CSRHub Launches 4 New Dashboard Templates

 

Dashboard Supply Chain Anaylsis

 New Ranking Percentile Comparisons allow you to compare a company
to other companies in the same industry and country

                                                   

CSRHub works for you                   

CSRHub just released four new products that simplify your sustainability analysis. Each CSRHub Dashboard is an Excel-based template that uses sustainability metrics and ratings to answer questions and solve problems. These competitively priced Company Diagnostic, Competitor Benchmark, CSR/ESG Research and Supply Chain Analysis Dashboards come with enough time to access the full database to complete a project. CSRHub’s Dashboard templates for reporting are priced $79-$199.

 

Now you can easily enter company names and a date, click calculate and let CSRHub do an analysis. CSRHub Dashboard spreadsheets can show a heat map of ratings, compare percentile rankings, and pull sheets of additional sustainability information.

 

Do you need to:

  • Run a report on one company’s sustainability performance?
  • Benchmark competitors, customers and peers? Compare who reported to the CDP, GRI, or the UN Global Compact?
  • Check the sustainability status of up to 200 suppliers?
  • See a list of company’s CSR websites?
  • Perform CSR/ESG research on company performance over time?

 
A Full Access subscription includes all four of the dashboards listed above, plus full access to the CSRHub site for one year. You can see a full list of the new CSRHub products here.
 


 
CSRHub provides access to corporate social responsibility and sustainability ratings and information on 13,736+ companies from 135 industries in 127 countries. Managers, researchers and activists use CSRHub to benchmark company performance, learn how stakeholders evaluate company CSR practices and seek ways to change the world.

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today, Sustainable Nylon. Tomorrow, the Planet

By Carol Pierson Holding

 

“Optimism is a political act. Those who benefit from the status quo are perfectly happy for us to think that nothing is going to get any better.”

—     Alex Steffen, The Bright Green City

 

environmental inspiration

 

A young, environmentally focused chemist sent me news of a breakthrough in producing nylon, that ubiquitous chemical used for everything from stockings to zip-ties to jackets, tents and sails. Described in a recent paper by researchers Hwang and Sagadevan from National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan, the new process, if it can be brought to industrial production scale, would use far less energy and reduce nitrous oxide emissions dramatically. This addresses an enormous environmental problem: considered over a 100-year period, nitrous oxide has 298 times more global warming potential than carbon dioxide, and nylon synthesis creates 5-8% of those emissions from 10 billion pounds of nylon produced per year,

 

And that’s just nylon

 

I seems like everyone is working on a solution to climate change.  The poet and naturalist Diane Ackerman summarized some of the grandest schemes for Wired: India has announced an ambitious plan to transition the entire population of 400 million mainly to solar power; a separate initiative will plant two billion trees along India’s highways. In May 2014, Germany produced 74 percent of its energy from renewables. Sweden is now recycling a staggering 99-percent of household waste. China is about to invest $16 billion on electric car infrastructure. Ackerman concludes, “As a species, we’ve accomplished majestic things, and today is an especially exhilarating era of invention and discovery.”

 

Even Republicans now favor action on climate.

 

So many people working to battle climate change in every corner of modern life, but still, is it enough? Last week, I was stunned to hear a staunch supporter of environmental causes disparage her giving habits: “I don’t know why we give. It’s too late anyway.”

 

The science supports her. We’re long past the 350 ppm carbon limit over which humans cannot survive long term, and we’re nowhere near burning all the fossil fuels we’ll need to support our energy needs. In the often-quoted statement attributed in a 2006 Christian Science Monitor article to Jonathan Overpeck, a researcher at the University of Arizona, “CO2 remains in the atmosphere for more than a century; even if we shut down every fossil-fueled power plant today, existing CO2 will continue to warm the planet.”

 

And then there’s the argument put forth by Google engineers Ross Koningstein and David Fork after that company abandoned their much-ballyhood initiative RE<C to develop new technologies for cheap renewable energy: “…even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work.” Even more disheartening, “(Would) a 55 percent emission cut by 2050 bring the world back below that 350-ppm threshold? Our calculations revealed otherwise.”

