Strategic CSR - Waste

Here are some fascinating facts and figures about three types of waste from the article in the url below. First, food waste:

 

"According to a 2013 study from the University of Minnesota's Institute on the Environment, just under 40 percent of global crop calories are used to feed animals, most of them from corn and soybeans grown at an industrial scale. It's a particularly inefficient way to feed people: It takes about 100 calories of grain to produce just three calories' worth of beef, or 12 of chicken."

 

Second, clothing waste:

 

"The Rainforest Action Network has found that about 120 million trees from existing forests are cut down for textiles every year. … one study showed that about 2,900 gallons of water can be produced to make a pair of jeans."

 

Third, e-waste:

 

"About a third of the global population was expected to have an internet-connected phone by 2017, according to a report from eMarketer. In the United States, the typical home has 65 electronic appliances, according to a study from Natural Resources Defense Council."

 

And, the following two quotes are from the article in the second url below, which focuses on the waste being generated by food-delivery apps in China:

 

"Scientists estimate that the online takeout business in China was responsible for 1.6 million tons of packaging waste in 2017, a ninefold jump from two years before. That includes 1.2 million tons of plastic containers, 175,000 tons of disposable chopsticks, 164,000 tons of plastic bags and 44,000 tons of plastic spoons. Put together, it is more than the amount of residential and commercial trash of all kinds disposed of each year by the city of Philadelphia. The total for 2018 grew to an estimated two million tons."

 

As a result:

 

"China is home to a quarter of all plastic waste that is dumped out in the open. Scientists estimate that the Yangtze River emptied 367,000 tons of plastic debris into the sea in 2015, more than any other river in the world, and twice the amount carried by the Ganges in India and Bangladesh. The world's third and fourth most polluting rivers are also in China."

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

Small Steps Take Aim at a Global Threat: Waste

By Tatiana Schlossberg

May 28, 2019

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

B3

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/climate/waste-not-if-you-want-to-help-secure-the-future-of-the-planet.html

China Chokes on Takeout Plastic

By Raymond Zhong and Carolyn Zhang

May 28, 2019

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

B1, B5

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/28/technology/china-food-delivery-trash.html

 

Strategic CSR - Oatly

Recently, I have made an effort to reduce the amount of milk that I consume and have started using oat milk, instead. This is not for medical or allergy reasons, I just thought it was a good idea to reduce my dairy intake and I really like the taste of Oatly. From the firm's website (https://www.oatly.com/int/about-oatly):

 

"Our sole purpose as a company is to make it easy for people to turn what they eat and drink into personal moments of healthy joy without recklessly taxing the planet's resources in the process. Oatly was founded back in the 1990s and is based on Swedish research from Lund University. The company's patented enzyme technology copies nature's own process and turns fiber rich oats into nutritional liquid food that is perfectly designed for humans. Today, the Swedish company remains independent and dedicated to upgrading the lives of individuals and the general well being of the planet through a lineup of original oat drinks."

 

In other words, not only is Oatly a good product, but I also like the company. Here is its mission/vision statement that is printed on every carton under the heading "Here's what we believe":

 

"Most companies think having a strong opinion means scaring away customers who think differently. We think it's a good way to make some new friends. For the record, we believe we should eat stuff we can grow instead of growing stuff to feed animals and then eat them. Everybody – regardless of spiritual beliefs, birth country, race, gender, sexual orientation or color of their nail polish – is of equal worth. The reckless pursuit of profits without any consideration for the well-being of the planet and the humans that live here should be considered a crime. Companies have as much responsibility as politicians for building a society the rest of the world can admire."

 

Good stuff, both ideologically and nutritionally, which we all need at the moment.

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

 

Strategic CSR - COVID-19

The article in the url below argues that plastic is making a bit of a comeback. And not just any old plastic, but the dreaded single-use plastic. After being the bane of environmentalists for the past couple of years, people are beginning to recognize there are at least some advantages to a material that is relatively cheap, sterile, and disposable:

 

"The war on plastics is being put on hold as the battle to contain coronavirus ramps up. Single-use plastic products, in the crosshairs over environmental concerns in recent years, are now getting a boost amid efforts to stop the spread of the virus. Personal drinking cups and reusable shopping bags are being shunned, while sales of bottled water, masks and wipes—made from plastic—have soared. At the same time, some recycling programs are being suspended because of concerns about the virus spreading."

