The following Discussion Forum prompt was adapted from Harvard Business Review “
ID: 362691 • Letter: T
Question
The following Discussion Forum prompt was adapted from Harvard Business Review “Green” Discussions. Read the article and submit your comment to the Green Stakeholders Discussion Forum.
Green Stakeholders: Pesky Activists or Productive Allies?
Companies often clash with nongovernmental organizations or NGO’s ranging from organizations that help businesses to Green activists. Sometimes environmental activists “ambush” executives to spread their message and affect change. Likewise, companies respond to pressure by publishing sustainability report with more public relations than actual substance. But, neither tactic may actually help address sustainability.
Judith Samuelson of the Aspen Institute suggests companies, investors, and NGO’s can find a way to act as partners in real and productive ways. Can a concerted effort connect the power of markets to a green future? Executives focus on the narrow interest in the company and think of sustainability stakeholders as distractions. Other major stakeholders in the policy and planning process scrutinize companies for not looking at the long term risks of climate change and ask governments to step in and force companies to consider their actions. The EPI index reflects government’s efforts to develop sustainable development rules and regulation to control the impacts of companies and society.
Working together, companies and NGO’s is definitely hard work. However, in many instances investors continually consult the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council for their advice. Many times investors drop their plans to invest or buy another polluting company based on an activists’ guidance. For example, Coca-Cola and the World Wildlife Fund are tackling global water quality, McDonald's and Greenpeace are hammering out initiatives to mitigate deforestation, Clorox and the Sierra Club are working together on the rollout of a green product line. Other companies like Monsanto ignore outside groups and develop their own products without considering the broader environmental and social impacts (e.g. Genetically Modified Organism in food).
Policy positions are no longer black and white positions even though the media may present them so. It is not merely jobs versus sustainability. Planning strategies and policy making must include a variety of stakeholders working together to construct effective sustainability programs.
Should green stakeholders be included in a company's business agenda? Have the dynamics between companies in the tourism and hospitality industries and sustainability activist NGO’s shifted? What are some hard trade-offs that companies may have to give up and likewise “activist” organization in particular during public policy negotiations like found in Providence? Please use the “Sustainable Providence” ( http://www.providenceri.gov/sustainability/about-the-plan/ ) for issue examples.
Explanation / Answer
Green Stakeholders: Pesky Activists or Productive Allies?
Companies often clash with nongovernmental organizations or NGO’s ranging from organizations that help businesses to Green activists. Sometimes environmental activists “ambush” executives to spread their message and affect change. Likewise, companies respond to pressure by publishing sustainability report with more public relations than actual substance. But, neither tactic may actually help address sustainability.
Judith Samuelson of the Aspen Institute suggests companies, investors, and NGO’s can find a way to act as partners in real and productive ways. Can a concerted effort connect the power of markets to a green future? Executives focus on the narrow interest in the company and think of sustainability stakeholders as distractions. Other major stakeholders in the policy and planning process scrutinize companies for not looking at the long term risks of climate change and ask governments to step in and force companies to consider their actions. The EPI index reflects government’s efforts to develop sustainable development rules and regulation to control the impacts of companies and society.
Working together, companies and NGO’s is definitely hard work. However, in many instances investors continually consult the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council for their advice. Many times investors drop their plans to invest or buy another polluting company based on an activists’ guidance. For example, Coca-Cola and the World Wildlife Fund are tackling global water quality, McDonald's and Greenpeace are hammering out initiatives to mitigate deforestation, Clorox and the Sierra Club are working together on the rollout of a green product line. Other companies like Monsanto ignore outside groups and develop their own products without considering the broader environmental and social impacts (e.g. Genetically Modified Organism in food).
Policy positions are no longer black and white positions even though the media may present them so. It is not merely jobs versus sustainability. Planning strategies and policy making must include a variety of stakeholders working together to construct effective sustainability programs.
1)Should green stakeholders be included in a company's business agenda?
Answer : No i don't think that green Stakeholders should be included in a company's business because this will be a regulatory hurdle for companies which are weighted down with excess regulation as it is. A vast majority of the companies who deal in manufacturing already comply with government regulations and standards.
Instead of crating a hurdle, the solution is to create an incentive for firms to involve well informed, analytical, non biased industry and government vetted ./ recognised green stakeholder. For EG :
2)Global reporting initiative's Audits Standards increase the value of a company's projects
Global reporting initiative is a non government organisation which established metrics that try to measure the degree of compliance to human rights laws, environmental laws , climate change standards, social impact, corruption etc. While its a non government organisation , it works closely with regulatory bodies and it also acts as a third party auditing agency which companies and organisations often use to test the levels of sustainability in their organisations.
The reason why the Global Reporting Initiative is important is because they used reporting standards and metrics than use the right sustainability benchmarks. Companies and organisations often benchmark themselves against their previous years sustainability performance. So having a third party auditing and standards agency set the right performance standards will help organisations reach new levels in sustainability, employee satisfaction levels and reduce corruption
3)Have the dynamics between companies in the tourism and hospitality industries and sustainability activist NGO’s shifted?
Not to a large extent since a large segment of travel , tourism and hospitality are mostly from the organised sector and are leg by large multinational companies who cater to a customer base that is extremely demanding , price sensitive and are burdened with regulations like the hike in minimum wage and the affordable care act and an increase in taxes. However on the fringes of tourism and hospitality there are several independent companies who's dynamics have changed with the tourism and hospitality industry. So independent business have better dynamics with sustainability activist NGO's.
4)What are some hard trade-offs that companies may have to give up and likewise “activist” organization in particular during public policy negotiations like found in Providence?
Trade offs that companies may have to give up or take on
- Relative Ease of Doing Buisness
- Projects that may take more time to receive an approval
- Cost effectiveness
- They will need to incur an added costs in legal and compliance
- Opportunity Cost
- They will have to open up their management practices, operations to third party auditors.