Download Chamber of Commerce and Industry, WA

Corporate Social
Responsibility
A Submission to the
Australian Government
Corporations and Markets
Advisory Committee
24 February 2006
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
Table of Contents
Toc starts
Overview
1
About CCI
Introduction
Executive Summary
1
1
2
Specific Responses to the Terms of Reference
4
Background
8
CSR Defined
The Role of Corporations
The shareholder-oriented firm
The stakeholder-oriented firm
Reasons for Adopting a Stakeholder Orientation
Good Behaviour is Profitable
Bad Behaviour is Costly
Trends in CSR
Current Practices
Example: BHP Billiton
8
8
8
9
10
10
12
13
14
15
Issues in Relation to CSR
17
Conflicting Priorities and Values
Accountability and Governance
The Wider Case Against Regulation
Public and Private Regulation
Profiting from Corporate Social Responsibility
Alternative Measures to Regulation
17
17
21
21
21
23
Appendix A: Terms of Reference
25
Appendix B – ASX Best Practice Principles
27
Appendix C – GRI Guidelines
28
“In Accordance” Requirements
Report Content
Environmental and Social Performance Indicators
28
29
30
Notes and References
31
Bibliography
Comments and Notes
31
31
Toc ends
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page i
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
Overview
About CCI
The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia (CCI) is the leading business
association in Western Australia.
It is the second largest organisation of its kind in Australia, with a membership of 5,000
organisations in all sectors including manufacturing, resources, agriculture, transport,
communications, retailing, hospitality, building and construction, community services and
finance.
Most members are private businesses, but CCI also has representation in the not-for-profit
sector and the government sector. About 80 per cent of members are small businesses, and
members are located in all geographical regions of WA.
Introduction
Recent years have seen renewed focus on the social and environmental dimensions of
economic activity, and in particular on the activities of the business sector. This focus has
many sources and strands.
It derives in part from the search for new ways of moulding society and the economy in the
aftermath of the collapse of communism, and consequent discrediting of state-directed,
centralised political and economic models.
It reflects concerns about the processes and effects of globalisation, and the way in which
economic decisions and their social and environmental effects increasingly transcend
traditional national and regional political jurisdictions.
It is driven in part by the increasing prominence and claims of non-government organisations
seeking to fill some of these gaps in authority with the influence of ‘civil society’.
This prominence has in turn been both a cause and an effect of a shift in public opinion
towards concerns for the social, cultural and environmental consequences of economic
activity.
Within this broad context, the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee (the Advisory
Committee) has been asked to consider the following questions:
1. Should the Corporations Act be revised to clarify the extent to which directors may take
into account the interests of specific classes of stakeholders or the broader community
when making corporate decisions?
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 1
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
2. Should the Corporations Act be revised to require directors to take into account the
interests of specific classes of stakeholders or the broader community when making
corporate decisions?
3. Should Australian companies be encouraged to adopt socially and environmentally
responsible business practices and if so, how?
4. Should the Corporations Act require certain types of companies to report on the social
and environmental impact of their activities?
Further details regarding the terms of reference to the inquiry can be found at Attachment A.
In addition to this current inquiry, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and
Financial Services is currently completing its inquiry into Corporate Responsibility and
Triple Bottom Line reporting. It is endeavouring to determine the extent to which
organisational decision-makers have and should have regard for the interests of stakeholders
other than shareholders, and the broader community for profit and not-for-profit incorporated
entities under the Corporations Act. CCI provided a submission to this review in September
2005.
The Hon Senator Ian Campbell, Minister for the Environment, has also asked the Australian
Stock Exchange (ASX) Corporate Governance Council to consider developing a noncompulsory standard for sustainability reporting for listed companies.
This submission has been structured in four main sections. The first section provides a brief
response to each of the broad terms of reference questions detailed above. The sections that
follow provide a more detailed analysis of the issue of corporate social responsibility, and in
the process provides support for the responses to the questions detailed in the first section.
Executive Summary
The appeal of corporate social responsibility, triple bottom line accounting and stakeholder
entitlements among businesses is strong. Some corporations have displayed willingness, and
even eagerness, to abandon a shareholder orientation in favour of a wider focus.
Under headings such as triple bottom line accounting, corporate social responsibility,
stakeholder capitalism and ethical investment, many businesses are incorporating
environmental, social, stakeholder and ethical dimensions of their activities into core
objectives along with shareholder returns.
To a large extent, this represents a commercial necessity for businesses to recognise and
respond to developments in their operating environment as opposed to a need to respond to
regulatory requirements.
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 2
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
For example, the rise in stakeholder orientation among firms is likely to represent the fact that
its absence is being more heavily penalised by a community becoming more concerned about
the behaviour and ethics of businesses.
The commercial incentive is not purely to avoid negative outcomes. Many businesses have
implemented triple bottom line accounting and achieved improvements in operating
efficiency or savings in input or waste management costs.
These measures are adopted by firms because they make good business sense and are in the
interest of shareholders. It is not appropriate to encourage decision makers to accommodate
stakeholder interests beyond this via the regulatory framework.
This is because stakeholder policies beyond those which maximise shareholder returns have
the potential to create costly and inefficient outcomes. For example, if business is obliged to
further the interests of the community, society, government and environment as well as
owners, a range of conflicting questions arise such as which groups and interests are entitled
to consideration in how the business is run? And by what means is that consideration to be put
into practice?
Even if these questions of entitlement can be resolved, harder problems of accountability
remain. Giving other stakeholders real influence over how a corporation operates would
require an entirely new framework of corporate accountability and sanctions.
It would rewrite property rights and constrain freedom of choice, redefine corporate
governance and transparency, and require new institutions of political, social and commercial
accountability.
An overarching concern for CCI is that stakeholder entitlement and related ideas appear to be
based on a profound misunderstanding of how modern businesses and economies operate.
It assumes that good results can only come from good intentions – that business activity will
only benefit society, the community, the economy and the environment if that is what
business leaders (or regulators or stakeholders) set out to achieve. But this is not the case.
A market economy - in which the production, distribution, pricing and use of goods and
services are primarily determined by people’s purchasing decisions - leads to a better social
and economic outcome than one in which well-intentioned business leaders or regulators try
to second-guess people’s wants and needs.
Government already has a role in shaping the regulatory environment where good business
practice alone might not result in efficient social and environmental outcomes. Extending
social policy objectives to corporations is not in the public interest. It moves corporations into
the sphere of public policy and service provision, which is not the role of business.
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 3
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
Specific Responses to the Terms of Reference
Responses to the questions detailed in the terms of reference are provided below. Supporting
information is provided in the subsequent sections of the submission.
Should the Corporations Act be revised to clarify the extent to which directors may take
into account the interests of specific classes of stakeholders or the broader community
when making corporate decisions?
Effective decision making requires businesses, and more specifically directors, to take into
account the interests of specific classes of stakeholders and the broader community. The
current regulatory framework already ensures that social and environmental considerations
are taken into account when making business decisions.
In relation to the Corporations Act, no restrictions exist which would prevent directors from
taking these considerations into account. Directors have a duty to act in the interest of their
company, and therefore must take into consideration the needs of employees, consumers and
other stakeholders.
Providing a more formalised duty to external stakeholders would in effect create uncertainty
and mean that directors would need to consider those interests alongside the business rather
than in the context of the viability of the business. This would also create a subjective
assessment of the primacy of interests resulting in an increased risk aversion in commercial
decisions.
Should the Corporations Act be revised to require directors to take into account the
interests of specific classes of stakeholders or the broader community when making
corporate decisions?
CCI believes that law changes to require directors to take into account the interests of specific
classes of stakeholders or the broader community when making corporate decisions to be
unnecessary.
CCI does not believe there is evidence that directors feel that their duties prevent them from
taking into account the interests of stakeholders other than shareholders, to the extent that
those interests are relevant to the company and its shareholders. Only if there is clear
evidence that directors do feel so prevented, and that their views have some legal foundation,
should consideration be given to an enabling provision in the Corporations Act that makes it
clear that the duties of Directors and officers do not preclude them from having regard for the
interests of stakeholders other than shareholders, to the extent that those interest are relevant
to the corporation.
