abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

22 Jun 2011

Author:
Sarah Murray, Financial Times

Terminology: Companies ensure efforts are not beyond description

[W]hile the language of sustainability can be poorly defined, some companies are developing terms that more accurately describe efforts to manage environmental and social risks and opportunities. “We should not be preoccupied by language, but language does matter,” says David Grayson, professor of corporate responsibility and director of the Doughty Centre for Corporate Responsibility at Cranfield School of Management in the UK. “It can clarify or confuse.”When it comes to the word “sustainability”, a multitude of corporate definitions prevails. However, the way companies describe their behaviour with respect to society and the environment varies widely and has evolved over the decades…Meanwhile, the investor community tends to talk about the “ESG” (environmental, social and corporate governance) performance of companies… For some industries, the language is becoming far more specific. In the food sector, for example, companies have moved from talking about “CSR” to notions such as “traceability”, “ethical sourcing” and “food security”. Mining companies, which have been tackling social and environmental risks for longer than many, tend to talk less of broad concepts such as “sustainability” or “corporate re-sponsibility” than of addressing social risks such as local protests, ethical obstacles such as bribery and corruption, or environmental threats such as toxic waste and resource degradation. [refers to SAP, Starbucks]