 

Starbucks, which recently started testing coffee cups with a biodegradable liner, has stopped allowing customers to bring their own cups into the store to be filled by baristas. Instead, at least for the time being, the progressive firm will only serve plastic and their own (non-recyclable) cups, in order to optimize hygiene. Similarly:

 

"Fearing reusable shopping bags could spread the virus, New York state Sen. John Flanagan is calling for the state's plastic-bag ban to be suspended."

 

Environmental advocates recognize the threat this poses to their goals:

 

"Environmentalists say temporary moves away from reusable cups and bags could have a lasting impact on the fight against single-use plastics. They worry the move could raise bigger doubts about the hygiene of reusable products and disrupt fragile consumer habits."

 

They are correct to be worried as concern about the hygiene of reusable plastic products is legitimate (see Strategic CSR – Conspicuous virtue and Strategic CSR – Anti-plastic), along with the argument that, in practice, plastic bags are more environmentally friendly than their supposedly greener alternatives (see Strategic CSR – Plastics). As noted in the article in the second url below, all the research suggests that the value to the environment of banning plastic bags is, at best, debatable:

 

"Independent studies conducted from 2010 through 2019 by researchers in the U.S., the U.K., Continental Europe, Asia and elsewhere all concluded that single-use plastic bags—like the ones commonly found in grocery stores—rank better in almost every environmental category than bags made of paper, cotton or more durable plastics."

 

The only respect in which alternatives to plastic bags are better is litter. In terms of resource utilization, single-use plastic bags are almost always the most environmentally-friendly option. Yet, littering is the one activity in the plastic bag lifecycle that we have the power to correct (i.e., by improving recycling rates and technologies). But, the arguments need to be made in a clear and comprehensive way that minimizes the spread of misinformation. Yet, misleading or inaccurate information (combined with knee-jerk reactions) is something we are very good at. As a result, if preventing the spread of this particular virus is the main concern, the firms mentioned in the article seem to be over-reacting with the measures that have been taken to date:

 

"Upstream, a nonprofit, … defended reusables. 'Coronavirus mainly spread through coughs and sneezes, not your reusable water bottle or cup,' it said, adding that disposable items could harbor pathogens that settled during manufacturing and transportation."

 

As we have seen the implications of COVID-19 play out, I have been really interested in research about how societies adapt to major disruptions. It seems that, many of the changes to our routines that we introduce are things that we tend to hold onto, even after the disruption ends. Clearly, we are currently facing a major disruption to almost all aspects of our lives. What will be interesting is how many of the adaptations we are currently grappling with will remain permanent and how many will fade as we are allowed to emerge from our homes (at some point). In terms of university education, in particular, I am worried that people who support more online delivery will use the current experiment we are running to advocate in favor of not returning to the classroom once it is safe to do so. If so, I worry that something fundamental about our profession will be permanently lost.

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

War on Plastic Takes a Back Seat

By Saabira Chaudhuri

March 20, 2020

The Wall Street Journal

Late Edition – Final

B4

https://www.wsj.com/articles/war-on-plastic-takes-a-back-seat-in-coronavirus-crisis-11584624140

What Happens When Plastic Gest the Sack?

By Jo Craven McGinty

March 21-22, 2020

The Wall Street Journal

Late Edition – Final

A2

https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-plastic-bags-get-the-sack-11584696600

 

Strategic CSR - Scientists

The article in the url below makes the case that scientists significantly under-estimated the threat posed by climate change. Although the potential scale was misunderstood, it was the pace of change that scientists most failed to predict:

 

"Science is a process of discovery. It can move slowly as the pieces of a puzzle fall together and scientists refine their investigative tools. But in the case of climate, this deliberation has been accompanied by inertia born of bureaucratic caution and politics. A recent essay in Scientific American argued that scientists 'tend to underestimate the severity of threats and the rapidity with which they might unfold' and said one of the reasons was 'the perceived need for consensus.' This has had severe consequences, diluting what should have been a sense of urgency and vastly understating the looming costs of adaptation and dislocation as the planet continues to warm."

 

The results of this (somewhat understandable) caution are increasingly obvious and potentially devastating:

 

"In 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group of thousands of scientists representing 195 countries, said in its first report that climate change would arrive at a stately pace, that the methane-laden Arctic permafrost was not in danger of thawing, and that the Antarctic ice sheets were stable. Relying on the climate change panel's assessment, economists estimated that the economic hit would be small, providing further ammunition against an aggressive approach to reducing emissions and to building resilience to climate change."

