Of all the tragic incremental efforts trickling out of this year's tepid Earth Day, this one has to be among the most unapologetic [as reported by GreenBiz]:
"With no consumer products to shill, Dow Chemical Company is in the position of talking about something other than sales. The company announced its employees would participate in street cleanups, tree plantings, trail restorations, recycling events and more. The company is also holding a talk by The Nature Conservancy's chief conservation officer, Bill Ginn, at its headquarters."
Right.
4.21.2011
4.19.2011
Gem of the day
It goes without saying that accountants and their friends don't have much imagination. But Ernst & Young, one of the world's biggest auditors and a well-known face appending many big CSR and sustainability reports, is really thinking outside the box. Here's a particularly far-fetched assessment of the state of offhosre drilling in the US-of-A right now, courtesy of E&Y's managing director in Houston:
"Those kind of incremental, evolutionary changes are what we’re going to see, and they can be effective. There is always someone who wants the third coat of paint to be applied before they operate a machine. But that is not realistic given the demands on the oil and gas industry. The country needs to get back to drilling."
Wait--so an auditor, not to mention BP's assurer of choice for their recent and poorly executed 2010 Sustainability Review, thinks that extra safety checks and basic regulatory measures in the wake of Deepwater Horizon are like a 'third coat of paint'?
But wait! Not to be outdone, our pals at Deloitte have an even more choice quote assessing this very topic:
"There is still a great prize in the Gulf of Mexico."
Great short-term analysis, Deloitte. How's about thinking 10, maybe 15 years down the line? Oh, and remember 2010 by the way?
"Those kind of incremental, evolutionary changes are what we’re going to see, and they can be effective. There is always someone who wants the third coat of paint to be applied before they operate a machine. But that is not realistic given the demands on the oil and gas industry. The country needs to get back to drilling."
Wait--so an auditor, not to mention BP's assurer of choice for their recent and poorly executed 2010 Sustainability Review, thinks that extra safety checks and basic regulatory measures in the wake of Deepwater Horizon are like a 'third coat of paint'?
But wait! Not to be outdone, our pals at Deloitte have an even more choice quote assessing this very topic:
"There is still a great prize in the Gulf of Mexico."
Great short-term analysis, Deloitte. How's about thinking 10, maybe 15 years down the line? Oh, and remember 2010 by the way?
4.18.2011
Gem of the day
This can't possibly come as a surprise, but it still hurts. As the Guardian reports (where are American newspapers on this?):
"Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show BP officials openly discussing how to influence the work of scientists conducting independent research into the consequences of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster."
Here's Russell Putt, from BP's environment team, in an email from June 2010:
"Can we 'direct' GRI [Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative] funding to a specific study (as we now see the governor's offices trying to do)? What influence do we have over the vessels/equipment driving the studies vs the questions?"
It gets even more to the point in another document, which includes minutes from a BP meeting in Louisiana containing this gem:
"Discussions around GRI and whether or not BP can influence this long-term research programme ($500m) to undertake the studies we believe will be useful in terms of understanding the fate and effects of the oil on the environment, eg can we steer the research in support of restoration ecology?"
These documents were all secured by Greenpeace. And there's more where that came from on the political side of the spill--NOAA and EPA vs. White House--which we already know.
Wow.
"Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show BP officials openly discussing how to influence the work of scientists conducting independent research into the consequences of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster."
Here's Russell Putt, from BP's environment team, in an email from June 2010:
"Can we 'direct' GRI [Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative] funding to a specific study (as we now see the governor's offices trying to do)? What influence do we have over the vessels/equipment driving the studies vs the questions?"
It gets even more to the point in another document, which includes minutes from a BP meeting in Louisiana containing this gem:
"Discussions around GRI and whether or not BP can influence this long-term research programme ($500m) to undertake the studies we believe will be useful in terms of understanding the fate and effects of the oil on the environment, eg can we steer the research in support of restoration ecology?"
These documents were all secured by Greenpeace. And there's more where that came from on the political side of the spill--NOAA and EPA vs. White House--which we already know.
Wow.
