue” is commonly understood in the financial industry as a factor that can have a significant financial impact on a company. These issues are generally disclosed to shareholders, quantified to a degree in annual financial reports, and addressed within the strategic planning process.

Tomorrow’s effective corporate social, environmental and economic reporting must communicate information that is ‘material’ to stakeholders in making coherent decisions and taking planned and timely actions relevant to their interests. An appropriate redefinition of materiality is therefore essential for business managers, for policy makers establishing tomorrow’s regulatory frameworks, and for those involved in their implementation and oversight.- excerpt from Redefining Materiality -Practice and public policy for effective corporate reporting (AccountAbility, 2003)

As sustainability meets supply chain networks, the issue of ‘materiality’ is taking on a new meaning.  Maintaining a “responsible supply chain” involves ensuring that human and labor rights are acknowledged along the supply chain.  Leading companies are engaging their stakeholders to assure that proactive institutional controls are in place to manage the environmental footprint of the value chain.  In addition, companies are increasingly promoting ethical business practices and fostering community based initiatives that support companies “social license to operate”.   As one example, on average, 40% to 60% of a typical consumer product manufacturing company’s carbon footprint is from its supply chain[1]. For retailers, the figure is closer to 80%, with an equally high supply chain exposure to human rights and social issues. By managing supplier and community engagement in a way that achieves and maintains the highest social and environmental standards, a company can achieve performance goals while creating a ripple effect that raises standards deep within the supply chain.

A recent report by Ernst and Young stresses a number of factors that are contributing to more companies expanding their supply chain initiatives in support of sustainability.  Key factors cited in the report are:

• “Changing consumer preferences toward environmentally responsible (green) products
• A call for better public availability of product data across the entire value chain
• Major supply chain risks, including human rights, national security, environment  and  climate change, each of which individually can   collectively affect the nature of a companies sourcing activities.
• Potential impacts of a products reputation and brand value associated with potentially harmful supply chain practices.”

It’s the last two points that touch most closely on the concepts and issues of ‘materiality’.

“Materiality” 101

As I noted above, ‘materiality’ analysis requires identifying the issues that are of high concern to your stakeholders and also of high strategic relevance to your company.  These are the issues that should be at the core of your corporate responsibility approach and communications strategy, both internally and externally. The concept of “materiality” for sustainable strategic planning widens the analytical spread to address significant environmental or social impacts—as understood by the company AND its stakeholders.

“Topics and indicators that reflect the organization’s significant economic, environmental, and social impacts, or that would substantively influence the assessments and decisions of stakeholders.” -Global Reporting Initiative G3 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, October 2006.

Stakeholders can generally be defined as: investors, employees, customers, communities, non-governmental organizations (NGO), regulators, and (of course), suppliers. Suppliers upstream of core manufacturing operations hold a critical place in operationalizing organizational sustainability initiatives.  They can serve a key external role in determining if an environmental, social or financial issue that can be encountered within the product value chain is great and unmanageable or small and can be contained.  If manufacturers can control or influence supplier behavior, the environmental footprint of the product before it enters the production cycle, its likely that the entire product life-cycle footprint can be narrowed downstream at the point of use and end of life. Also, in softening the environmental and social “load” the residual effect would likely be greater stakeholder confidence, enhanced financial assurance and managed reputation.

The Case About “Conflict Minerals” and Supply Chain Management

Photo by Mark Craemer

Making the rounds in sustainability and supply chain circles so far this year is closer examination of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010), signed into law last July.  Within the body of this voluminous Act (page 838 of the 848 page Act  to be exact) is a six-page section that may have a marked impact on the supply chain for companies across many industries. This law and the issue of conflict minerals (and other commodity driven issues like palm oil extraction, cocoa or coffee production) is a golden example of where supply chain management meets social responsibility and ethics.  This issue sits squarely in the world of materiality, both to internal operations and to external stakeholders.

Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act promulgates new requirements that will have companies reporting to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on the origins of many precious metals and minerals in their products, including gold, tin, tantalum and tungsten. The focal point of this legislation is targeted on so-called “conflict minerals”.  Most of these minerals are sourced in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).  Many of the proceeds from the sale of the minerals entering the supply chain are believed to be funding armed militia groups. The new provisions will create potential penalties for failing to comply with the SEC reporting requirements.  Also, the provisions require that companies respond adequately to customer or third-party requests for information about how these minerals are included in a company’s products or manufacturing processes.

According to a recent white paper on the Dodd-Frank Act by Supply Chain Executive and IHS, Section 1502 requires companies to make an annual disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding whether potential conflict minerals used in their products or in their manufactur­ing processes originated in the DRC or an adjoining country. If the minerals were sourced from these countries.  Companies must report on the due diligence measures used to track the sources of the minerals if they were derived from the DRC or neighboring nations. In addition, the Act will require a 3^rd party audit to verify the accuracy of the company’s disclosure. Finally, a declaration of “DRC conflict-free” must be provided to support that goods containing minerals were not obtained in a manner that could “directly or indirectly … finance armed groups in the DRC or an adjoining country”.

This Act and others like it are likely to create difficult, but attainable challenges for electronics manufacturers. The steepness of the challenge depends on the depth of the supply leading from initial extraction of materials to production and the frequency that the minerals exchange hands through the chain-of-custody.  Most surveys taken from manufacturers suggest a lack of confidence in being able to confidently trace conflict minerals to the source (excluding the likelihood that illegal extracted minerals are also blending into the marketplace).  So you could see the difficulty in companies demonstrating due diligence in tracing the chain of materials flows from point of origin.

Meanwhile, major manufacturers in sectors affected by the law already (electronics, cell phones etc) are starting to push new reporting requirements down their supply chains.  Also, a number of industry associations are working with their members to develop codes of conduct associated with conflict minerals.  They are also developing tracking tools and mechanisms to more accurately account for conflict mineral movement in compliance with Dodd-Frank.  And still other NGO’s continue to fight conflict minerals on the ground and through public action.

The second post in this series will look at the successes and challenges surrounding materiality in the supply chain and the intersection with corporate social responsibility.  I’ll present some industry leading examples of materiality analyses in corporate social responsibility reporting, and the criteria that went into determing levels of supply chain materiality .  The third part of this series will dive into how to conduct a detailed materiality analysis and best methods for engaging the supply network to create positive, verifiable benefits and leverage risk.

---

[1] Medical products manufacturer Baxter estimates that 38% of the company’s overall carbon footprint is represented by its suppliers. As part of its green supply chain initiative, Baxter “concentrates its efforts to green its supply chain on minimizing transportation-related emissions, procuring raw materials and other goods and services with reduced environmental impacts, and helping suppliers improve their environmental performance.”

Five Reasons that Sustainability and Supply Chain “Greening” Will Stick in 2011.

Hello, 2011.  Ten days in and already the supply chain chatter is in full force.  In a recent post, I noted how 2010 saw an incredibly marked increase in attention to supply chain ‘greening’ and sustainability (two different things I might add).  2011 looks to carry this trend to greater heights.  Why will there be increased traction in supply chain greening and sustainability?  For the following key reasons:

Economics- Contrary to popular belief, making the business case for making sustainability ‘operational” within an organizational supply chain is becoming easier, not harder.  With the availability of more data from ‘first movers’, procurement managers, environmental directors, design engineers, marketing/communications staff and operations managers (among others) are able now to make strong business cases in favor of looking at operations through a green lens. In addition, barriers to global trade brought on by increasing environmental regulations, more stringent restrictions on hazardous substances, greater emphasis on lean manufacturing, and increased supplier auditing and verification are creating the critical mass toward a new norm in supply chain management and expectations.  Seeking efficiencies in supply chain management and producing products while reducing waste continue to be a vital imperative in a recovering economy.  Those who neglect to critical evaluate their operations from a sustainability point of view this year will be cast to the side.

