It has been fascinating to watch over the last decade as more investors around the world actively embrace the importance of companies acting responsibly on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues.  And equally, if not more important, we have seen companies globally step up and confirm the importance of being a responsible corporate citizen and its central importance for protecting and building shareholder value.

Walden Asset Management recently conducted research on how companies see their roles in this evolution. The wide ranging quotes compiled below all connect to the premise that being a responsible company is good for the bottom line.  What’s significant about the quotes is that they all come from the companies themselves, drawn from several dozen corporate social responsibility reports (CSR) including a wide range of industries.

Please understand that including a quote from a company does not mean that I or Walden Asset Management automatically think this company is a “living model” for good CSR reporting or performance.  However, these quotes do illustrate the expanding belief that CSR has become vitally important for a company’s business, and that transparent reporting is, as one CEO said, one of “the prices of doing business today.”

Special thanks go to Carly Greenberg, a Summer Associate at Walden, who painstakingly reviewed dozens of CSR reports to gather this information.

Industry: IT

Intel

From the President and CEO statement, Paul S. Otellini

“Corporate responsibility is about doing the right things right.”

“Our approach has created value not only for our stakeholders and society, but also for Intel.  We have reduced costs through energy conservation investments, minimized risks by proactively working with our communities and supply chain, and enhanced our reputation as a leading corporate citizen by building trusted relationships around the world.” (pg. 2)

HP

“As one of HP’s seven corporate objectives, global citizenship has long been integral to the success of our business. We’re responding to pressing issues, such as mitigating climate change, using energy more efficiently, enriching education and improving healthcare, by providing solutions that are transforming how people live, work and connect.” (pg. 3)

Dell

From the Letter from CEO, Michael Dell

“Dell has a full-time commitment to being a responsible corporate citizen. It’s a commitment driven by the types of goals, strategies and accountabilities that characterizes every part of our business.” (pg. 4)

From the Text of the Report

“We live in an increasingly complex world. That reality, combined with the financial downturn of the global economy and the issues facing our planet and our communities, means business as usual is not enough. To make a meaningful difference, we must inspire and innovate….

"During times like these, we must continue to build trust with customers and stakeholders by demonstrating our positive impact on society and the planet and developing meaningful measures for reporting our progress. Corporate responsibility is a critical component of Dell’s overall business. We are committed to being a responsible corporate citizen.” (pg. 6)

Xerox

From the Letter from the CEO, Ursula M. Burns, and Chairman of the Board, Anne M. Mulcahy

“Despite the toll the recession has taken, we are pleased to report that it has not caused us to waiver from our belief in the need to behave responsibly as a good corporate citizen in the communities and countries in which we operate. There are two broad reasons for that – a belief that good citizenship is the right way to behave and an equally important belief that behaving the right way is a good thing for our business.” (pg. 2)

“The more we have integrated sustainability into our business operations, the more it has become a part of our DNA. We like to think of ourselves as a leader, still pushing the boundaries of what is possible.” (pg. 2)

“We were an early leader in the sustainability movement because we thought it was the right thing to do for the environment. But we discovered something else along the way. Every one of our innovations ended up either saving us money or creating new markets and new revenue. We found, in other words, that we don’t have to choose between the environment and profit. We can do both.” (pg. 3)

“Conducting our business with integrity and transparency builds credibility and attracts investors.” (pg. 4)

“Nurturing a greener world through sustainable innovation and development saves money, creates value and helps develop new markets.” (pg. 4)

Industry: Energy

Shell:

From the CEO introduction statement, Peter Voser

“Safety, environmental and social performances are now closer to the core of our business plans and decisions.” (pg. 1)

“I believe sustainable development works best when it is thoroughly integrated in our business decisions at the very earliest opportunity…That is exactly how it must be if we are to meet the complex challenges ahead in the most effective and responsible way.” (pg. 1)

From the interview with CEO Peter Voser, interviewed by Aron Cramer

“Sustainability is central to the way we do business, our business principles and our long-term strategy, so we take a very far-reaching view, not a short-term view.  It means to me that we help to meet the growing energy needs of the world in economically, environmentally, and socially responsible ways.  You can’t have one without the other two” (pg. 7) –Peter Voser

“We wanted to embed sustainable development as deeply into the business as possible” (pg. 7) –Peter Voser

Exxon Mobil:

“It is our view that successful companies are those that see business objectives and sustainability objectives as interlinked.” (pg. 2)

“For a number of years, our business lines have been incorporating sustainability considerations in their operations and sharing the outcomes with stakeholders.” (pg. 2)

