Why Rio+20 Was Still a Success – the Contribution of Business and Academic Institutions in Support of Sustainable Development and the Rio+20 Process

5 July 2012

by Jonas Haertle

On my first day after returning from the Rio+20 conference – officially the UN Conference on Sustainable Development which took place 20 years after the 1992 Rio Earth Summit – I spoke to a group of MBA students at Fordham University in New York. Admittedly, the instructor had asked the class to read about the Rio+20 outcomes prior to the session, but I sensed there was a genuine interest to hear what I thought about the outcomes of the weeklong series of events in Rio de Janeiro.

Quite obviously, the main headlines and media stories about Rio+20 focused on the outcomes of the government negotiations. Many stakeholders, foremost NGOs and the media, but also some government representatives, felt that the official outcome document The Future We Want had fallen short of the expectations in light of the environmental and social challenges we face. Many had expected or hoped for more concrete and ambitious decisions by governments. And although the outcome document includes some important decisions (for example, to launch the process to create Sustainable Development Goals which are supposed to come into effect in 2015 when the Millennium Development Goals expire; the decision to take action on ocean acidification, fishing subsidies and overfishing to reverse the decline of oceans; and the decision to strengthen the UN Environment Programme), many observers criticized that the 193 UN member states had missed an important opportunity to agree on a more ambitious plan of actions.

However, apart from the government negotiations, many other stakeholder groups met at Rio+20 and  committed to far-reaching actions in support of Rio+20′s objectives. Here are some of the outcomes which you might not have read or heard about:

Prior to the arrival of heads of states and governments for the official part of Rio+20, close to 50.000 people representing NGOs, farmers, youth, scientists, business, academia and other sectors convened for numerous action-oriented meetings.

For example, the UN Global Compact, in cooperation with the Rio+20 Secretariat, the UN System and the Global Compact Local Network Brazil, convened more than 2,500 participants for the Rio+20 Corporate Sustainability Forum. In over 100 sessions participants discussed how business representing all sectors and based in all parts of the world can help to make sustainable development a reality through their own actions. While business was at the sidelines of the original Rio 1992 Earth Summit, the 2012 Rio meeting clearly showed that businesses are committed to sustainable development. More than 200 concrete commitments for sustainable development were made by companies. Obviously, it is necessary that governments, in light of these commitments, also take further steps to incentivize the right behavior, for example through embedding environmental and social considerations into legal frameworks. For instance, the UK government announced that it would require all publicly listed companies in the UK to report on their carbon footprint as of next year. This is a step into the right direction.

Another group of actors which was clearly more visible at this year’s Rio+20 conference was the academic sector.

Similar to the businesses, academic institutions were all but absent from the original Rio 1992 Earth Summit. At Rio+20, the 3rd Global Forum for Responsible Management Education of the PRME initiative was convened as the official meeting for management-related Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). While the PRME initiative provides an ongoing platform for dialog and action for the growing community of academic institutions and stakeholders committed to sustainable development, this year’s 3rd Global Forum clearly marked a new stage in PRME’s evolution. Five years after the initiative’s launch, participants at the 3rd Global Forum agreed on a concrete strategy to help develop the initiative further for the years to come. Apart from individual steps which each PRME signatory school committed to take, some of the main recommendations for PRME as an initiative are to form a leadership group to incentivize the most engaged PRME signatory schools to go further in their implementation of sustainability principles while keeping the initiative open to institutions at all levels of engagement; to delist those signatories that fail to regularly share information on progress made in implementing PRME in order to increase the accountability of the commitment to the Principles; and to launch PRME chapters to better engage management education communities on a local and regional level. One of the objectives of the Global Forum was to give a voice to PRME signatory schools. The agreement by participants on the Rio Declaration on the Contribution of Higher Education Institutions and Management Schools to The Future We Want: A Roadmap for Management Education to 2020 showed that the Global Forum successfully provided this opportunity.

Further, based on the discussions of last year’s PRME Summit in Brussels, another objective of this year’s Global Forum was to highlight the role of external stakeholders on management education. In that regard, I was encouraged to see the frank discussion among representatives of accreditation bodies, namely AACSB, EFMD and AMBA, about the ways they are planning to embed sustainability criteria into accreditation. Also, the statement by Della Bradshaw who is responsible for the Financial Time’s business school ranking made clear that we have to encourage more schools to put greater emphasis on sustainability issues in curriculum and research so that the FT’s and other ranking systems gradually adapt to reflect responsible education and research in the ranking criteria for business schools.