As such, CCI is opposed to the view that that the law needs to be changed to “require
directors to take into account the interests of specific classes of stakeholders or the broader
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 4
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
community when making corporate decisions”. Such legislative intervention is not only
unnecessary, but would also be counter-productive.
In the absence of legislative intervention, businesses are already engaged in a wide range of
corporate social responsibility activities, and are voluntarily reporting their performances in
these areas and subjecting themselves to independent auditing and rating. The increasing
trend towards corporate social responsibility is examined in more detail in Trends in CSR on
page 13 and Current Practices on page 14.
If, however, a legislative requirement is put in place to require directors to take account of the
interests of specific classes of stakeholders or the broader community when making corporate
decisions, there will be a danger that directors will find themselves having to balance
competing and conflicting legal obligations. The issues in relation to conflicting priorities and
accountability are examined in more detail in Issues in Relation to CSR on page 17.
Should Australian companies be encouraged to adopt socially and environmentally
responsible business practices and if so, how?
As highlighted in Trends in CSR on page 13 and Current Practices on page 14, Australian
companies are increasingly adopting socially and environmentally responsible business
practices.
They do so because these factors need to be taken into account as part of their day to day
decision making. For example, the rise in stakeholder orientation among firms is likely to
represent the fact that its absence is being more heavily penalised by a community becoming
more concerned about the behaviour and ethics of businesses.
However, the commercial incentive is not purely to avoid negative outcomes. Many
businesses have implemented triple bottom line accounting and achieved improvements in
operating efficiency or savings in input or waste management costs. These measures are
adopted by firms because they make good business sense and are in the interest of
shareholders.
This issue is further examined in Reasons for Adopting a Stakeholder Orientation on page 10.
Should the Corporations Act require certain types of companies to report on the social and
environmental impact of their activities?
Australian companies are governed by the Corporations Act, the purpose of which is to
regulate the formation, operation and closure of corporations and the role of directors and
officers. Its purpose is not to set environmental or social standards, nor require a company to
behave in a particular way.
Where there is a need to establish minimum standards of behaviour or to prescribe certain
types of behaviour, this is appropriately dealt with in specific purpose legislation. In this
regard, Australian companies are governed by a large range of legislation, including
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 5
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
environmental, financial services, human rights, equal opportunity, sex and racial
discrimination, industrial relations, native title, occupational health and safety, taxation and
trade practices and fair trading.
In the absence of specific requirements set out in the Corporations Act, businesses are already
engaged in a wide range of corporate social responsibility activities, and are voluntarily
reporting their performances in these areas and subjecting themselves to independent auditing
and rating. The increasing trend towards corporate social responsibility is examined in more
detail in Trends in CSR on page 13 and Current Practices on page 14.
If business is obliged to further the interests of the community, society, government and
environment as well as owners, a range of questions arise:
•
Which groups and interests are entitled to consideration in how the business is run?
•
By what means is that consideration to be put into practice?
•
Are all identified stakeholders given equal weight?
•
How are inevitable conflicts between the interests of stakeholders to be resolved?
•
How are new and changing interests to be incorporated into the business plan?
Even if these questions of entitlement can be resolved, harder problems of accountability
remain.
Accountability requires a right to information, authority (the right to issue instructions) and
sanctions (the right to impose penalties is those instructions are not carried out). In a typical
corporation, directors are accountable to shareholders, while employees and other agents are
accountable, through managers, to directors.
If shareholder value were no longer the key objective of management, a new structure of
accountability would be needed to determine which interests are entitled to influence how the
business is run, who is to decide when that entitlement has been breached, what sanctions are
to apply, and to whom.
Such a structure would not be compatible with shareholders’ rights to buy and sell shares and
to sack directors. For as long as those rights exist, boards will accord special priority to
shareholders’ interests. Giving other stakeholders real influence over how a corporation
operates would therefore require an entirely new framework of corporate accountability and
sanctions.
It would rewrite property rights and constrain freedom of choice, redefine corporate
governance and transparency, and require new institutions of political, social and commercial
accountability.
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 6
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
The virtues of modern businesses are induced and reinforced by the incentive and
accountability structures under which they currently operate.
Businesses generate returns for investors by providing customers with the goods and services
they want, at prices they are prepared to pay, while proving trustworthy and responsive
enough to earn repeat business. In the process, they must secure and develop mutually
beneficial relationships with employees, clients, and suppliers.
They create jobs, bid up wages, pay taxes, and innovate in the perpetual search for an
advantage over competitors. All of this contributes far more to society than pious good
intentions.
Businesses will continue to monitor and respond to changes in the climate of opinion on
social, ethical and environmental issues, as they always have.
But to seek to reinforce this process by imposing vague and inconsistent social and
environmental obligations on corporations though legislation, disclosure requirements or
contractual terms would create a confusion of inconsistent entitlements and undermine
accountability.
The issues in relation to conflicting priorities and accountability are examined in more detail
in Issues in Relation to CSR on page 17.
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 7
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
Background
CSR Defined
There is no single commonly accepted definition of corporate social responsibility (CSR).
Some examples of definitions include:
“Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) refers to a range of practices that a business might
adopt to ensure that it operates in a manner that meets or exceeds the ethical, legal,
commercial and public expectations that society has of business.”
From ‘Taking The First Steps: An Overview Of Corporate Social Responsibility In Australia’
NSW State Chamber of Commerce, February 2001, p. 5.
“Corporate social responsibility is essentially a concept whereby companies decide
voluntarily to contribute to a better society and a cleaner environment.”
From ‘Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility’, EU Green
Paper, July 2001, p.5
“Corporate social responsibility is the continuing commitment by business to behave
ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the
workforce and their families as well as the local community and society at large”
From ‘Corporate social responsibility: making good business sense’ World Business Council
for Sustainable Development, January 2000.
CSR is linked to (and in some cases used interchangeably with) related terms and ideas such
as corporate sustainability, corporate citizenship, corporate social investment, the triple
bottom line, socially responsible investment, business sustainability and corporate
governance.
The Role of Corporations
The debate over corporate social responsibility concerns the role of corporations. For as long
as businesses with limited liability have existed, there has been debate about how they should
be owned, operated, regulated and motivated. Essentially, there are two differing views of the
firm in the context of this issue.
The shareholder-oriented firm
In Australia, the UK and the USA, the commonest understanding of the firm is of a
shareholder-oriented institution. This is typically a limited liability joint stock company
whose core function is seen as generating profits for its owners.
In this model, corporate governance focuses primarily on ensuring that managers and
directors exercise responsible stewardship of shareholders’ funds. There is no expectation that
these agents have a responsibility to serve any other interests besides those of the people
whose property they manage.
Most exponents of a shareholder-focused model of the firm recognise that it is appropriate to
modify the behaviour of business owners, managers and directors in the light of the wider
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 8
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
social costs and benefits their businesses’ activities engender (although the extent of
appropriate intervention is hotly debated).
So, firms’ operations are constrained within a framework of laws designed to enforce
protections for the interests of customers, employees, other businesses, the environment, the
community, the government, and so on.
Under this shareholder-oriented model, these constraints are external. No more is expected of
businesses than that they obey the rules as they go about their core function of generating
profits.
This limited expectation can be expressed either negatively or positively.
Positive advocates of the shareholder-oriented firm assert that maximising profit within a
framework of laws is both the most ethically appropriate behaviour of business managers and
the most socially desirable, because it leads to the best economic and social outcomes.
This view has been stated by Milton Friedman, who argued 40 years ago that:
“… there is one and only one social responsibility of business - to use its resources and
engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the
game.”i
The negative view of shareholder orientation presumes that corporate ethics is an oxymoron.
In this view nothing better than greed can be expected of business operators and pursuit of
owners’ interests will be at the expense of the wider community, so a system of laws and
regulations is necessary to force corporations to behave according to the community interest.
