The articles in the three urls below all contain examples of different ways to measure CSR and convey that information to consumers. In particular, firms use product labels (in-house or third-party certifications) and report cards (letter grades) to capture complex processes and outcomes using simple images and broad categories in ways that are intended to be easily understood.
Easily understandable, however, does not necessarily mean either consistent or accurate. This distinction is made clear in the article in the first url below, which compares different government agency-issued report cards that are increasingly being used to rate industries as diverse as restaurants and vehicles:
“In Los Angeles County, 98% of restaurants got A's or B's last year for health safety. Not so at the Environmental Protection Agency. The agency recently proposed redesigned labels for new vehicles, with one option including grades ranging from D to A-plus for fuel economy and greenhouse-gas emissions. Fewer than 1% of 2010 models (17 of 2,011) would rate an A-minus or better, according to calculations by the EPA.”
The variance in grades across different measures is detailed in the graphic accompanying the article:
The article in the second url below details the difficulties involved in conveying valuable information about the ethicality of a firm’s supply chain on product labels and ensuring the reality matches the claims being made:
“If you ever buy an item of clothing from Tesco, the UK supermarket chain, you can be sure it will not contain any cotton from Uzbekistan. The company decided to boycott Uzbek cotton in 2006, following reports of forced and state sanctioned child labour. That was the easy part. Eliminating the unwanted material from Tesco's supply chain and proving that it was no longer used would take until the end of 2007. "It was an enormously complex task," says Alan Wragg, the company's clothing technical director. "Even the production of a simple garment such as a T-shirt requires materials to pass through four to seven pairs of hands, so the number of possible permutations in the supply chain was huge."”
What these reporting mechanisms have in common is the goal of simplicity (clarity and comprehensiveness). The unintended consequence of the cumulative effect of these and other similar initiatives, however, is inconsistency, complexity, and confusion, as indicated in the article in the third url below:
“According to the Ecolabel Index, there are currently 349 seals and certifications for marketing green products worldwide, with 88 used in North America alone.”
As a result, the revision of “Green Guides” by the Federal Trade Commission last September (to be implemented in 2011) is a welcome step forward. The Guide, last updated in 1998, governs the marketing claims firms can make about a product’s level of sustainability or social responsibility and has been tightened in attempt to limit the extent of greenwashing. The new restrictions:
“… warn marketers against using labels that make broad claims that cannot be substantiated, like ''eco-friendly.'' Marketers must qualify their claims on the product packaging and limit them to a specific benefit, such as how much of the product is recycled.”
Take care
David
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment (2e)
© Sage Publications, 2011
THE NUMBERS GUY: Report Cards for Consumers Don't Always Make the Grade
By Carl Bialik
875 words
18 September 2010
The Wall Street Journal
A2
Technology lets buyers unravel the ethics behind the label
Tyrrell, Paul
1421 words
16 September 2010
Financial Times
London Ed1
16
or
Agency Seeks to Tighten Rules for 'Green' Labeling
By TANZINA VEGA
1320 words
7 October 2010
Late Edition - Final
4