Finally, the majority of participants I spoke to after the Global Forum said that they had gained some new insights as to how to further enable responsible management and leadership education as well as research in their institutions. Many told me about the new insights they had gained during coffee breaks and at the round table discussions with other participants. It is good to hear that the meeting method, which was based on a pragmatic inquiry, was so well received. Going forward, on behalf of the PRME Secretariat, we are committed to support and to work with many people in the PRME community to make the promising proposals at the Global Forum a reality.

While the 3rd Global Forum for Responsible Management Education was not the only forum at Rio+20 for academic institutions, the presence of the over 300 leaders and representatives of Higher Education Institutions and business schools contributed to the fact that the UN leadership clearly took notice of the role that educational institutions have in enabling sustainable development. One of the other driving forces for this was the Higher Education Sustainability Initiative. Together with UN organizations dedicated to educations for sustainable development (UNESCO, UNEP, and UNU), and with the technical support by Euromed Marseille, the UN Global Compact and the PRME Secretariat had invited higher education institutions to sign up to a declaration on higher education and sustainable development and to make concrete commitments in support of Rio+20. At the close of Rio+20 almost one third of all voluntary commitments at Rio+20 were received through this initiative, i.e. from academic institutions. I will probably never forget the moment, while already in Rio, when the office of the Rio+20 Executive Coordinators called me to ask if we could provide on a very short notice a speaker from one of the academic institutions which had signed the declaration for the official Rio+20 closing press conference. It was fitting that Antonio Freitas of FGV Rio, one of the leading business schools in Brazil, participated in this press conference on behalf of the initiative, as he, in his previous role as a member of Brazil’s National Commission for Higher Education (CNE), had successfully advised the Government of Brazil to pass a law that will require the entry level exams for all university students in Brazil to include questions on sustainability. The law had been passed a few days prior to Rio+20 and had been announced in presence of Brazil’s Secretary of Education at the PRME Global Forum. As another direct outcome of the Higher Education Sustainability Initiative, UNESCO agreed with the Global Compact Office and the PRME Secretariat to continue to collaborate on this initiative.

What did Governments agree on regarding the role of education?

The official outcomes document stresses the important role of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) to enable the necessary transition to sustainable development. Further, governments agreed to advocate ESD beyond 2014 which is when the Decade for Education for Sustainable Development will officially expire. My hope is that ESD will be an important building block of the Sustainable Development Goals which governments agreed to develop by 2015. For academic institutions engaged in PRME this would mean that their actions are directly aligned with the UN’s goals on Education for Sustainable Development.

To sum up, while I think that criticism of the relatively low level of ambition in the outcome document of governments at Rio+20 is justified, I also believe that one equally important aspect of Rio+20 were the discussions and agreements by the many non-governmental stakeholders. In a way, Rio+20 made clear that the world’s most pressing challenges can only be solved through better cooperation and collaboration between governments and non-governmental stakeholders and by giving a greater role to the latter in upcoming UN conferences on global issues. Governments clearly have an important role to play, most importantly by agreeing on global governance frameworks. However, as Rio+20 made clear, currently there is little to no political will to agree on far-reaching decisions on a global level between governments.  Yet, if we consider the countless non-governmental stakeholders present in Rio and the commitments many of them made to advance sustainable development in their own spheres of influence, I believe that Rio+20 actually had a positive effect.

Jonas Haertle is Head of the PRME Secretariat in the UN Global Compact Office.


Matten’s Take – The Wrap-Up

29 June 2010

For a concluding perspective by Prof. Dirk Matten, the official blogger of the Leaders Summit, visit his excellent blog.


GRI and UN Global Compact Join Forces in New Alliance

25 June 2010

The world’s two largest corporate social responsibility initiatives forged an alliance to help build a universal standard on corporate sustainability and disclosure. The alliance hopes to transform business practices on a global scale.

Under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, GRI, which is subject to due process, will integrate the Global Compact’s 10 principles and issues in its next Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Similarly, the Global Compact will use the GRI Guidelines as the recommended framework for companies to communicate on progress.

Together, the two initiatives hope to provide companies with clear direction to sustainable performance and transparency.

Read the specific commitments of the alliance here.


UN Secretary-General Opens Proceedings Along with Mayor Bloomberg

24 June 2010

(Photo: UN Global Compact/Paulo Filgueiras)

More than 1,200 corporate leaders from around the world convened today in New York City for the tenth anniversary of The UN Global Compact Leaders Summit. The two-day summit was kicked off by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

In his address, The Secretary General urged the business, civil society and government leaders to lead a “race to the top”, embracing openness, anchoring profit-making in social principles and favouring long-term horizons over pursuit of short-term profits.