An oft-quoted observation from 18th century British jurist Edward Thurlow sums up this view
summarising the hopelessness of expecting unselfish behaviour from business:
“Did you ever expect a corporation to have a conscience, when it has no soul to be damned,
ii
and no body to be kicked?”
The stakeholder-oriented firm
The model of the shareholder-oriented corporation operating within a framework of rules has
never been universally welcomed or accepted, nor has it always been applied.
Social democratic and corporatist societies have enlisted business along with labour and
government in a concerted effort to achieve some wider social and economic good – broad
macro-economic management or more specific objectives such as limiting wage increases in
order to control inflation or reduce unemployment, for example.
Recently, there has been a revival in centre-left political circles of interest in broadening the
orientation of businesses’ objectives as part of a wider approach to economic management.
This has coincided and overlapped with developments in stakeholder theories of management,
which argue that the activities of businesses (and government and non-government agencies)
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 9
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
should be oriented towards furthering the interests of a range of social and economic groups,
or “stakeholders”.
These theories promote what Elaine Sternbergiii has described as “entitlement stakeholders”.
Some advocates of a stakeholder-oriented approach to the corporation in fact hold very
similar opinions to the negative view of the shareholder-oriented firm. They see businesses as
inherently anti-social and greedy, and therefore in need of extensive legal and regulatory
restraints to make them give due consideration to implications of their operations on
employees, customers, competitors, the environment and the community.
But there is a less hostile view which hopes that businesses will voluntarily incorporate
broader interests into decision making processes. Perhaps the most well-known political
advocate of this form of stakeholder orientation is British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has
argued:
“We cannot by legislation guarantee that a company will behave in a way conducive to trust
and long-term commitment. But it is surely time to assess how we shift the emphasis in
corporate ethos, from the company being a mere vehicle for the capital market, to be traded,
bought and sold as a commodity, towards a vision of the company as a community or
partnership in which each employee has a stake, and where a company’s responsibilities
are more clearly delineated.”iv
The resurgence of interest in stakeholder theory and other views that firms should take a
broader focus than the interest of shareholders alone has many sources. In its form most
hostile to business, it reflects the views of the more radical elements of the anti-globalisation
movement, and their related opposition to corporate activities and rights.
While Marxist solutions to the perceived evils of capitalism may have been largely
discredited, an underlying hostility to capitalism persists. Its more mainstream political
expression lies in the resurgent “‘third way” politics of Britain’s “New Labour” already
discussed, whose electoral successes make it an attractive role model to centre-left parties in
Europe and elsewhere, including Australia.
At a fairly diffuse social level, it reflects a response to the changing climate of community
opinion which has underpinned that political sea-change, including increased environmental
awareness and concern, disquiet at globalisation, hostility to corporations and a view that
political processes fail to deliver the social and economic outcomes people want.
Reasons for Adopting a Stakeholder Orientation
Good Behaviour is Profitable
From a business perspective, a persuasive case for adopting a stakeholder orientation is that
good corporate citizenship is profitable.
At its most fundamental level, the underpinning mechanism of commerce in free markets is
ethical - voluntary cooperation to mutual gain.
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 10
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
A strong case can be argued that this is a more ethical foundation than alternative mechanisms
for distributing goods and services which, while perhaps driven by more altruistic motives
than self-interest, tend to be achievable only through compulsion and confiscation.
At a more practical level, ethical business is generally profitable business.
Businesses in competitive markets which repeatedly sell over-priced or shoddy goods, which
fail to pay suppliers, which exploit or underpay workers or which harm the communities they
operate in are usually not profitable for any length of time (although exceptions do exist, at
least temporarily).
So good managements and responsible boards have always stressed ethical behaviour on the
part of employees and agents, and more general business virtues such as courtesy, honesty,
value for money and reliability, knowing these to be a considerable source of long-term
competitive advantage.
The report by the NSW State Chamber of Commerce summed up the advantages of corporate
social responsibility for the business community generally and for individual enterprises:
“The business community benefits when companies act responsibly. It gains a voice in the
political arena, legitimacy, trust, power and freedom from regulations. These gains ensure
that Australian companies will be competitive in domestic and global markets. Enterprise
level benefits can be grouped into four areas; operating performance, market goals, human
v
resources and external relations.”
The findings of the survey of 115 large public and private Australian entities, conducted by
the Centre for Corporate Public Affairs and the Business Council of Australia, confirm this
view:
“For three-quarters of the companies in this study the goal of long-term business
sustainability is at the heart of the ‘business case’ for community involvement. They see
involvement not as a means of improving short-term business competitiveness but as a way
to maintain trust, support and legitimacy with the community, governments and employees.
They see community involvement as a social responsibility of business but one that is
clearly aligned with the long-term commercial interest of companies.”
Many businesses have embarked tentatively or reluctantly on stakeholder-oriented programs
only to embrace them with increasing enthusiasm as they are seen to yield dividends.
Companies have implemented triple bottom line accounting and in the process achieved
improvements in operating efficiency or savings in input or waste management costs that
have greatly exceeded both the cost of the program, and expectations.
But the gains from ethical trading practices and environmental responsibility are not new, so
they are not in themselves enough to account for the increase in the number of businesses
which publicly and explicitly commit to one or more forms of stakeholder orientation.
The increase in business activity in this area may in part reflect opportunity.
In recent years there has been rapid growth in the range and depth of courses and
consultancies, advisory bodies, literature and academics available to assist businesses who
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 11
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
wish to adopt a systematic approach to business ethics, corporate social responsibility or triple
bottom line accounting, for example.
Yet this increase in the opportunities for devising and implementing stakeholder-oriented
policies may itself be an effect of increased demand for these services, rather than the cause
for their adoption.
Bad Behaviour is Costly
Rather than corporate virtue being rewarded more richly than in the past, a more plausible
explanation for corporations’ increased stakeholder orientation may be that its absence is
being more heavily penalised. The community is becoming more concerned about the
behaviour and ethics of the firms they do business with (and those they don’t).
They have more opportunities to monitor, publicise and respond to business behaviour –
through the media, the internet, and via pressure groups such as Corpwatchvi established
specifically in order to monitor and criticise corporate behaviour.
Not only are people more informed about corporate behaviour, they are more willing and able
to influence and penalise that behaviour, as consumers, investors, voters and litigants. Public
activism has been targeted at corporations in Australia including James Hardy, Alcoa and
McDonaldsvii.
The reputations of corporations and their brands have been shown to be vulnerable to
concerted publicity campaigns, and businesses have been forced to respond to activists’
allegations, even when they were ill-foundedviii.
Ethical investment funds screen out businesses whose products and/or practices they believe
immoral, and it has been claimed that investors can make as good or even better returns from
investing in these firms than in the general run of corporationsix, although more recent
evidence suggests that the apparently superior performance of sustainable or ethical funds is
not necessarily permanent, but depends on market conditions.
Chart 1 illustrates this point. The
Dow Jones Sustainability Indexx
matched or outperformed the
Dow Jones World Index to early
2000. In recent times however,
global markets have strengthened
due to the resources boom while
the sustainability index, which
contains few mining related
companies, has flattened.
Chart 1 - Dow Jones Share Prices Indexes
Sustainability Index vs World Index
1,300
260
1,200
240
1,100
220
1,000
200
900
180
800
160
700
140
600
120
500
More
hard-nosed
corporate
investment analysts have also
Feb 00
100
Jan 01
Dec 01
No v 02
Sustainability Index (LHS)
Oct 03
Sep 04
A ug 05
World Index (RHS)
So urce: Yaho o Finance
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 12
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
turned their attention to the social, ethical and environmental practices of the businesses they
invest in, driven not so much by desire to penalise behaviour deemed immoral, as by concern
for the financial risks associated with it. In part this may reflect under-estimation of risk in the
past. But it seems to be driven more by the fact that the financial penalties associated with
being held guilty of improper behaviour are much greater than ever before, whether guilt is in
the eyes of the public, NGOs, or the courts. Boards and directors, as well as shareholders and
investment analysts, are reacting to this changed risk environment.