 

Does this mean we should, like Google, just give up? You expect Ackerman to dream. After all, she’s a poet. But even these hard-boiled rationalists have faith:

 

“… We’re hopeful, because sometimes engineers and scientists do achieve the impossible. Consider the space program, which required outlandish inventions for the rockets that brought astronauts to the moon. MIT engineers constructed the lightweight and compact Apollo Guidance Computer, for example, using some of the first integrated circuits, and did this in the vacuum-tube era when computers filled rooms. Their achievements pushed computer science forward and helped create today’s wonderful wired world. Now, R&D dollars must go to inventors who are tackling the daunting energy challenge so they can boldly try out their crazy ideas. We can’t yet imagine which of these technologies will ultimately work and usher in a new era of prosperity—but the people of this prosperous future won’t be able to imagine how we lived without them.”

 

We got that sustainable nylon challenge licked. Next up, the race to save the planet. We’ve lined up chemists and poets and engineers and inventors and even the Republicans. It’s a race we just might win.

 

 

 

Photo courtesy of Stefan Mendelsohn via Flickr cc.

 


 

Carol Pierson HoldingCarol Pierson Holding writes on environmental issues and social responsibility for policy and news publications, including the Carnegie Council’s Policy Innovations, Harvard Business Review, San Francisco Chronicle, India Time, The Huffington Post and many other web sites. Her articles on corporate social responsibility can be found on CSRHub.com, a website that provides sustainability ratings data on 10,000+ companies worldwide. Carol holds degrees from Smith College and Harvard University.

 

CSRHub provides access to corporate social responsibility and sustainability ratings and information on 10,000+ companies from 135 industries in 104 countries. By aggregating and normalizing the information from 365 data sources, CSRHub has created a broad, consistent rating system and a searchable database that links millions of rating elements back to their source. Managers, researchers and activists use CSRHub to benchmark company performance, learn how stakeholders evaluate company CSR practices and seek ways to change the world.

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Financial Company Brand Strength Remains Related to Sustainability Factors

By Bahar Gidwani

 

Two years ago, CSRHub and Brand Finance collaborated on a study about the relationship between Brand Finance’s Brand Strength Index (BSI) and CSRHub’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) metrics.  We found a correlation of 28% between these factors for a set of more than 1,000 companies from a wide range of industries.

 

Since then, CSRHub and Brand Finance have each continued to build and expand their data sets and to study the relationship between them.  Brand Finance has recently published the first section of its 2014-15 data set—information on the brand strength for the world’s top 500 financial companies.  CSRHub got early access to this data and compared it against the latest CSRHub data set.  We once again found a strong correlation between brand and sustainability.

 

Brand Strength for the top 500 Banking Brands

 

Each year, Brand Finance reviews the brand strength and value of thousands of companies.  Its rankings shift and change as companies compete to build their brands.  The 500 financial companies on this year’s list include 44 new entries.  Unlike CSRHub, which focuses only on parent companies, Brand Finance generates separate measures for each brand a corporationowns.  As a result, 59 companies have more than one entry on this year’s Brand Finance Banking 500 list.

 

CSRHub tracks the sustainability performance of more than 13,700 companies in 127 countries.  After removing duplicates, CSRHub has 95% coverage of Brand Finance’s Banking 500 (419 of 441 non duplicate names).

 

CSRHub tracks twelve different measures of sustainability performance.  Our 2013 analysis used only data for companies where CSRHub had all twelve factors available.  After applying this restriction, the number of companies available for this year’s analysis shrank to 284.

 

A Good Correlation Despite a Small Sample Size

 

The correlation between Brand Finance’s BSI and CSRHub’s twelve subcategory measures of sustainability was 25%.  This is close to the 28% correlation we saw in 2013 across a data set that was almost four times larger.