Mayor Bloomberg – noting that he was speaking as a former CEO as well as an elected official – said that good corporate citizens recognize that support for human rights is in their enlightened self interest.

Watch the live webcast.

Read today’s complete announcement.


Leaders Summit 2010: The Countdown Begins

20 June 2010

With just a few days until the UN Global Compact Leaders Summit 2010 convenes in New York City, registration has closed and more than 1,200 executives from nearly 100 countries are confirmed to attend this historic event. Final preparations are being made, including a number of exciting side events to take place at the Marriott Marquis Hotel in Times Square and other locations.

Already, the first two of an array of new resources have been launched – the 10th anniversary edition of the Global Compact Annual Review and the Global Compact Management Model, developed in collaboration with Deloitte.

In addition, widely acclaimed author and blogger Dirk Matten will serve as an official Summit blogger, delivering independent coverage and analysis through the highly respected Crane and Matten Blog. An expert on issues of corporate social responsibility, Professor Matten holds the Hewlett-Packard Chair in Corporate Social Responsibility and is a Professor of Strategy at the Schulich School of Business (York University, Toronto), which is ranked number one globally by the Aspen Institute for integrating issues of social and environmental stewardship into curricula and research. Dirk was recently ranked among the ‘Top 100 CSR Leaders’ globally in an independent poll by the Cambridge based think tank CSR International.

As a reminder, for those unable to participate in person, the Leaders Summit will be streamed live on the UN Webcast site and here on the Global Compact blog. You can also follow the Summit on Twitter (#GCLS2010) and Facebook.


Leaders Summit 2010: Two Weeks to Go

11 June 2010

Leaders Summit Registration Passes 1,000

With the Global Compact Leaders Summit 2010 on 24-25 June fast approaching, registration has now passed 1,000 participants. The Leaders Summit marks the 10th anniversary of the Global Compact and will be the largest UN-business event ever held.  UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will chair the Summit and will be joined by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, as well as CEOS and other top executives from more than 80 countries.

Among the confirmed Summit attendees:

  • Mark Foster, Group Chief Executive, Accenture, United Kingdom
  • Masaaki Fujita, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mitsui & Co. USA, United States
  • José Sergio Gabrielli de Azevedo, Chief Executive Officer, Petrobras, Brazil
  • Hugh Grant, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Monsanto Company, United States
  • Chad Holliday, Chairman, Bank of America, United States
  • Hugh Johnston, Chief Financial Officer, PepsiCo, United States
  • Ali Y. Koc, Group President, Koc Holding A.S., Turkey
  • Anne Lauvergeon, Chief Executive Officer, Areva, France
  • Xu Lejiang, Chairman, Baosteel Group, China
  • Paolo Scaroni, Chief Executive Officer, ENI, Italy
  • Peter Y. Solmssen, Executive Vice President, member of the Managing Board and Counsel, Siemens AG, Germany

Visit the Leaders Summit website for a more complete list of featured attendees.

This year’s Leaders Summit will feature a broad array of new resources, initiatives and practical tools. Highlights include: a special 10th anniversary edition of the Global Compact Annual Review; the world’s most extensive survey of CEO perspectives on the state and future of corporate sustainability.

Check back here for frequent updates leading up to and during the Summit, including a live webcast, and visit the official Leaders Summit website at www.leaderssummit2010.org.


Georg Kell: Businessmen, the Planet Needs You

11 December 2009

Georg Kell’s op-ed on the role and responsibility of business in tackling climate change ran on The New York Times/International Herald Tribune website today. It will also appear in tomorrow’s print edition of the IHT.


Detecting Greenwash, Fighting Hogwash

16 September 2009

Folks at BSR and Futerra have joined forces for a useful little business guide titled Understanding and Preventing Greenwash. The publication focuses on preventing questionable or outright bogus environmental messages, for good reasons.  Money quote:

 “[T]he consequences of getting it wrong and being seen as purporting a fraud—or, “greenwashing,” a term now in the lexicon of most industries—are growing. Whether real or perceived, when consumers see greenwashing, they are likely to punish companies with less sales. When NGOs see it, they are motivated to drive negative campaigns and press. And when regulators see it, they can determine that an environmental claim is a “deceptive practice” and fine companies.”

  Needless to say, the same applies when it comes to messaging around human rights or labour standards.


WSJ: Sustainability Works!

22 June 2009

In a brief, but noteworthy article on the Wall Street Journal website (“Sustainable Success”), Prof. Lutz Kaufmann of the Otto Beisheim School of Management in Vallendar/Germany and his research team argue the case for corporate responsibility in the developing world:

A commitment to improving social and environmental conditions in the developing countries where a company operates is the key to maximizing the profits and growth of those operations.