The USA has led the way in the rising tide of litigiousness which has seen huge damages
claims awarded against tobacco and gun manufacturers, those who produce faulty goods,
polluters and so on. This phenomenon is not limited to the USA but is affecting business
behaviour (and also not-for-profit and government agencies) throughout the world.
These phenomena in turn are part of an ongoing process in which the limitations on the
liability of businesses and their agents have been steadily unwound, through increases in the
penalties applied to corporations and their employees for behaviour perceived to harm
individuals or other businesses, and in the range of behaviours which are penalised.
The cost of such penalties affects businesses’ bottom lines.
Increasing the range of activities subject to penalty, or the magnitude of penalties imposed,
means that a profit-maximising corporation will make increased efforts to ensure that the
penalty is avoided – after all, that is the point of raising penalties in the first place.
In summary, a business whose sole purpose is to generate returns for its shareholders has
good reason to avoid the costs of acting unethically - whether it is to protect a corporate or
brand image, to avoid the damaging effects of consumer boycotts, to attract and retain the
investment dollars of shareholders concerned to invest ethically or investment managers
concerned at the risks of unethical investment, or to escape the widening net of corporate
crimes and liabilities and the increasing penalties they attract.
The financial rewards of virtue and costs of transgression represent a strong business case for
behaving ethically.
Trends in CSR
Australia’s legislation does not require corporations to specifically take into consideration the
interests of stakeholders other than shareholders, nor are companies required to report on the
social and environmental dimensions of their activities. However, despite this the evidence is
that companies are increasingly taking these factors into consideration in their operations.
The International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting, conducted annually by
KPMG, found that 14 out of Australia’s top 100 companies prepared corporate responsibility
reports in addition to their annual reports in 2002. By 2005, this number had risen to 23 out of
Australia’s top 100 companiesxi.
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 13
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
The take-up of responsibility reporting among the Australian corporate community has been
slower than in other countries. According to the KPMG report, an average of 33 out of the top
100 companies operating in 16 developed countries had prepared stand alone responsibility
reports in 2005.
Nonetheless, other surveys have also demonstrated an awareness of social responsibility
among Australian businesses.
A survey of 115 large public and private Australian entities, conducted in 2000 by the Centre
for Corporate Public Affairs and the Business Council of Australiaxii, found that 85 per cent of
participants recognised that their businesses had a social obligation and supported some form
of involvement with the community.
In addition, a New South Wales State Chamber of Commerce survey found that 74 per cent of
business leaders recognised that their businesses needed to strike a balance between the
objectives of building a better society and generating profits. It also found that 78 per cent of
Australian companies had a code of ethics or an equivalent statementxiii.
This evidence suggests that corporate social responsibility matters to Australian businesses. It
matters primarily because the shifts in public opinion towards concerns for the social, cultural
and environmental consequences of economic activity have occurred at a time when the
public have a greater willingness and capacity to monitor business activities than ever before.
Through this, the public has a greater ability to reward and penalise behaviour of which they
approve or disapprove, through co-ordinated or individual actions as consumers, investors,
voters and litigants.
This is probably the key reason for the increased incidence of explicitly stakeholder-oriented
policies in businesses across Australia - they are to a large degree compatible with, and even
conducive to, the promotion of shareholder interests. This is discussed in further detail below.
Current Practices
Australian companies are governed by the Corporations Act, the purpose of which is to
regulate the formation, operation and closure of corporations and the role of directors and
officers. Its purpose is not to set environmental or social standards, nor require a company to
behave in a particular way.
Where there is a need to establish minimum standards of behaviour or to prescribe certain
types of behaviour, this is appropriately dealt with in specific purpose legislation. In this
regard, Australian companies are governed by a large range of legislation, including
environmental, financial services, human rights, equal opportunity, sex and racial
discrimination, industrial relations, native title, occupational health and safety, taxation and
trade practices and fair trading.
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 14
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
In 2002, the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) Corporate Governance Council developed a
set of guidelines, Principles of Good Corporate Governance and Best Practice
Recommendations. This document articulates 10 core principles that the ASX Corporate
Governance Council believes underlie good corporate governance. Attached to these
principles are 28 practice recommendations.
Whilst not mandatory, under ASX Listing Rule 4.10, companies are required to provide a
statement in their annual report disclosing the extent to which they have followed these best
practice recommendations in the reporting period. Where companies have not followed all the
recommendations, they must identify the recommendations that have not been followed and
give reasons for not following them – the “if not why not” approach. The ASX Best Practice
Principles are detailed in Appendix B.
The Australian business community’s response to CSR is a compelling example of where,
without Government intervention, business has developed sophisticated responses to
community issues. Without the need for prescriptive legislation, Australian corporations are
already engaged in a wide range of corporate social responsibility activities, developed to suit
the particular needs of the corporations and the communities they relate to.
Increasingly, corporations are voluntarily reporting their performances in these areas and
subjecting themselves to independent auditing and rating. Some Australian corporations are
world leaders in this field. Even where other corporations are not as well advanced in their
approaches, there is clear evidence that Australian corporations are progressively increasing
the range and sophistication of their corporate social responsibility activities.
One of the primary mechanisms to report on CSR is through the Global Reporting Initiative
(GRI). The GRI is a multi-stakeholder process and independent institution whose mission is
to develop and disseminate globally applicable Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. These
Guidelines are for voluntary use by organisations for reporting on the economic,
environmental, and social dimensions of their activities, products, and services. Further
details on the GRI Guidelines are provided in Appendix C.
There are numerous examples of Australian companies that have embraced corporate social
responsibility, and provide detailed sustainability reports on the basis of the internationally
accepted GRI Guidelines.
Example: BHP Billiton
BHP Billiton espouses an overriding commitment to health, safety, environmental
responsibility and sustainable development. This commitment is reinforced by publicly
reporting on its sustainability performance (which it has done since 1997) and in 2002 it
adopted the GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, and it has been progressively improving
its compliance with these guidelines.
As part of its 2005 Sustainability Report, BHP Billiton has included a GRI Navigator, which
represents its assessment against each of the GRI Guidelines, and in 2005 took the additional
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 15
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
step of reporting on a number of new indicators detailed in the GRI Mining and Metal
Supplement, which at this stage has not been finalised.
BHP Billiton requires all operations to produce annual public site sustainability reports. It is
the intent of these site-based reports to provide a review of the Health, Safety, Environmental
and Community (HSEC) issues and performance specific to their site circumstances, regional
context and stakeholder needs.
Its 2005 Sustainability Report was also independently reviewed by an external assessor –
URS Australia, which found that “the Report fairly represents the health, safety, environment,
community and socio-economic performance of BHP Billiton…and that the Report has been
prepared in accordance with the GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines 2002”xiv.
BHP Billiton participates in a number of key external benchmarking initiatives that attempt to
measure the Company’s sustainable development performance against others in its sector
through the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexxv, the FTSE4Goodxvi and the Storebrand “Best in
Class”xvii.
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 16
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
Issues in Relation to CSR
Conflicting Priorities and Values
Stakeholder entitlement requires operational decision-makers to resolve conflicts between
values, objectives and stakeholders’ interests. This is difficult because the interests of
stakeholders conflict and views on ethical behaviour and social responsibilities differ.
Among a firm’s stakeholders, the interests of customers and employees, employees and
owners, owners and the community in which the business is operated, the local community
and more distant suppliers, are obviously going to conflict on occasion.
More basic questions arise. Who is a stakeholder (virtually anyone, according to Freeman’sxviii
definition)? Are all stakeholders given equal weight, or do some get more consideration than
others (e.g. full-time compared to part-time employees)? How are managers to know what all
stakeholders’ interests are? What if an activity harms some stakeholders and benefits others?
What happens when the members of a class of stakeholders have preferences which are not
identical (e.g. some employees want weekend work, others don’t)?