 

More recent models, of course, suggest a very different picture:

 

"The climate change panel seems finally to have caught up with the gravity of the climate crisis. Last year, the organization detailed the extraordinary difficulty of limiting warming to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius), over the next 80 years, and the grim consequences that will result even if that goal is met."

Most concerning:

"More likely, a separate United Nations report concluded, we are headed for warming of at least 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit. That will come with almost unimaginable damage to economies and ecosystems. Unfortunately, this dose of reality arrives more than 30 years after human-caused climate change became a mainstream issue."

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

How Scientists Got Climate Change so Wrong

By Eugene Linden

November 10, 2019

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

SR4

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/opinion/sunday/science-climate-change.html

 

Strategic CSR - Microsoft

The article in the url below reports on an interesting finding from a particularly progressive experiment conducted by Microsoft Japan:

 

"Microsoft tested out a four-day work week in its Japan offices and found as a result employees were not only happier – but significantly more productive."

 

Specifically:

 

"For the month of August, Microsoft Japan experimented with a new project called Work-Life Choice Challenge Summer 2019, giving its entire 2,300 person workforce five Fridays off in a row without decreasing pay. The shortened weeks led to more efficient meetings, happier workers, and boosted productivity by a staggering 40%, the company concluded at the end of the trial. As part of the program, the company had also planned to subsidize family vacations for employees up to ¥100,000 or $920."

 

And, the benefits did not stop there:

 

"In addition to the increased productivity, employees took 25% less time off during the trial and electricity use was down 23% in the office with the additional day off per week. Employees printed 59% fewer pages of paper during the trial."

 

The article lists different related experiments with the four-day work week and productivity going on around the world. One German entrepreneur has even instituted a five-hour workday at his firm. Perhaps not surprisingly:

 

"The vast majority of employees – 92% – said they liked the shorter week."

 

The key here, of course, is whether this effect is due to the change itself (because the experiment was new and exciting, and therefore momentarily motivating) or whether there is something fundamental to the structure of a four day work week (and a three day weekend) that enables greater productivity. It seems difficult to believe, for instance, that a group could be 40% more productive in 20% less time. I would think that being able to sustain the same productivity in 20% less time would be a more realistic goal over the medium to long term. Either way, there is growing evidence that the number of hours at work is only loosely related to productivity (see also, Strategic CSR – Productivity). Companies that are willing to innovate in this area are likely to have employees that perform at a higher level, are more loyal, and most likely happier.

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

Microsoft Japan tested a four-day work week. Productivity jumped by 40%

By Kari Paul

November 4, 2019

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/04/microsoft-japan-four-day-work-week-productivity

 

Strategic CSR - Ads

Under the heading of meaningful action, the article in the url below contains an interesting story:

 

"The Guardian will no longer accept advertising from oil and gas companies, becoming the first major global news organisation to institute an outright ban on taking money from companies that extract fossil fuels."

 

This is part of a larger effort by The Guardian to respond to growing concerns about climate change – these range from referring to the issue as the "climate emergency" (as opposed to 'climate change') and also reducing the organization's carbon footprint (a commitment to be "carbon-neutral by 2030, while also almost entirely divesting its Scott Trust endowment fund from fossil fuel investments"):

 

"The move … will be implemented with immediate effect. The ban will apply to any business primarily involved in extracting fossil fuels, including many of the world's largest polluters."

 

This decision is meaningful not for the impact it will have on fossil fuel firms (although, that would change if every media company did this), but more in terms of the sacrifice being made by The Guardian:

 

"The decision to reject the advertising money from fossil fuel firms comes at a tricky time for the media industry, with the Guardian Media Group board warning the business is facing substantial headwinds this year. Advertising makes up 40% of GMG revenue, meaning it remains a key way to fund the journalism produced by Guardian and Observer journalists around the world."

 

Although an important step, the newspaper avoided taking the more dramatic step demanded by some:

 

"… some readers would like the company to turn down advertising for any product with a significant carbon footprint, such as cars or holidays, but [the company] said this was not financially sustainable while the media industry's business model remained in crisis."

 

In other words, given the precarious nature of newspaper finances today, this is a risk and one the paper feels it will be rewarded for. In other words, it has listened to its stakeholders and responded with substantive action. In order for this to be sustained, readers need to demonstrate that they support what the firm has done, recognize there is a financial cost associated with it, and ensure that cost does not fundamentally damage the organization:

 

"The campaign group Greenpeace welcomed the move. 'This is a watershed moment, and the Guardian must be applauded for this bold move to end the legitimacy of fossil fuels,' said Mel Evans, senior climate campaigner for Greenpeace UK."

