One of the best definitions of “corporate responsibility” I have come across is as follows:
“Corporate responsibility is the basis on which business renegotiates and aligns the boundaries of its accountability.” (Source).
Business’ negotiating partners are governments and civil society at large. Accountability for who is responsible for positive and negative outcomes is not crystal clear because this dialogue evolves as our world and societies do.
Take for example externalities associated with the use of the car: congestion, road accidents, environmental pollution, and infrastructure damage.
In 1933 there were 26 million motor vehicles registered in the USA. By 2005 there were 26 million Sports Utility Vehicles (SUV’s) alone, and a total of 136 million vehicles registered. In 1933 we had not even heard of things like acid rain and climate change, nor could we imagine the terrible impacts road accidents would come to have on our families and communities.
The dialogue about accountability for externalities among auto makers, civil society, and governments continues to evolve as externalities are revealed over time. Does tackling climate change mean cleaner fuels and engine technology (borne by the automaker) or regulation and carbon capture (borne by the government)? Do cutting road accidents mean improved vehicle safety (borne by the automaker) or better road rules and enforcement (borne by the government?). Civil society has stated their position: the current situation for both of these issues is unacceptable. But who is to blame?
In the end it all leads back to Achim Steiner’s discussion (see blog on 2 March) about who is at the table when standards are being set. The standards, whether on disclosure or behavior, must reflect the current state of the ongoing negotiations between company, governments and civil society about expectations for responsibility.
Showing posts with label achim steiner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label achim steiner. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Friday, March 02, 2007
Accountability: Possible without consequence?
If you ever get the chance to hear a speech or read an article by UNEP's new executive director Achim Steiner, don't miss the chance. He always leaves you with food for thought - and action (click the title of this blog to find a podcast of Steiner's speech at the GRI conference in October 2006).
Today I read an article he wrote for his former organization's monthly publication called "World Conservation" (January edition, IUCN) where he addresses the topic of accountability.
He first notes that much of the 20th century was spent creating accountabilities - governments alone have passed over 500 trans-national conventions, treaties, and agreements. Standards for financial accounting arose, along with innumerable rules, responsibilities and public committments on everything ranging from quality control to child labor.
So why, in our newly globalized world, do some citizens feel increasingly disempowered? Steiner postulates that it is because we have spent a century creating accountabilities without consequences.
So this begs a question for GRI - will the voluntary approach to sustainability reporting result in a set of Guidelines that no one uses, or a practice of robust reporting that results in better knowledge and change toward a more sustainable future?
Steiner has an answer for this too. He says that we can establish norms and standards as the baseline of accountability which are more legitimate in the modern era by redefining who sits at the table during their creation. "Societies, individuals, and communities are less and less controlled by government so the emergence of the private sector and civil society in shaping public discourse and creating public pressure has to be reflected in the way that norms and standards are developed."
This seems to bode well for GRI since the multi-stakeholder approach lies at the heart of the Guidelines development process. What do you think - is this an accountability mechanism without consequence?
Today I read an article he wrote for his former organization's monthly publication called "World Conservation" (January edition, IUCN) where he addresses the topic of accountability.
He first notes that much of the 20th century was spent creating accountabilities - governments alone have passed over 500 trans-national conventions, treaties, and agreements. Standards for financial accounting arose, along with innumerable rules, responsibilities and public committments on everything ranging from quality control to child labor.
So why, in our newly globalized world, do some citizens feel increasingly disempowered? Steiner postulates that it is because we have spent a century creating accountabilities without consequences.
So this begs a question for GRI - will the voluntary approach to sustainability reporting result in a set of Guidelines that no one uses, or a practice of robust reporting that results in better knowledge and change toward a more sustainable future?
Steiner has an answer for this too. He says that we can establish norms and standards as the baseline of accountability which are more legitimate in the modern era by redefining who sits at the table during their creation. "Societies, individuals, and communities are less and less controlled by government so the emergence of the private sector and civil society in shaping public discourse and creating public pressure has to be reflected in the way that norms and standards are developed."
This seems to bode well for GRI since the multi-stakeholder approach lies at the heart of the Guidelines development process. What do you think - is this an accountability mechanism without consequence?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