Most importantly, given the difficulty of knowing what stakeholders’ interests are and of
eliminating conflicts between them, how is a balance to be achieved?
Commenting on a similar list of conflicts and questions, Elaine Sternbergxix argues that:
“It may now be objected that such problems are, nonetheless, routinely resolved in practice.
And indeed they are. But the way that they are managed, is by using the substantive goal of
the organisation as a decisive criterion. If the purpose of the corporation is to maximise
long-term owner value, or to produce the environmentally-friendliest widgets, or to provide
employment for the blind, that purpose enables managers to identify which groups need to
be considered, and which of their perceived benefits are relevant and legitimate; it indicates
how benefits are to be ranked, and how conflicts are to be resolved. To be workable,
stakeholder theory must employ the very substantive objectives that it explicitly rejects.”
Not only that, but Sternberg points out that the theory of stakeholder entitlement is not
compatible with any organisation (not just a business) having any substantive objective.
Under stakeholder theory, environmental protection, educational excellence, community
health, employment of the disabled, care for the aged, equal opportunity or sporting success
are no more legitimate as primary aims of an organisation than maximising shareholder value.
Each assumes that some stakeholder interests are so important they override others, and in
stakeholder theory that assumption is not accepted.
Accountability and Governance
Even if these questions of entitlement can be resolved, harder problems of accountability
remain.
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 17
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
Under the shareholder model, the ethical values that underpin the concept of shareholder
value maximisation are based on three related principles:
•
Respect for individuals’ dignity and autonomy, which implies a preference for
voluntarism and co-operation over coercion.
•
Respect for property rights, which demands that no person should have the right to direct
someone else’s property to a particular use without their consent (or, fair compensation);
and
•
Respect for contracts, which should be honoured for ethical as well as legal and practical
reasons.
The case for stakeholder orientation beyond that consistent with maximising shareholder
value is based on a different set of principles. As described by Elaine Sternbergxx, the
stakeholder entitlement view has as its central tenet:
“…that organisations, and particularly businesses, must do more than just take their
shareholders into account. It maintains that organisations must instead be accountable to all
their stakeholders, and that the proper objective of management is to balance their
competing interests.”
Both the shareholder and stakeholder oriented view of the role of business raise fundamental
questions about accountability. However, the latter proves much more difficult for firms to
address.
Accountability requires that individuals must account to others for the decisions they make
and the way they behave. It also requires defined authority, so that those to whom agents are
accountable are entitled to exact penalties on agents who fail to perform.
In a typical shareholder model corporation, directors are accountable to shareholders while
employees and other agents are accountable, through managers, to directors.
However, under stakeholder theory Sternbergxxi points out that both of these types of
accountability are repudiated. In their place, it proposes a structure of accountability which is
so diffuse as to be unenforceable.
For example, any bad management decision or employee action can be justified on the
grounds that it is in the interest of some stakeholder group.
With employees and managers acting as both agents and stakeholders, the chain of
accountability turns into a self-referential loop in which the exercise of authority to the
advantage of some stakeholders against others can be legitimised.
To the extent that all stakeholders’ interests must be taken into account when significant
decisions are made, management is likely to be cumbersome and unresponsive.
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 18
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
For such a model to be effective would demand profound changes in law and corporate
governance.
At present, shareholders unhappy with the way a board manages their assets are free to invest
elsewhere, or, if a majority of shareholders agree, to dismiss the board. Managements which
do not maximise shareholder value are at risk of hostile takeover. Employees who do not
carry out the instructions of management can be sacked.
These structures of incentive and accountability are explicitly designed to ensure that
management has a strong incentive to put shareholder interests first, within the constraints of
the law.
They are based on and reinforced by a structure of corporate governance rules which
recognise that managements might not of their own volition always pursue shareholder value
as their central priority, and which try to ensure that as near as possible they are made to do
so.
This is an environment in which both custom and law aim to ensure a management team
which consistently made decisions which are not in the interests of its shareholders does not
last.
For as long as shareholders retain the freedom to buy and sell shares and the right to sack
directors, those directors are likely to continue to accord special priority to shareholders’
wishes.
Whether a legal structure based on accountability to other stakeholders as well as
shareholders could be made workable is debatable. What is certain is that such a model would
bear little relationship to the system of economic freedom and property rights which
underpins our current system.
This does not mean that such stakeholders have no sanctions against the firm; but it means
that those sanctions are exercised by means other that its ownership and governance
structures. Employees unhappy with a business’s employment practices can negotiate
changes, resign or take up their grievances through a trades union. Suppliers and customers
can stipulate contract conditions, or failing this take their business elsewhere or pursue legal
redress when appropriate. Local communities use planning, pollution, trading and other laws
and regulations to set limits and conditions on the way businesses operate. Governments
apply a plethora of laws to ensure that environmental conditions and social and other
protections are enforced by business.
Where the wider aims of corporate social responsibility are pursued by management
authority, at the very least the effect is to politicise business. Milton Friedman arguesxxii:that it
is actually more akin to theft than social responsibility:
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 19
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
‘“What does it mean to say that the corporate executive has a ‘social responsibility’ in his
capacity as businessman? If this statement is not pure rhetoric, it must mean that he is to
act in some way that is not in the interest of his employers.
[in pursuing such interests] “…the corporate executive would be spending someone else's
money for a general social interest. Insofar as his actions in accord with his ‘social
responsibility’ reduce returns to stockholders, he is spending their money. Insofar as his
actions raise the price to customers, he is spending the customers' money. Insofar as his
actions lower the wages of some employees, he is spending their money.”
Even if such pursuit of social and environmental objectives with other people’s resources was
legitimate, the manner of that pursuit is unaccountable and undemocratic.
In democracies like Australia, most people are familiar with, and unperturbed by, the
processes by which property rights are routinely constrained or removed in the service of the
common good, whether through the payment of taxes to support government services and
transfers, through laws limiting pollution and noise, zoning restrictions on the use of
buildings, and so on.
We might disagree fiercely about how much tax should be raised, from whom, and how the
money should be spent. Opinions differ no less on appropriate legislation and regulation,
whether the issues are the location of heavy industry, the suburban speed limit or the fencing
of swimming pools.
In a democracy, these controversies about how to tax and how much to tax, what to spend and
what laws to pass, are subject to public and media scrutiny and community consultation,
institutional restraints and the final test of the ballot box.
As Friedman describes it, the use by business leaders of other people’s money in pursuit of a
broader social objective is analogous to the government’s role as taxer, re-distributor and
regulator, but without the accountability:
“We have a system of checks and balances to separate the legislative function of imposing
taxes and enacting expenditures from the executive function of collecting taxes and
administering expenditure programs and from the judicial function of mediating disputes and
interpreting the law.”
“Here, the businessman self-selected or appointed directly or indirectly by stockholders - is
to be simultaneously legislator, executive and jurist. He is to decide whom to tax by how
much and for what purpose, and he is to spend the proceeds - all this guided only by
general exhortations from on high to restrain inflation, improve the environment, fight
poverty and so on and on.”
In effect, the business person becomes a public (“civil”) servant, and must be made
accountable in a similar manner:
“On grounds of political principle, it is intolerable that such civil servants - insofar as their
actions in the name of social responsibility are real and not just window dressing - should be
selected as they are now. If they are to be civil servants, then they must be selected through
a political process. If they are to impose taxes and make expenditures to foster ‘social’
objectives, then political machinery must be set up to guide the assessment of taxes and to
determine through a political process the objectives to be served.”
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 20
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
Stakeholder orientation beyond that which is consistent with maximising shareholder value
opens a whole range of issues of principle concerning property rights and freedom of choice,
corporate governance, transparency and political, social and commercial accountability.
The Wider Case Against Regulation
The discussions above present a case against imposing government regulations to compel
businesses to consider the interests of stakeholders other than shareholders.
Public and Private Regulation
This does not mean that businesses should be free of environmental, social, safety or other
regulation – such rules remain a necessary and important role of government.