 

Unfortunately, Greenpeace was not proposing a way for the newspaper to replace the revenue that will be lost by refusing these ads. Nevertheless, I was pleased to see that the story was picked up in other major newspapers (e.g., here).

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Guardian to ban advertising from fossil fuel firms

By Jim Waterson

January 29, 2020

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/29/guardian-to-ban-advertising-from-fossil-fuel-firms-climate-crisis

 

Strategic CSR - SASB

The article in the url below contains some interesting information that I did not know about the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB). First, is the organization's financial backers:

 

"[Michael] Bloomberg bankrolled the outfit, which was founded in 2011, to impose his enlightened political and cultural values on American corporations. SASB drew more attention in January when BlackRock CEO Larry Fink threatened to use his firm's massive ownership stakes to oppose corporate managers who fail to follow the board's standards."

 

Second, is the widespread potential for abuse of SASB standards, particularly in terms of the selective use of those standards:

 

"Materiality is essentially a progressive term of art. SASB's standards vary across 77 industries based on what its 'stakeholders'—academics, attorneys, auditors, asset managers and businesses—consider important. Greenhouse-gas emissions are 'material' to food and beverage companies but not to those that make consumer goods. Safeguarding customer welfare is important for health insurers though oddly not for airlines or banks."

 

The standards are very specific, even while they are grappling with metrics that are very challenging to quantify:

 

"SASB also directs companies to collect and report detailed data on everything from their share of recyclable and compostable packaging to the gender and racial composition of their workforce. Online retailers have to disclose their greenhouse-gas footprint and 'behavioral advertising,' among dozens of other things. Internet companies must report the results of employee engagement surveys. Beverage makers have to account for their revenue from zero- and low-calorie, no-added-sugar and artificially sweetened drinks. Should companies count drinks sweetened with Stevia as 'artificial,' zero-calorie or no-added-sugar? And who should make this decision?"

 

Unfortunately, while plenty of firms are willing to claim the legitimacy associated with the SASB standards, much fewer are willing to surrender to the standards in their entirety and their specificity:

 

"More than 130 companies claim to report information according to SASB guidelines, but their disclosures aren't standardized like corporate financial disclosures. Companies sometimes omit information they say is proprietary or immaterial while highlighting other data as a mark of their sustainability. Mr. Bloomberg's company, Bloomberg LP, chooses not to report the number of data breaches as SASB standards require, though this seems to be more material information than its renewable-energy consumption, which it does report."

 

Perhaps even more worrying:

 

"SASB standards can obfuscate poor financial performance. A company can claim it is 'sustainable' even if it is bleeding money, and keep drawing investment dollars from the ESG crowd. Executives may also hope that disclosing favorable information about their workforce diversity or carbon emissions will forestall criticism of other business practices, such as opposition to unions."

 

In other words, if a firm gets to choose which sustainability standards it adheres to, then the chances are that it is not being sustainable.

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

Bloomberg Sells 'Sustainability,' but Buyer Beware

By Allysia Finley

March 3, 2020

The Wall Street Journal

Late Edition – Final

A17

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bloomberg-sells-sustainability-but-buyer-beware-11583193439

 

Strategic CSR - Recycling

The article in the url below contains an interesting and detailed description of how our recycling industry is currently working following China's ("National Sword") decision to stop taking waste from the West in 2018. Given that this change has essentially caused the system to collapse, the article is also a telling indictment of our collectively shallow response to what is an existential threat. The details are complex and the article is an interesting, if depressing, read. One quote, in particular, is worth highlighting here:

 

"In the UK, recycling rates have stagnated in recent years, while National Sword and funding cuts have led to more waste being burned in incinerators and energy-from-waste plants. (Incineration, while often criticised for being polluting and an inefficient source of energy, is today preferred to landfill, which emits methane and can leach toxic chemicals.) Westminster council sent 82% of all household waste – including that put in recycling bins – for incineration in 2017/18. Some councils have debated giving up recycling altogether. And yet the UK is a successful recycling nation: 45.7% of all household waste is classed as recycled (although that number indicates only that it is sent for recycling, not where it ends up.) In the US, that figure is 25.8%."

The operative point here is the final insight into how our reported recycling rates are calculated. That is, it appears that the (already low) numbers that are reported reflect the amount of material that is sent to be recycled – not the amount that is actually recycled. In other words, those numbers are significantly inflated and it seems that no one is tracking the percentages of material that is actually recycled.