 

CSRHub and Brand Finance BSI and 12 CSR Factors
The F factor (a measure of the strength of our correlation) was 8.8—indicating there is only a tiny chance that the correlation result was random.  The detailed correlation matrix (below) shows that five of CSRHub’s twelve sustainability factors had a significant relationship with Brand Finance’s BSI.

 

CSR Brand Value

 

In our previous study, the strongest relationships between sustainability and brand were for Compensation and Benefits, Diversity and Labor Rights, Training Health and Safety, and Environment Policy and Reporting.  All of these relationships were positive—better performance on these indicators seemed related to higher brand values.

 

In our current study, Community Development and Philanthropy still shows with a positive coefficient, but Diversity and Labor Rights and Environment Policy and Reporting do not have a similar concurrence.  Training, Health & Safety performance continues to have a strong positive relationship with brand.  Resource Management—a factor that previously had a low correlation—shows up with a strong negative relationship.  This kind of “rotation”—where the strength of relationship between our factors and an output variable change over time—is something we’ve seen in other studies.  We believe it is due to changes in emphasis among stakeholders who are interested in sustainability.  These differences may also be related to industry variations.  Our previous study covered a much broader range of industries than this one.  Finally, the smaller sample size of this study may make it difficult to fully integrate all parts of sustainability into our analysis.

 

Conclusion and Next Steps

 

We believe we have shown that the relationship we demonstrated two years ago between sustainability metrics and brand strength continues to persist.  While we cannot claim that there is a causal connection—that sustainability performance directly enhances brand strength the persistence of this relationship over time strengthens our belief that investments in sustainability could help drive positive changes in brand value.

 

The release of Brand Finance’s Banking 500 results will be followed by further data from Brand Finance on thousands of other top brands.  As we receive these results, we intend to integrate them with what we have discerned about the Banking 500.  We hope to continue improving our understanding of how brand managers and sustainability managers can collaborate to achieve mutually beneficial goals.

 

 

 


 

Bahar GidwaniBahar Gidwani is CEO and Co-founder of CSRHub.  He has built and run large technology-based businesses for many years. Bahar holds a CFA, worked on Wall Street with Kidder, Peabody, and with McKinsey & Co. Bahar has consulted to a number of major companies and currently serves on the board of several software and Web companies. He has an MBA from Harvard Business School and an undergraduate degree in physics and astronomy. Bahar is a member of the SASB Advisory Board.  He plays bridge, races sailboats, and is based in New York City.

 

CSRHub provides access to the world’s largest corporate social responsibility and sustainability ratings and information, covering over 13,000 companies from 135 industries in 104 countries. By aggregating and normalizing the information from 370 data sources, CSRHub has created a broad, consistent rating system and a searchable database that links millions of rating elements back to their source. Managers, researchers and activists use CSRHub to benchmark company performance, learn how stakeholders evaluate company CSR practices, and seek ways to improve corporate sustainability performance.

 

 

CSRHub is a B Corporation, an Organizational Stakeholder (OS) with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), a silver partner with CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project), and an Advisory Council Member of Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB).

 

Tagged , , , , , , ,

How Fossil Fuel Divestment Will Hurt Fossil Fuel Stock Prices

By: Carol Pierson Holding

 

If anyone needed more proof that economics trumps sustainability: low gas prices are causing a plunge in electric vehicle and hybrid sales.

Ban Fracking Tax Carbon

 

The same phenomenon is happening in the divestment movement. Moral outrage pushed 83 churches, universities and non-profits to divest $50 billion before the September climate march. This is a blip for an industry valued at $5 trillion, whose top investor Blackrock owns $146 billion in fossil fuel investments and where a single company Exxon Mobil is valued at $425 billion, and Shell and Chevron at $268 billion and $248 billion respectively.

 

These numbers are staggering, and the pace of the divestment movement in relative monetary terms is glacial, despite its many moral and symbolic victories. Even if as Bloomberg’s New Energy Finance says this divestment movement has more rapid growth and quicker scaling than any of its predecessors, does it have a chance of affecting fossil fuel company behavior?

 

Only when it starts to affect the stock price.