Nor does it mean that businesses should or will disregard their impact on the environment and
the community. As discussed above, doing business ethically and with regard for the interests
of stakeholders is increasingly important to long-term profitability.
Rather, it points out that regulation to achieve ill-specified, ambiguous or conflicting
objectives on business is likely to be ineffective or counter-productive.
US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspanxxiii has summed up this policy imperative.
Although specifically directed to the regulation of financial instruments, the principles he
outlined broadly apply to any form of regulation:
“In making such evaluations, it is critically important to recognize that no market is ever truly
unregulated. The self-interest of market participants generates private market regulation.
Thus, the real question is not whether a market should be regulated. Rather, the real
question is whether government intervention strengthens or weakens private regulation. If
incentives for private market regulation are weak or if market participants lack the
capabilities to pursue their interests effectively, then the introduction of government
regulation may improve regulation. But if private market regulation is effective, then
government regulation is at best unnecessary.”
It is naïve and inappropriate to expect businesses to assume social and environmental
responsibilities beyond those which comply with the negative imperatives of conventional
regulation (don’t pollute, pay no less than minimum wages, etc) and maximise shareholder
value.
Profiting from Corporate Social Responsibility
Elaine Sternberg and others point out that having regard for the interests and preferences of
stakeholders is good business practice and benefits shareholders, stakeholders and the wider
community.
There is another sense, however, in which adopting the rhetoric of corporate social
responsibility, triple bottom line etc. can be profitable for the wrong reasons – by artificially
inflating demand for a business’s products under the guise of promoting community
wellbeing through mechanisms, which in reality, deliver little or no real community benefit.
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 21
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
For example, Gary Johns, a senior fellow with the Institute of Public Affairsxxiv, gave a fairly
cynical interpretation of the recent involvement of Insurance Australia Group (IAG) in the
debate over climate change and the claim that it will increase the risk of damaging climaterelated events:
“…an insurance company cannot change the climate,… but it can change the climate for
customers. IAG is using the data to scare people to take out insurance. In other words, it is
doing what it normally does, drum up business – but in this instance it is using the cover of
the greenhouse issue. IAG is indulging in public policy debate in order to win customers.
The Kyoto Protocol is being used as a ‘dog whistle’ on climate change to have people takeout insurance on weather damage to their properties. Good for business, bad for public
policy.”
This example highlights a more fundamental argument against corporate social responsibility
as a claim to public virtue. Although it can be profitable to be seen as socially and
environmentally responsible and costly to be seen as irresponsible, there are dangers in
pandering to public opinion when that opinion is not based on facts and good policy. A paper
by David Hendersonxxv, a former chief economist at the OECD, highlights this clearly:
“It may indeed be true, or eventually become true, that a general adoption of CSR
[corporate social responsibility] would promote the objective of making MNEs [multi-national
enterprises] better liked and appreciated, and thus help to keep them alive and profitable in
an unfriendly world. But this would come at the cost of accepting false beliefs, yielding to
unjustified attacks, and impairing the functioning of the market economy.”
This raises a fundamental problem with the concept of corporate social responsibility: it
assumes that triple bottom line accounting, ethical investment, stakeholder entitlement and
similar theories will yield better outcomes (for some parties, at least) than an economy in
which firms are primarily engaged in maximising long-term value for their shareholders
within a framework of laws.
This reflects the widely-held view that good outcomes can only arise from good intentions
and that the profit motive is intrinsically distasteful.
Above all, it is indicative of a lack of faith in the capacity of the ‘invisible hand’ of the free
market to deliver a better economic, environmental and social outcome than the good
intentions of business leaders, suitably stiffened by laws, incentives and stakeholder
responsibilities.
Proponents of this view point to the failure of free markets to deliver social, economic and
environmental outcomes as good as we might wish, and conclude that the economic system is
a failure. But those who doubt the efficacy of markets have never yet been able to point to an
economy or society where a ‘visible hand’ has done better, whether that hand is guided by the
state, a plurality of stakeholders, or well-intentioned business leaders.
The real virtue of the good corporate citizen is that it generates returns for investors by
providing customers with the goods and services they want, at prices they are prepared to pay,
while proving trustworthy and responsive enough to earn repeat business.
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 22
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
In the process, it creates jobs, bids up wages, pays taxes, and innovates in the perpetual search
for an advantage over its competitors. All of this contributes far more to society than pious
good intentions.
In all of this, government has a proper role in shaping the regulatory environment where good
business practice alone might not result in efficient outcomes. This is achieved in Australia
through provisions in corporations and trade practices law, health and safety standards,
environmental protection regulations, anti-discrimination and labour protection laws, and
competition and consumer protection initiatives.
But by increasing business costs, blurring accountability and impeding the efficient operation
of capital markets, the advocates of mandated corporate social responsibility and stakeholder
entitlements would impede the business sector’s capacity to make this valuable contribution
to the economy and society.
David Henderson’s paper concludes with a warning of the potential damage which corporate
social responsibility and related movements could inflict. Though lengthy, it is worth quoting
in full:
“CSR is often presented, by moderates and enthusiasts alike, as a sober and judicious
response to challenges that have to be met and new developments on the world scene.
Such a description does not fit the facts. Many of the alleged new developments have not in
fact taken place: they are part of the mythology of global Salvationism. Because the myths
are largely believed, because the rationale and functioning of a market economy are not
well understood, and because of widespread acceptance of the need for deliverance from
above, the assessment of issues and events by many international businesses, and by
others in the business milieu, appears as neither judicious nor informed. Appeasement, and
the wish to disarm opposition, go together with a large measure of sympathy with, and
acceptance of, a collectivist perspective. The views and demands of NGOs and other hostile
critics are treated as more soundly based and more representative than they really are. A
misleading view of the world is uncritically accepted.
“CSR is flawed in its prescription as well as its diagnosis. What it proposes for individual
businesses, through 'stakeholder engagement' and giving effect to the 'triple bottom line',
would bring far-reaching changes in corporate philosophy and practice, for purposes that
are open to question and with worrying implications for the efficient conduct of enterprises.
Across economic systems and political boundaries, it would strengthen existing tendencies
to regulate transactions, and to limit competition, in ways that would further restrict the
opportunities and freedom of choice of people and enterprises. These various effects, both
within firms and beyond them, would undermine the market economy and reduce welfare.
Despite the attractions of the phrase and the hopes that it appears to offer, the adoption of
CSR marks an aberration on the part of the many businesses concerned, and its growing
hold on opinion generally is a matter for concern.”
Alternative Measures to Regulation
Voluntary mechanisms can encourage operational decision makers to have regard for
stakeholder interests without the need for prescriptive forms of regulation. This is because
commercial self-interest is a powerful motivation for firms to behave ethically.
Voluntary measures that go beyond shareholder maximisation are likely to be limited in their
application. The NSW State Chamber of Commerce paper on corporate social responsibility
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 23
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
encapsulates the difficulty that operational decision makers’ face in embracing stakeholder
interests outside of those that increase shareholder value:
“Most Australian business leaders would like their company to have a positive impact on
society and the environment. Yet in the day-to-day commercial pressures to maximise
shareholder value and profitability, managers are wondering if they can afford to have ‘fuzzy
feelings’ about their business operations.”
Irrespective of voluntary measures and/or regulation, reporting is often seen as a means by
which stakeholders can keep corporations accountable for their social and environmental
performance (the triple bottom line) in the same vein that financial reporting keeps boards of
directors and chief executives accountable to owners.
However, it is not logical that a company’s social and environmental practices be separately
disclosed to maintain accountability in the same way that financial information is disclosed.
It is considerably easier to compare financial performance across firms than it is to compare
social and environmental performance. Are users, whether stakeholders or ethical investment
funds, expected to judge whether one entity’s involvement with indigenous communities is
better than donations made by another entity to a children’s charity? Information about a
corporation’s social and environmental activities is not material like financial information.