 

It is difficult to know what to do with this. If the already pitifully low recycling rates are, themselves, significantly inflated, then the whole recycling industry is a sham. My reaction and thoughts on this are not printable.

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

'Plastic recycling is a myth': What really happens to your rubbish?

By Oliver Franklin-Wallis

August 17, 2019

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/17/plastic-recycling-myth-what-really-happens-your-rubbish

 

Strategic CSR - EU Green Deal

In December, while the UN's COP 25 meeting was failing in Madrid, the EU announced its own Green Deal. The article in the first url below presents the highlights:

 

"It covers everything from housing and food to biodiversity, batteries, decarbonised steel, air pollution and, crucially, how the EU will spread its vision beyond its borders to the wider world. 'Our goal,' declared Mrs von der Leyen [the European Commission's new president], 'is to reconcile the economy with the planet.'"

 

These goals revolve around the bloc's commitment to be carbon-neutral by 2050 and, more immediately:

 

"By summer 2020 the commission intends to present a plan to reduce emissions in 2030 by 50-55% from 1990 levels. This represents a step up from its existing target of cutting emissions by 40% within the same time frame."

 

The key mechanism the EU envisions to achieve these targets is ESG and impact investments:

 

"All this green ambition comes at a price. The commission estimates that an additional €175bn-€290bn ($192bn-$320bn) of investment will be needed each year to meet its net-zero goals. Much of this will come from private investors. One way they will be encouraged to pitch in is with new financial regulations. On December 5th EU negotiators struck a provisional agreement on what financial products are deemed 'green.' Next year large European companies will be forced to disclose more information about their impacts on the environment, including carbon emissions. These measures, the thinking goes, will give clearer signals to markets and help money flow into worthy investments."

 

In particular, the European Investment Bank is to be re-purposed as "a climate bank":

 

"Already [the bank] has pledged to phase out financing fossil fuels by 2021. By 2025 Werner Hoyer, its boss, wants 50% of its lending to go to green projects, up from 28% today, and the rest to go to investments aligned with climate-change goals."

 

As the article notes, however, the EU's deal is grand in its ambition and woefully inadequate in terms of detail. Along these lines, the article in the second url below (written in response to new E.U. rule in responsible investments) tackles some of the challenges the EU will face in determining whether an investment can be defined as 'green' and, therefore, fit within the EU's guidelines to help it achieve its ambitious goals. The key comes down to whether the new policies are enabling investments that would not otherwise have been made:

 

"But a bigger question is whether the whole approach is productive as a way of allocating what should be 'concessionary' capital (meaning capital that accepts sub-market returns in exchange for social impact). The idea behind social-value investing ought to be, after all, to encourage things that would not happen otherwise. Sustainable or green investments wouldn't require a 'taxonomy' in the first place if they produced superior returns."

 

This is important because if such investments are only attracting capital that would have been allocated anyway, "Whatever the returns delivered, nothing of social value has been achieved that would not have happened anyway." In short:

 

"Creating classifications of social worth, or taxonomies of green-ness, may make people feel virtuous. But it has two big difficulties. The first is definitional: how do you construct a list that isn't capable of being gamed or delivering unintended consequences? The continuing EU political horse-trading suggests the green taxonomy could end up being one giant messy fudge. The second is more fundamental and reflects the fact that most investors continue to seek market returns and remain socially-neutral, whatever PR materials they may pump out. So as those investors who are socially-concerned buy green investments, thus driving up their value, socially neutral investors will simply sell those same stocks (to them, overvalued), meaning the net effect is zero."

 

Ultimately:

 

"Impact investments that really make a difference involve those that make them accepting sub-market outcomes."

 

That is, ESG/impact investing, in order to be true to its mission, should finance projects that otherwise would not have happened. If it is financing projects that would have happened anyway (due to the expected return/profit), then nothing is being changed. It is only when such investing funds projects that would not have happened that they will be making a difference – the trouble is that, the reason they would not otherwise have happened is because they are not expected to make a profit. In other words, the article is criticizing the attempt to justify such investments in terms of their returns and implying that, those funds that claim such a return are probably deceiving their investors.

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

The way the wind is blowing

December 14, 2019

The Economist

Late Edition – Final

43-44

https://www.economist.com/europe/2019/12/14/the-eus-green-deal-is-full-of-ambition-but-needs-more-detail

The difficulty with the EU's sustainable investment rules

By Jonathan Ford

December 14, 2019

The Financial Times

https://www.ft.com/content/56f63be8-1dcb-11ea-9186-7348c2f183af