 

Tim Dickinson argues eloquently in this issue of Rolling Stone that divesting has become the smart move for the financially savvy, and not because of divestment pressure. Prompted by the recent 50% drop in the price of oil, now hovering below $45 per barrel —

 

“From late June to early January, across the world, the 10 oil firms with the largest proven reserves collectively lost roughly 20 percent of their market value.  …Goldman Sachs warned that nearly $1 trillion in planned oil-field investments would be unprofitable – even if oil were to stabilize at $70 per barrel. The industry is already scaling back the hunt for high-cost sources of new oil. Chevron has shelved drilling in the Canadian Arctic, and Hercules Offshore, a significant driller in the Gulf of Mexico, has idled four rigs and laid off more than 300 workers. Plunging profits are also putting the brakes on fracking.”

 

And that’s only the beginning. Countries around the world are putting limits on carbon emissions, so much so that Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney warned that “the vast majority of reserves are unburnable.” The argument that fossil fuel companies’ reserves will become “stranded assets” has long been a hopeful prediction from activists, but the message has a different tone when it comes from a powerful central banker whose main concern is not sustainability but stability.

 

Another concerned guardian of the status quo has similar fears. Bevis Longstreth, who served as commissioner of the SEC under Ronald Reagan and later chaired the Finance Committee of the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, blasts the oil companies: “There is no good reason for this vast expenditure of stockholder wealth. It is wasted capital, an offense against stockholders in terms financial alone.”

 

But my favorite argument for divesting comes from a report generated by Oxford University’s Stranded Assets Programme. The authors bring up the very real reputational risk that a divestment movement creates, which they label “Organisational Stigma,” or “disapproval, even ‘disgust’ at an organisation’s activities, values or behaviour” and tie it directly to stock price: “Even when divestment outflows are small or short term and do not directly affect future cash flows (as is true with fossil fuel divestment), if they trigger a change in market norms that close off channels of previously available money (i.e., the ability to sell stock), then a downward pressure on the stock price of a targeted firm may be large and permanent.”

 

Add to that the growing perception that the fossil fuel companies’ decisions about where to invest are considered irrational, and you’ve created a very serious threat to fossil fuel companies’ stock price and the managers whose pay and bonuses depends on that price. And that’s the most likely route to real change.

 

Photo courtesy of Carol Pierson Holding 

 


 

Carol Pierson HoldingCarol Pierson Holding writes on environmental issues and social responsibility for policy and news publications, including the Carnegie Council’s Policy Innovations, Harvard Business Review, San Francisco Chronicle, India Time, The Huffington Post and many other web sites. Her articles on corporate social responsibility can be found on CSRHub.com, a website that provides sustainability ratings data on 13,000+ companies worldwide. Carol holds degrees from Smith College and Harvard University.

 

CSRHub provides access to corporate social responsibility and sustainability ratings and information on 13,000+ companies from 135 industries in 127 countries. By aggregating and normalizing the information from 370 data sources, CSRHub has created a broad, consistent rating system and a searchable database that links millions of rating elements back to their source. Managers, researchers and activists use CSRHub to benchmark company performance, learn how stakeholders evaluate company CSR practices and seek ways to change the world.

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Part 2 of Do Data Management Tools Improve Perceived Sustainability Performance?

By: Bahar Gidwani

Part 2 of a 2-part series.

 

In our last post, we set the stage describing a new study conducted by CSRHub and Tennaxia investigating the correlation between a company’s sustainability performance and its use of specialized data management software. To continue, the results from our study are outlined below.

 

Hypothesis A Confirmed:  Strong Overlap

 

Tennaxia supplied CSRHub with the names of fourteen of its customers.  We can assume then that the companies we were given are ones who have used Tennaxia software for a while and who are satisfied with its performance.  We found that CSRHub had data on thirteen and enough data to rate ten of these fourteen companies.

 

CSRHub analysis

 

(Note: CSRHub had full ratings on Emerson, but no separate ratings on its Moteurs Leroy Somer subsidiary.)