Climate Action- Supply chain sustainability is affecting shareholder value, company valuations and even due diligence during proposed mergers and acquisitions, the report said. It added that shareholder actions on sustainability performance and transparency were up 40% in 2009.  An article in the Environmental Leader last month described how climate change was playing an integral role in corporate supply chain decisions.  A very insightful report by Ernst and Young note that “As carbon pricing becomes established in various jurisdictions, organizations will face risks from compliance obligations.  This will impact cash management and liquidity, and carbon-intensive sectors may see an increase in the cost of capital.”  Still much work still remains to infuse green thinking in the C-Suite.   Little more than a third of those executives surveyed indicated that they were working directly with suppliers to reduce their carbon footprint, or have just started discussing climate change initiatives with their suppliers.  And now, the World Resources Institute is completing authoritative new supply chain and product lifecycle greenhouse gas protocols that will frame what’s expected to be a burgeoning wave of value chain sustainability accounting and reporting.   Stay tuned!

Disclosure and Accountability- As I’ve previously noted, supply chain management became widely recognized in 2010 as a key factor in measuring the true “sustainability” of an organizations practices and processes, and ultimately its product or service.   Increased attention will be paid this year on conflict minerals (because of the recent passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010), fair labor and other social aspects of sustainability, ongoing management of hazardous substances in toys and other consumer products, and looking at the supply chain to manage risks and liabilities from product recalls and other environmental impacts of products and services.  The concept of “materiality” in corporate social responsibility and product disclosure (FTC Green Guidelines) and SEC financial reporting is taking on new meaning from a supply chain perspective. ‘Materiality’ in terms of supply chain or network management will require more rigorous implementation and oversight of ethical business practices and practicing proactive environmental stewardship through-out a products value chain.  Suppliers play a key external role in managing the environmental, social or financial issues within the product value chain. I will treat the issue of sustainable supply chain management and materiality in an upcoming series. Watch for increased supplier requirements, third party verification (like ISO 14001, GS-GC1 and ULE 880) and more upstream accountability.

Innovation and Collaboration– the emergence of collaborative opportunities among larger manufacturers creates entry points in the market for smaller, intermediate products manufacturers as well.  Larger companies are identifying the critical supply chain partners that have the greatest product impact and begin seeking ways to collaboratively address the environmental and social footprint of their products through the value chain.   A new report even suggests that consumers will play a leading role behind greater supply chain collaboration.  The report, by CapGemini suggests that while suppliers are independently seeking more open, collaborative ways to move goods, consumers may be “… the trigger for an optimized collaborative supply chain flow: this next level of supply chain optimization is based on transparency and collaboration.”  More specifically, “Consumer awareness about sustainability demands a more CO2-friendly supply of products and services”, the report notes.

Life Cycle Design and End-of-Life Product Management– There are increased challenges that the waste management industry is facing, wider attention paid to greener packaging and increased emphasis on financial accountability is being felt in world markets.   Establishing a reverse logistics network that supports life cycle design, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), and “demanufacturing” processes will take on higher meaning in 2011.   According to a recent white paper issued by sustainability expert and colleague Gil Friend, EPR is a market-based approach that effectively assigns end-of-life responsibility and product stewardship to producers, requiring them to meet specific targets for material recycling and recovery, relative to the total amount of packaging that they have put into the marketplace. EPR helps to shift the responsibility for collecting packaging and end of life products from financially tapped out local government to producers.  But upstream of the manufacturing process, EPR success can be achieved through incentives for companies to take a closer look at how they design products for better end-of-life management (life cycle design).  Producers are not alone in addressing the social and ecological impacts of their products. Manufacturers must engage their supply networks to help drive EPR upstream; however, downstream customers play a role too. So producers and consumers should strive in 2011 to continue a dialogue about what to do to improve the profile of consumer products in a way that’s a win-win for all affected stakeholders.

So there it is from my view of the world. Five sustainability and supply chain challenges that were framed out in 2010 and look to stick in 2011.

Did I miss any?  Please chime in and share your thoughts.

Green Seals GS-C1 Taking Supply Chain Management in Manufacturing to a Greener, Socially Responsible Place

In late 2009, Green Seal[1] announced that they had developed a pilot sustainability standard for product manufacturers called “GS-C1”. This pilot standard recognizes socially and environmentally responsible product manufacturers so consumers can make informed choices while helping companies save money by reducing the resources they use and improving their brand and sales position.