4.15.2011
Bonus gem
Can someone please explain to me how this Bob Dudley quote from his AGM speech yesterday makes any sense, any sense at all:
"Let me remind you that in BP we advocate stronger policies on climate change including a widely applied carbon price and transitional incentives to help low-carbon technologies compete at scale.
However, whatever course policy takes, and even if climate change is robustly addressed, fossil fuels are projected to provide most of our energy in 2030."
Um. Maybe he's not advocating the right policies. Either that or we're on a different page about what 'robustly addressed' means in the context of climate change.
"Let me remind you that in BP we advocate stronger policies on climate change including a widely applied carbon price and transitional incentives to help low-carbon technologies compete at scale.
However, whatever course policy takes, and even if climate change is robustly addressed, fossil fuels are projected to provide most of our energy in 2030."
Um. Maybe he's not advocating the right policies. Either that or we're on a different page about what 'robustly addressed' means in the context of climate change.
Another non-environmental wonder
It goes without saying that Donald Trump lives in a world that's different from ours. But taking on Obama's team is a big ask, even for our most iconic real estate mogul. Here's his ingenious response to David Plouffe's assertion that Trump has 'zero chance' of becoming President:"Obviously, I hit a nerve because they're fighting me," Trump said this morning on Fox and Friends. He added: "I can tell you I'm their worst nightmare. I am not the person they want to run against. They know it, and I know it. I know it for a fact because I have a lot of people that frankly are contributors to him and they tell me, 'Donald, you are not the person they want to run against.'"
It just doesn't get any better than that in the land of political gems.
Gem of the day
Quote from Obama, back in the heat of Gulf of Mexico in June 2010:
"I don't sit around talking to experts because this is a college seminar, we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick."
"I don't sit around talking to experts because this is a college seminar, we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick."
4.14.2011
Gem of the day
Bob Dudley unleashed a few prize gems today at the much-anticipated BP AGM.
Witness:
Witness:
- "We have also decided not to accept rigs that do not conform to our standards". Whereas before? Right.
- Compares the oil spill to “a fire hydrant on the bottom of the ocean"
4.13.2011
Bonus gem
Every year SustainAbility and Globescan survey a few hundred "qualified sustainability experts" in the consulting field to name which companies are making the most progress on environmental & social issues. In their words, they look for corporates that are:
"...committed to sustainable development, seeing strategic advantage in pursuing policies and actions which go beyond the requirements of environmental and social legislation.”
This year the usual suspects were lauded--M&S, Unilever, GE. But what captures my attention is who was leading before 2010:
BP. Yes indeed, the oil major was nominated by between 20 and 30 percent on respondents in 2004, 2005 and 2006.
There's no doubt BP saw a whole lot of strategic advantage in running 'Beyond Petroleum' as a campaign. The question is, did the public get anything out of it? And yes, that's a rhetorical question.
"...committed to sustainable development, seeing strategic advantage in pursuing policies and actions which go beyond the requirements of environmental and social legislation.”
This year the usual suspects were lauded--M&S, Unilever, GE. But what captures my attention is who was leading before 2010:
BP. Yes indeed, the oil major was nominated by between 20 and 30 percent on respondents in 2004, 2005 and 2006.
There's no doubt BP saw a whole lot of strategic advantage in running 'Beyond Petroleum' as a campaign. The question is, did the public get anything out of it? And yes, that's a rhetorical question.
Gem of the day
In another Congressional Environment First, Sen. Mike Simpson of Idaho has successfully abused the budget crisis to slip in a provision removing Rocky Mountain wolves from the endangered species list.
Things can only get better from here, right?
Things can only get better from here, right?
4.11.2011
Another non-environmental wonder
Bonus bonus gem
Bonus gem
Fact: Shell has 50% more petrol stations around the world than McDonald's has burger joints. James Smith, the outgoing chairman of Shell, doesn't hesitate to say that statistic is "my proudest boast at Shell".