That’s the conclusion we drew after studying more than 200 companies. As a group, the companies most engaged in social and environmental sustainability are also the most profitable.

This may not come as news to those in the CR/Sustainability field that have been making the case for years. But it stands in stark contrast to recent calls to scale back sustainability expectations in light of the recession, particularly in developing and emerging economies. We will try and get some more info on the underlying research.


Better ESG Disclosure Needed in Emerging Markets

22 June 2009

The Emerging Markets Disclosure (EMD) Project has released results of an investor survey on environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure practices in emerging economies. While giving credit to Brazil and South Africa for progress made in recent years (including the launch of national sustainability indices), investors hold more critical views on the overall state of ESG disclosure:

The survey shows that at a time when increasing numbers of institutional investors are demanding more openness and transparency, poor ESG disclosure by emerging market companies threatens to undermine investor confidence and could potentially reduce investment allocations to emerging markets.

More details here. Full survey findings will be presented in New York on 25 June.


ILO Helpdesk: Open for Business

19 June 2009

The International Labour Organization has recently opened an email helpdesk for managers and workers seeking to understand the application of international labour standards. Guidance is free of charge, and replies are prepared by a multi-disciplinary team, ensuring that users receive a comprehensive response (within two weeks).

To submit a question to the Helpdesk, send an email to assistance@ilo.org. More information here.


Anti-Corruption Reporting Still Lacks Transparency

19 June 2009

Transparency International has just released Transparency in Reporting on Anti-Corruption – A Report of Corporate Practices. The comprehensive study looks at ways in which nearly 500 listed companies from 32 countries and a wide range of sectors report on strategies, policies and management systems to tackle corruption in all its forms.

The bad news:

The average company analysed scored only 17 out of a possible 50 points and was awarded two stars out of a possible five. Only seven companies achieved the highest possible five star score.

The better news:

Half of the companies that achieved a four- or five-star rating came from higher risk sectors where corruption, or the threat of it, is regarded as widespread. This could indicate that companies in these sectors recognise that putting robust policies and systems in place to address bribery and corruption is a form of risk management.

The good news:

Slightly more than one-quarter (26 per cent or 127 companies) of the sample were signatories of the GC. Signatories scored slightly higher in the TRAC report than non-signatories. The average score of GC signatories was 20.4 (a borderline three-star average score).14 For non-GC signatories the average was 15,6 (within the two-star rating). GC signatories are likely, on average, to have slightly more publicly available information in the area of policy and management systems related to anti-corruption and antibribery.

Yet:

17 GC signatory companies in the sample had little or no information in the public domain, and were on the bottom end of the one-star range. This indicates that some GC signatories may not be compliant with reporting on the GC tenth principle.

We’ll look into that. (TI press release here.)


Goodness! Not Another Ranking

18 June 2009

Folks at Goodness500 have just launched the … Goodness 500 – a social responsibility ranking of US companies. The problem: measuring charity donations, executive diversity and toxicity produced/released does not really allow for much more than ranking companies by, well, charity donations, executive diversity and toxicity produced/released.

Take charity donations, for example. Spending money is the easy part. The fundamental point is one that we and others have made time and again: corporate responsibility is not about how money is spent, it is about how money is made. There are plenty of companies with big wallets, but poor environmental and social performance.

So, what about human rights policies, labour standards in the supply chain, greenhouse gas emissions, codes of conduct, occupational health and safety, anti-corruption policies, investment principles, water use, third-party verification, and so on? That’s where ESG performance is measured. And it’s also where true responsibility should be assessed (although there are plenty of views on the general validity or CSR rankings). Perspectives welcome.

(Just for the record: Kudos to the Goodness500 people for taking the initiative. Our concerns revolve around the methodology, not the intention.)


World Business Summit on Climate Change

20 May 2009

This is just another reminder of the upcoming World Business Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen (24-26 May). Time permitting, we will be doing some live-blogging and twittering (tweeting? twitting?). With now over 600 participants, this promises to be the key business event on the road to COP15. We’ll keep you posted.


Yesterday’s Latest News

18 May 2009

Wohoo! Folks over at Global Compact Critics blog about a research paper submitted in early 2007 on the contribution of the UN Global Compact to CSR strategies in the telecommunications industry (published in a recent edition of the Journal of Business Ethics).  While we are always supportive of  CSR research, the logistics of publishing in peer-reviewed journals on the fast-evolving CSR discipline often creates a disconnect between data at the time of collection and the status of initiatives today (for instance, the number of GC business participants now stands at 5,100, compared to the 2,900 mentioned in the paper).

Read the rest of this entry »


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.