The Pilot Standard is now available for public review until September 30^th, so it’s not too late to get your comments into the queue.

While the GS-C1 Pilot Sustainability Standard is under review, Green Seal will be piloting a certification program for consumer product manufacturers. The objective of the pilot certification program is to gain practical understanding about the GS-C1 requirements and procedures from companies that are going through the certification process.

Among the criteria included in the standard are:

1. Transparency and accountability on environmental and social policies at the corporate level;
2. Aggressive goals, commitments and achievements on environmental and social issues, including greenhouse gas reductions, water and waste, indigenous peoples’ rights and biological diversity;
3. Supply-chain management and accountability practices;
4. Life-cycle analysis of product lines and commitments to reduce environmental and health impacts from manufacturing, packaging, transport and end of life; and
5. Third-party certification requirements to verify environmental and social responsibility of products

Specific to supply chain management issues, the standard awards points for developing and maintaining environmentally preferable purchasing policies (for its non-manufacturing purchasing functions), product life cycle issues, including product design, packaging, transport/logistics and end-of product life management. Perhaps the relevance to supply chain management is Section 3.3, Supplier Management. Focus is paid primarily to “first tier” and highest priority and sub-suppliers.  Primary emphases are focused on:

1. Identification of highest priority suppliers with the largest environmental and social impact/footprint
2. Development and implementation of a documented management plan to reduce, in priority order, the social and environmental impacts of its highest-priority suppliers and sub-suppliers.
3. Maintaining a Supplier “Code of Conduct”;
4. Conform with Social Impact Assessment criteria described under SA8000 (including issues involving fair labor practices, bribery, governance and transparency);
5. Monitoring of sub-suppliers (extra points are given if there is “Evidence of working with suppliers to resolve issues found during social and environmental compliance evaluations”.
6. Accountability is recognized as well by designating a “senior officer” to be “responsible for enforcement of compliance with local laws, supplier Code of Conduct, and action plan for highest-priority suppliers and sub-suppliers.”
7. Annually issue a publically available report on its supplier management activities and performance

The new standard represents a focal shift of sorts for Green Seal.  The organizations efforts to date have focused on assessing and documenting the environmental footprint of a specific product.  Now with GS-C1, the emphasis is now shifting to the entire product life cycle and all inputs and outputs from a supply chain perspective (the entire design, manufacturing, distribution and end of life management cycle).  This standard is but one of several new standards under development, such as ULE 880 (see my earlier post) that are taking a whole systems approach to manufacturing- a refreshing and necessary step to manage consumption sustainably while enhancing manufacturing efficiency.

Courtesy AU Optronics Corp.

Some companies are not waiting around for the specifications to be completed.  AU Optronics Corporation (AUO) is one of many examples of companies that are adapting to the ‘new normal’ in supply chain management, where environmental issues and social accountability are factored into daily operations. AUO built one of a handful of factories that are (Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED) certified. The company has established a proactive program with its subcontractors and suppliers and includes elements related to quality, green products, manufacturing, labor and ethics, cost and ESH (see attached Figure). A cross-functional team from the company’s Quality Department, Risk Management & ESH Department, Procurement Department, and R&D Department, conduct audit activities. The company has strict acceptance requirements and will not accept a subcontractor or supplier until all of its environmental and social aspects of its products or services are approved. The company also conducts routine management, periodic audits, and ratings for subcontractors and suppliers.  On paper at least, AUO appears to be doing things in alignment with both ULE880 and GS-C1.

I encourage you to consider GS-C1 and ULE 880’s positions on supply chain management and plan ahead for what is undoubtedly a sign of ‘greener’ things to come in business management.

This post was originally published on the Kinaxis Supply Chain Expert Community Green Supply Chain Blog, which can be found at https://community.kinaxis.com/people/DRMeyer/blog

---

[1] Green Seal is a non-profit organization devoted to working towards environmental sustainability through environmental standard setting, product certification, and public education. The intent of Green Seal’s standards is to reduce, to the extent technically and economically feasible, the environmental impacts associated with manufacturing and services. (Source: www.greenseal.org)