Gem of the day
The UN climate scene is moving from awkard to despairing. As if the media's representation of the squabbling, haggling, low expectations and predictable debates wasn't depressing enough, here's a rock-bottom quote from the chair of Africa Group:
"Thank god we came up with an agenda. It's a pity it took so long. What does it say for the rest of the year?"
That's a rhetorical question, by the way.
"Thank god we came up with an agenda. It's a pity it took so long. What does it say for the rest of the year?"
That's a rhetorical question, by the way.
4.08.2011
Gem of the day
An interview on FT Energy Source with Amrita Sen, oil analyst at Barcap, captures in one choice quote what the entire issue with the investment community and the future of energy is:
"Despite a series of hurdles, the continued development of Canadian oil sands looks almost inevitable to us."
Right. If Barcap as a major investor decides that developing this dirty, hazardous energy resource is 'almost inevitable', placing it in the hands of some pre-determined fate, then...it will become so.
There's also a great exchange around the question of whether cutting oil subsidies would make renewable energy more competitive (obviously). Witness Sen's reply:
"This is a very interesting question."
"Despite a series of hurdles, the continued development of Canadian oil sands looks almost inevitable to us."
Right. If Barcap as a major investor decides that developing this dirty, hazardous energy resource is 'almost inevitable', placing it in the hands of some pre-determined fate, then...it will become so.
There's also a great exchange around the question of whether cutting oil subsidies would make renewable energy more competitive (obviously). Witness Sen's reply:
"This is a very interesting question."
4.07.2011
Gem of the day
You have to wonder how Jane Austen would feel about having her literary masterpiece's title subverted to headline a Fortune survey. Regardless, the results of this year's 'Sense and Sustainability' are out and they paint a stunning portrait of how twisted the corporate landscape is.
Here's the whopper:
88% claimed their company is 'going green', but only 29 percent believe a majority of businesses are doing the same.
Aside from the fact the awkward reality that there's no way to pin down what 'going green' actually means, this is the kind of aggravating PR exercise that begs the question: If these results were really true, what would be left to worry about?
Still, the executives polled happily admit that they face challenges to achieving their green dreams. Witness this delight:
70% said the top barrier to more businesses going green was insufficient return on investment.
Right, because traditional methods of investment are really winning right now. Maybe those executives should pay attention to this.
Here's the whopper:
88% claimed their company is 'going green', but only 29 percent believe a majority of businesses are doing the same.
Aside from the fact the awkward reality that there's no way to pin down what 'going green' actually means, this is the kind of aggravating PR exercise that begs the question: If these results were really true, what would be left to worry about?
Still, the executives polled happily admit that they face challenges to achieving their green dreams. Witness this delight:
70% said the top barrier to more businesses going green was insufficient return on investment.
Right, because traditional methods of investment are really winning right now. Maybe those executives should pay attention to this.
4.05.2011
Bonus gem
The shortlist is out for the annual Business Green awards, and guess who's up for Sustainability Team of the year?
The folks at BAE Systems. Ah, capitalism.
The folks at BAE Systems. Ah, capitalism.
Gem of the day
The public reaction to BP's Sustainability Review, published last week, is: silence. Hardly anyone has responded to the gross failure of a report at all, with the exception of Good Magazine which noted its omission of oil spill volume estimates early on.
Why? The CSR community sure was vocal enough in the aftermath of Gulf of Mexico last year, offering up a chorus of timidly critical voices, most of which were aimed at the lame question 'whenceforth for BP's reputation'.
Perhaps the lack of chorus this time is because this sustainability report gets at a hard reality about reporting in general: as it stands, reporting is pretty useless. The purpose of CSR reporting is supposedly to improve performance by creating accountability for social and environmental impacts that aligns with financial impacts.
So if causing the biggest environmental disaster in the history of the US doesn't prevent BP from publishing a report which offers up little to no detail on what the actual impact was, and how their sustainability 'strategy' will change to reflect this, there's no point in reporting at all.
Then again, financial reporting ain't so great either...
Why? The CSR community sure was vocal enough in the aftermath of Gulf of Mexico last year, offering up a chorus of timidly critical voices, most of which were aimed at the lame question 'whenceforth for BP's reputation'.