Shareholders and stakeholders do not derive benefit from knowing what practices are
employed but from the effects of such practices.
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 24
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
Appendix A: Terms of Reference
In March 2005, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, the Hon. Chris Pearce MP,
wrote to the Convenor of the Advisory Committee in the following terms.
I am writing to refer an issue to the Corporations and Markets Advisory
Committee (CAMAC) for consideration and advice.
The issue concerns the extent to which the duties of directors under the
Corporations Act 2001 (the Corporations Act) should include corporate social
responsibilities or explicit obligations to take account of the interests of certain
classes of stakeholders other than shareholders.
Under both the Corporations Act and the common law, directors have a duty to act
in the best interests of the corporation. In this regard, they are required to consider
the interests of shareholders and, in some limited circumstances, creditors. This
position reflects the long-standing view of the corporate officer as an agent of
shareholders.
Legislation other than the Corporations Act imposes additional obligations on
companies and their directors in relation to employees and the environment. For
example, companies must pay their employees at least minimum rates of pay and
they must comply with occupational health and safety, anti-discrimination and
equal opportunity requirements. Companies must also comply with a wide range
of environmental requirements.
In modern society, a great deal of business and other activities are conducted by
corporate entities. Given the broad economic, social and environmental impact of
these activities, there is an understandable interest in the legal framework in which
corporations make decisions. A question that has been raised from time to time is
whether the current legal framework allows corporate decision makers to take
appropriate account of the interests of persons other than shareholders.
Apart from the question of clarifying the legal position of directors, there may be a
positive role for Government to play in promoting socially responsible behaviour
by companies through various initiatives such as voluntary codes of practice.
A related issue is whether to introduce mandatory requirements for larger
companies to include with their annual reports, a report on the social and
environmental impact of the company’s activities. This could either be in the form
of a narrative or quantified report. Mandatory reporting of such information could
allow interested investors to take account of these matters in making investment
decisions.
Having regard to the matters discussed above, I request that CAMAC consider and
report on the following matters:
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 25
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
1.
Should the Corporations Act be revised to clarify the extent to which directors
may take into account the interests of specific classes of stakeholders or the
broader community when making corporate decisions?
2.
Should the Corporations Act be revised to require directors to take into
account the interests of specific classes of stakeholders or the broader
community when making corporate decisions?
3.
Should Australian companies be encouraged to adopt socially and
environmentally responsible business practices and if so, how?
4.
Should the Corporations Act require certain types of companies to report on
the social and environmental impact of their activities?
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 26
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
Appendix B – ASX Best Practice Principles
The ASX Corporate Governance Council developed a set of guidelines, Principles of Good
Corporate Governance and Best Practice Recommendations. This document articulates 10
core principles that the ASX Corporate Governance Council believes underlie good corporate
governance. A company should:
1. Lay solid foundations for management and oversight – Recognise and publish the
respective roles and responsibilities of board and management.
2. Structure the board to add value – Have a board of an effective composition, size and
commitment to adequately discharge its responsibilities and duties.
3. Promote ethical and responsible decision-making – Actively promote ethical and
responsible decision-making.
4. Safeguard integrity in financial reporting – Have a structure to independently verify and
safeguard the integrity of the company's financial reporting.
5. Make timely and balanced disclosure – Promote timely and balanced disclosure of all
material matters concerning the company.
6. Respect the rights of shareholders – Respect the rights of shareholders and facilitate the
effective exercise of those rights.
7. Recognise and manage risk – Establish a sound system of risk oversight and management
and internal control.
8. Encourage enhanced performance – Fairly review and actively encourage enhanced
board and management effectiveness.
9. Remunerate fairly and responsibly – Ensure that the level and composition of
remuneration is sufficient and reasonable and that its relationship to corporate and individual
performance is defined.
10. Recognise the legitimate interests of stakeholders – Recognise legal and other
obligations to all legitimate stakeholders.
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 27
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
Appendix C – GRI Guidelines
The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is a multi-stakeholder process and independent
institution whose mission is to develop and disseminate globally applicable Sustainability
Reporting Guidelines (GRI, 2002). These Guidelines are for voluntary use by organisations
for reporting on the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of their activities,
products, and services.
It seeks to elevate sustainability reporting to the same level of rigour, comparability,
credibility, and verifiability expected of financial reporting, while serving the information
needs of a broad array of stakeholders from civil society, government, labour, and the private
business community itself.
The GRI Guidelines identify the information for inclusion in a GRI-based report, and are
designed to be flexible, with a range of options suitable for reporting organisations at any
level of experience and sophistication. The GRI recognises the need for many organisations to
build their reporting capacity in an incremental fashion, moving gradually toward greater
coverage, transparency, and structure in terms of continuity and consistency from year to
year. Organisations that choose this incremental approach may informally use the Guidelines,
and select certain principles, elements, and indicators to begin their reporting programmes.
Getting started is the critical first step.
Other organisations, aspiring to leadership roles in the sustainability arena, may wish to
identify their reports as prepared “in accordance” with the 2002 GRI Guidelines. To use this
term, reporters must meet certain minimum requirements specified in the Guidelines.
“In Accordance” Requirements
1. Report on the organisational profile, governance and management systems.
2. Include a GRI Content Index, linking GRI components to information actually contained
in the report.
3. Respond to each core indicator by either (a) reporting on it, or (b) explaining its omission.
4. Ensure that the report is consistent with GRI’s reporting principles.
5. Include a statement signed by the board or CEO indicating that the report was prepared in
accordance with the 2002 GRI Guidelines and represents a balanced and reasonable
presentation of the organisation’s sustainability performance.
The GRI reporting principles are the underpinnings of report content. They are the foundation
of credible reporting, equal in importance to the content itself. The reporting principles are:
•
Transparency: Full disclosure of the processes, procedures and assumptions in report
preparation are essential to its credibility.
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 28
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
•
Inclusiveness: The reporting organisation should engage its stakeholders in preparing and
enhancing the quality of reports.
•
Auditability: Reported information should be recorded, compiled, analysed and disclosed
in a way that enables internal auditors or external assurance providers to attest to its
reliability.
•
Completeness: All material information should appear in the report.
•
Relevance: Reporting organisations should use the degree of importance that report users
assign to particular information in determining report content.
•
Sustainability Context: Reporting organisations should seek to place their performance in
the broader context of ecological, social or other issues where such context adds
significant meaning to the reported information.
•
Accuracy: Reports should achieve a degree of exactness and low margin of error to
enable users to make decisions with a high degree of confidence.
•
Neutrality: Reports should avoid bias in selection and presentation of information and
provide a balanced account of performance.
•
Comparability: Reports should be framed so as to facilitate comparison to earlier reports
as well as to reports of comparable organisations.
•
Clarity: Information should be presented in a manner that is understandable by a
maximum number of users while still maintaining a suitable level of detail.
•
Timeliness: Reports should provide information on a regular schedule that meets user
needs and comports with the nature of the information itself.
Report Content
The Guidelines recommends that five sections appear in a sustainability report:
1. Vision and Strategy: A statement from the CEO and discussion of the reporting
organisation’s sustainability strategy.
2. Profile: An overview of the reporter’s organisation, operations, stakeholders, and the
scope of the report.
3. Governance Structure and Management Systems: A description of the reporter’s
organisational structure, policies, management systems, and stakeholder engagement
efforts.
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 29
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
4. GRI Content Index: A cross-referenced table that identifies the location of specified
information to allow users to clearly understand the degree to which the reporting
organisation has covered the content in the GRI Guidelines.
5. Performance Indicators: Measures of performance of the reporting organisation divided
into economic, environmental, and social performance indicators. Organisations may
adopt this format or modify it to enhance usefulness of the report to its stakeholders.
Environmental and Social Performance Indicators
Environmental indicators concern an organisation’s impacts on living and non-living natural
systems, including eco-systems, land, air and water. Included within environmental indicators
are the environmental impacts of products and services; energy, material and water use;
greenhouse gas and other emissions; effluents and waste generation; impacts on biodiversity;
use of hazardous materials; recycling, pollution, waste reduction and other environmental
programmes; environmental expenditures; and fines and penalties for non-compliance.