 

CSRHub has at least some data on 140,000 companies and other entities, but has only so far been able to rate about 10,000 of these.  As we can rate only about 7% of our universe, the 10/14 coverage for Tennaxia’s customer set is a higher than average proportion.  About 70% of CSRHub’s ratings are complete.  For these companies we can rate social performance in all four major sustainability areas:  Community, Employees, Environment, and Governance.  We had full ratings on eight of the ten Tennaxia companies we rated—80%.

 

Hypothesis B Confirmed:  Good Overall Ratings

 

As we expected, the average percentile rank of the six Tennaxia companies that CSRHub fully rates was well above average.

 

CSRHub overall and industry performance

 

 

The percentile rank compared to all CSRHub rated companies ranged from 74% to 99%–with an average of 88%.  These high relative scores were not due just to a focus on certain high-sustainability industries.  The average rank for Tennaxia’s customers versus other companies in their industry was 85th percentile.  While the eight companies involved are larger-than average, we have found that company size by itself has little effect on CSRHub’s ratings.

 

 

 

 

Hypothesis C Confirmed:  Special Strength In Software-Related Areas

 

CSRHub tracks sustainability performance in twelve different areas.  The average ratings across these areas were strong for the ten Tennaxia clients for whom we had multiple rated areas.

 

CSRHub - Tennaxia comparison

 

 

Note that all three employee subcategories had above average scores—one of the areas we expected to see strength.  The Tennaxia-using companies also did well in our three Environment subcategories—an area where software tools should be helpful.  The two weakest areas were places where EHS and CSR Data tools would not be expected to play a role.  Community development and philanthropy are functions that may be managed by groups outside of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) function in many companies.  Board quality and procedures are also outside the scope of most sustainability software tools.

 

Summary

 

This study used a small group of companies.  We had the support of only one software vendor.  We did not conduct supporting interviews or study outliers to look for specific examples of best or worst practice.  However, the general tone of our results is consistent with our hypotheses and is consistent with the feedback we’ve received from working with the more than 14,000 corporate sustainability professionals who use CSRHub.  We believe that commercial software tools will become an increasingly important part of managing CSR and sustainability programs and that they can help companies improve their social and business performance.  We thank Tennaxia and Rescore for their support of this study and hope that other software firms will step forward to do similar work to help substantiate the value they claim for their products.

 

 

 

About CSRHub and Tennaxia

 

CSRHub provides access to corporate social responsibility and sustainability ratings and information on 13,700+ companies from 135 industries in 104 countries. By aggregating and normalizing the information from 360 data sources, CSRHub has created a broad, consistent rating system and a searchable database that links millions of rating elements back to their source. Managers, researchers and activists use CSRHub to benchmark company performance, learn how stakeholders evaluate company CSR practices and seek ways to change the world.

 

Tennaxia provides customized cloud-based software and services to help companies manage EHS Compliance and Sustainability Data.  Over 5,000 locations, in 70 countries across multiple languages, rely on Tennaxia to streamline business processes, reducing costs and risks. Configurable to any framework or KPI, Tennaxia’s turnkey solution achieves nearly 100% client retention. With 13 years track record advancing European corporations, Tennaxia is now pleased to offer its customizable solutions to U.S. customers.  For more information including case studies:

 

http://www.trianagroup.com/tennaxia/

http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/ict_big_data/millie_lapidario/us_companies_can_do_more_excel_csr_data

 

CSRHub and Tennaxia white paper

 

 


 

Bahar GidwaniBahar Gidwani is CEO and Co-founder of CSRHub.  He has built and run large technology-based businesses for many years. Bahar holds a CFA, worked on Wall Street with Kidder, Peabody, and with McKinsey & Co. Bahar has consulted to a number of major companies and currently serves on the board of several software and Web companies. He has an MBA from Harvard Business School and an undergraduate degree in physics and astronomy. Bahar is a member of the SASB Advisory Board.  He plays bridge, races sailboats, and is based in New York City.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,