Perhaps the lack of chorus this time is because this sustainability report gets at a hard reality about reporting in general: as it stands, reporting is pretty useless. The purpose of CSR reporting is supposedly to improve performance by creating accountability for social and environmental impacts that aligns with financial impacts.
So if causing the biggest environmental disaster in the history of the US doesn't prevent BP from publishing a report which offers up little to no detail on what the actual impact was, and how their sustainability 'strategy' will change to reflect this, there's no point in reporting at all.
Then again, financial reporting ain't so great either...
4.04.2011
Bonus bonus gem
Our friends at BAE Systems published their Annual Report today (proof in a nutshell, by the way, of why the concept of 'One Report' ain't getting us any closer to transparency or progress on sustainability at big corporates). And magically enough, here's what you get when you land on their homepage:
That's right, a disclosure for you to sign up to before you even see the content. This kind of Extreme Manouever doesn't really mesh with their commitment to a culture of 'Total Performance', which is hands down the most dystopian corporate strategy of all time. Here's a snapshot of what that means:
"Total Performance is about every aspect of the way we do business: Customer Focus, Financial Performance, Programme Execution and Responsible Behaviour."
I assume their use of the word 'Execution' is unintentionally ironic.
But spend an efficient 5 minutes parsing the bare bones of a report they've been able to cobble together and you'll see that this 'cautionary statement' is hardly necessary--it's pretty clear that anything sustainability related sits in the convenient 'sometime in the future' box at BAE. Where else could it sit for the largest military contractor in the world?
And just for kicks, in their words here's a snapshot of their motivation behind trying to do anything sustainably at all, according to their lovely CEO:
"Our CR strategy covers the issues that have been identified as having the most potential to affect the sustainability of the Group, by directly impacting the Group’s reputation or ability to operate."
That's right, reputation. Where have we heard that before? I think I'll start paying attention when BAE looks at their indirect impacts as a business. Boy, that'll be interesting. Human rights, anyone?
That's right, a disclosure for you to sign up to before you even see the content. This kind of Extreme Manouever doesn't really mesh with their commitment to a culture of 'Total Performance', which is hands down the most dystopian corporate strategy of all time. Here's a snapshot of what that means:
"Total Performance is about every aspect of the way we do business: Customer Focus, Financial Performance, Programme Execution and Responsible Behaviour."
I assume their use of the word 'Execution' is unintentionally ironic.
But spend an efficient 5 minutes parsing the bare bones of a report they've been able to cobble together and you'll see that this 'cautionary statement' is hardly necessary--it's pretty clear that anything sustainability related sits in the convenient 'sometime in the future' box at BAE. Where else could it sit for the largest military contractor in the world?
And just for kicks, in their words here's a snapshot of their motivation behind trying to do anything sustainably at all, according to their lovely CEO:
"Our CR strategy covers the issues that have been identified as having the most potential to affect the sustainability of the Group, by directly impacting the Group’s reputation or ability to operate."
That's right, reputation. Where have we heard that before? I think I'll start paying attention when BAE looks at their indirect impacts as a business. Boy, that'll be interesting. Human rights, anyone?
Gem of the day
Paul Krugman takes it up a notch as he investigates Koch-funded "climate science":
"I was wrong when I said that the joke was on the G.O.P.; actually, the joke is on the human race."
"I was wrong when I said that the joke was on the G.O.P.; actually, the joke is on the human race."
4.01.2011
Another non-environmental wonder
"Ten years ago, when the hedge fund industry was much smaller than it is today, it took 25 hedge fund managers to earn a combined annual payday of $5 billion. Last year, it took only one."
For a bonus gem, here's Leon Cooperman of Omega Advisors on what he plans to do with his extraordinary wealth (driven by signing up to the Gates' 'Giving Pledge'):
“I’m very, very philanthropic toward Columbia, which opened the door to Wall Street for me,” said Mr. Cooperman. “I’m trying to give money away to the kinds of things that touched me during my lifetime.”
Ah, redistribution of his billions towards things that matter...to him and his lifestyle. Tastes like progress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)