•
The GRI list 16 Core Indicators for Environmental Performance. There are also a number
of environmental indicators specific to the mining and metals sector, as detailed in the
GRI Mining and Metals Supplement Pilot Version 1.0.
Social indicators concern an organisation’s impacts on the social systems within which it
operates. GRI social indicators are grouped into three clusters: labour practices (e.g. diversity,
employee health and safety), human rights (e.g. child labour, compliance issues), and broader
social issues affecting consumers, communities, and other stakeholders (e.g. bribery and
corruption, community relations).
•
The GRI list 11 Core Indicators for Labour Practices and Decent Work, seven Core
Indicators for Human Rights, three Core Indicators for Society and three Core Indicators
for Product Responsibility. There are also a number of social indicators specific to the
mining and metals sector, as detailed in the GRI Mining and Metals Supplement Pilot
Version 1.0.
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 30
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
Notes and References
Bibliography
ASX Corporate Governance Council, 2003, Principles of Good Corporate Governance and Best
Practice Recommendations, Sydney.
Chamber of Commerce and Industry of WA:
– 2002 (January). Shareholders, Stakeholders, Ethics and Social Responsibility: a Discussion of Views
of Business Accountability
– 2003( February) CCI Response to Focus on the Future: The WA State Sustainability Strategy
Friedman, Milton. The Social Responsibility Of Business Is To Increase Its Profits, article in originally
printed in the New York Times (1970), accessed from
http://homepages.bw.edu/~dkrueger/BUS329/readings/friedman.html
Sternberg, Elaine ‘The Stakeholder Concept: A Mistaken Doctrine’, Foundation for Business
Responsibilities, Issue Paper No. 4, November 1999. Sternberg differentiates between two
essentially
Comments and Notes
i
Friedman, Milton (1962), “Capitalism and Freedom”, University of Chicago Press.
Lord Chancellor of England Edward First Baron Thurlow, cited in Business & Society Review, No.
72, Winter 1990, p. 51
iii
Sternberg, Elaine ‘The Stakeholder Concept: A Mistaken Doctrine’, Foundation for Business
Responsibilities, Issue Paper No. 4, November 1999.
iv
Quotation taken from Peters, P. “Tony Blair’s “Stakeholder Economy”: A Midterm Assessment”,
October 1999, on the Lexington Institute’s web site. Original source.
v
“Taking The First Steps: An Overview Of Corporate Social Responsibility In Australia” NSW State
Chamber of Commerce, February 2001, page 6. First paper in a series entitled “the common good”.
vi
See http://www.corpwatch.org.
vii
In 2004, industrial firm James Hardy was the subject of boycotts and public scrutiny after it stalled
on payouts to cancer victims whose illnesses were brought on through the use of James Hardy
products containing asbestos.
In 2002, Alcoa came under intense public scrutiny in WA after it was forced to shut down a piece of
refinery equipment blamed for causing serious health effects. Alcoa resolved several multi-million
dollar compensation claims from its workforce and it bought up several houses from nearby
residents.
In 2005, Tasmanian potato farmers launched a nationwide campaign demanding that McDonald’s
demonstrate more social responsibility. Tasmanian food processor Simplot lost half its McDonald’s
french fries contract to New Zealand, creating a loss of about $50 million to the Tasmanian
economy.
viii
For example, the cases of Brent Spa and McDonalds. In the Brent Spa case, Greenpeace ran a
campaign which included a range of assertions subsequently shown to be false, but which
nonetheless led Shell Expro to abandon plans to sink its Brent Spar installation in the North Sea.
In the case of McDonalds, the 2004 documentary ‘Super Size Me’ by Morgan Spurlock led to the
fast food outlet phasing out its trademark ‘super size’ fries and drinks in its U.S. restaurants even
though, as McDonalds pointed out, Spurlock’s decision to eat nothing but McDonalds food for a
month was irresponsible.
ix
In an article on the financial and market information website TheMotleyFool, Chris Rugaber
concludes that socially responsible investment funds do not necessarily yield lower rates of return,
but that differences in performance may be short-term effects of differences in portfolio
composition. Fees and expenses tend to be higher than for other comparable investment funds. See
Rugaber, “socially responsible investing” 28 March 2001, on
http://www.fool.com/Specials/2001/sp010329.htm.
ii
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 31
Corporate Social Responsibility Submission
February 2006
x
The Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes were launched in 1999 and are the first global indexes to track
the financial performance of the leading sustainability-driven companies worldwide. Selection in
based on an independent benchmark based on economic, environmental and social criteria. See
http://www.sustainability-index.com.
xi
KPMG Sustainability Services, International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2005.
Page 10.
xii
Centre for Corporate Public Affairs in conjunction with Business Council of Australia, Corporate
Community Involvement: Establishing a Business Case. Page 11.
xiii
“Taking The First Steps: An Overview Of Corporate Social Responsibility In Australia” NSW State
Chamber of Commerce, February 2001, page 11. First paper in a series entitled “the common good”.
xiv
URS Australia, 2005, Assurance Statement, Melbourne.
xv
The index consists of more than 300 companies that represent the top 10 per cent of leading
sustainability companies in 59 industry groups in 34 countries. The index selects the top 10 per cent
of companies in the global metals and mining sector, based on over 90 different performance
indicators.
xvi
This index is designed to measure the performance of companies that meet globally recognised
corporate responsibility standards and to facilitate investment in those companies.
xvii
One of the leading proponents of socially responsible investing, Storebrand in Norway, researched
the mining industry and ranked BHP Billiton 'best in class' for its environmental and social
performance out of 21 metals and mining companies covered. Storebrand’s analysis is based on a
best-in-class approach. Only sector leaders— companies ranking in the top 30th-percentile in both
environmental and social dimensions— qualify for investment in socially responsible portfolios
managed by Storebrand. In this way, the analysis identifies those companies which are moving their
industry toward sustainable solutions.
xviii
Evan, W and Freeman, R (1993) ‘A Stakeholder Theory of the Modem Corporation: Kantian
Capitalism,’ in Beauchamp and Bowie, Ethical Theory and Business, p. 82.
xix
Sternberg, Elaine ‘The Stakeholder Concept: A Mistaken Doctrine’, Foundation for Business
Responsibilities, Issue Paper No. 4, November 1999.
xx
Sternberg, Elaine ‘The Stakeholder Concept: A Mistaken Doctrine’, Foundation for Business
Responsibilities, Issue Paper No. 4, November 1999. Sternberg differentiates between two
essentially benign ideas about stakeholders and a third strand she calls stakeholder entitlement
theory: “Two of usages of 'stakeholding' are commonplace and unobjectionable. The first is a
conventional observation about motivation: people are more likely to take an interest in a process
when they consider that they have a stake in its outcome; the stake need not be financial. The second
innocuous usage is simply a reminder that the world is complex: many factors must ordinarily be
considered when pursuing even ostensibly simple outcomes. This is a basic truth that successful
businesses have long understood and respected”
xxi
‘Creating and Maintaining an Ethical Corporate Climate’, Woodstock Theological Center Seminar
in Business Ethics, Georgetown University Press, 1990.
xxii
Friedman, Milton. ‘The Social Responsibility Of Business Is To Increase Its Profits’, article in
originally printed in the New York Times (1970), accessed from
http://homepages.bw.edu/~dkrueger/BUS329/readings/friedman.html
xxiii
Remarks by Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan. “Government Regulation and Derivative
Contracts”, at the Financial Markets Conference of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Coral
Gables, Florida. February 21, 1997.
xxiv
“Insurance Company Whips Up a Storm”, by Gary Johns. The Australian Financial Review –
Opinion. 16 August, 2005.
xxv
Henderson, David. ‘Misguided Virtue: False Notions Of Corporate Social Responsibility’, New
Zealand Business Roundtable, June 2001. p.86
© Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Page 32