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

13 Sep 2015

Author:
Oliver Balch, Guardian (UK)

Diageo misses nearly all its environmental goals - "no wonder consumers mistrust corporate commitments" says Oliver Balch

"Sobering results for drinks giant Diageo reveal problems of sustainability targets", 3 Sep 2015

The global drinks firm fails to meet all but one of its environmental goals – is it any wonder consumers are mistrustful of corporate commitments?... The company’s latest annual report, published last month, reveals that it fell short on seven of its eight main environmental goals [set in 2008]. It cut waste water pollution by a mere 3.1% (on a 2007 baseline), for example. Its stated goal was 60%. In other areas, it made progress but not enough. So its carbon emissions and waste water levels were down by 33.3% and 45.3%, respectively, rather than the promised 50%... 

There have been so many false dawns in the sustainability space, says Marilyn Croser, director of the CORE Coalition.. [E]nvironmentalists have understandably called foul, with Friends of the Earth Scotland accusing the company of failing “miserably”.

Diageo is defending its record, however, saying its sustainability performance has improved overall...[and] putting forward two arguments often heard by businesses in the same position: namely, that its goals are “stretch” targets (corporate speak for “ambitious”) and that it’s “on a journey” (jargon for, “we’re not there yet”). The question is whether either excuse is legitimate.