“Our disciplined approach and long-standing commitment to corporate governance have contributed to our continued success during the global recession of 2009.” (pg. 15)

“We believe that an unwavering commitment to high ethical standards and business integrity is critical to our competitive advantage and shareholder value.” (pg. 16)

Industry: Utilities

Duke Energy

From the Letter from the Chairman and CEO, Jim Rogers

“In tough economic times, when every aspect of our business is under scrutiny, some might ask whether we can afford to focus on sustainability. To that I respond: Can we afford not to?” (pg. 4)

“Sustainability – operating our business in a way that is good for people, the planet and profits – is, in my opinion, no longer optional. It is the strategic and decision-making approach we are following at Duke Energy to create long-term value.” (pg. 4)

“At Duke Energy, sustainability describes the way we work; it is a competency that leads to improved risk management, efficiency and innovation for today’s complex, resource-constrained and connected world.” (pg. 4)

Industry: Telecommunications

AT&T

“At AT&T, when we talk about 'sustainability,' we’re not just talking about the environment. We’re talking about a broad array of initiatives that will make our business and communities stronger well into the future.” (pg. 13)

Verizon

From the Message from the Chairman and CEO, Ivan Seidenberg

“Our corporate responsibility process helps us assure that our practices keep pace with the evolving needs and expecta­tions of our customers.” (pg. 7)

“We have built a sustainable model for incorporating corporate responsibility into the way we manage our business.” (pg. 7)

Industry: Food & Beverage

The Coca-Cola Company

From the Chairman and CEO Letter, Muhtar Kent

“In the midst of the global financial downturn, the economic, environmental and social implications of business are more important than ever. There’s no question that the world is undergoing a massive resetting of priorities, values and expectations.”

“The strength and sustainability of our brands are directly related to our social license to operate, which we must earn daily by keeping our promises to our customers, consumers, associates, investors, communities and partners. It is an honor, and a responsibility that we take very seriously.”

From the Text of the Report

“LIVE POSITIVELY^™ is our commitment to making a positive difference in the world. Through redesigning the way we work and live, we consider sustainability as part of everything we do. As we act with an eye toward future generations, we will focus on driving business growth and creating a more sustainable world.” (pg. 12)

Kraft

From the Message from the Chairman and CEO, Irene B. Rosenfeld

“To build and sustain brands people love and trust, one must focus—not only on today but also on tomorrow. It’s not easy…but balancing the short and long term is key to delivering sustainable, profitable growth—growth that is good for our shareholders but also good for our consumers, our employees, our business partners, the communities where we live and work, and the planet we inhabit.” (pg. 5)

Industry: Materials

Alcoa

From the Message from the Chairman and CEO, Klaus Kleinfeld

“During these tough economic times, we recommitted ourselves to integrating sustainability as a core value for Alcoa; protecting the health and well-being of our employees and our communities; conducting business with the highest code of ethics; preserving the environment and our natural resources; and earning our license to operate each and every day.”

The Dow Chemical Company

“In short, we are committed – through chemistry – to the betterment of global humanity. And it is this commitment that drives all of our strategies for growth and profitability.” (pg. 3)

From the Letter from Chairman and CEO, Andrew Liveris

““Setting the Standard for Sustainability” is our desire to have corporate citizenship inherent in everything we do as a global corporation, directly supporting our vision of being the largest, most profitable and most respected chemical company in the world.” (pg. 20)

From the Statement from CEO presenting overall vision, Andrew Liveris

“We see sustainable development as an opportunity to tap new markets that create value for our customers, consumers and the planet.” (pg. 23)

” By integrating sustainability elements into every facet of our business – from our product offerings to our energy use – we are creating a better future for our Company and the world.” (pg. 23)

Industry: Consumer Services and Products

Procter & Gamble

From the President and CEO Statement, Bob McDonald

“In fact, our growth strategy for the coming decade is linked tightly to our Purpose. We will grow P&G’s business by touching and improving more consumers’ lives in more parts of the world … more completely.

"To execute this strategy and fulfill the Company’s Purpose, we must grow responsibly and sustainably. As a result, Sustainability is at the heart of P&G’s business model. Keeping Sustainability at the core of our business fuels innovation and strengthens our results.” (pg. 4)

“We’re a company that focuses on growth now and for generations to come, and therefore Sustainability should and will be a focus area for me.” (pg. 4)

Nike

From the Letter from the CEO, Mark Parker

“We saw that doing the right thing was good for business today – and would be an engine for our growth in the near future. With each new discovery and partnership, we willingly gave up old ideas to shift our thinking toward a better, smarter, faster and ultimately more sustainable future – financially, environmentally and socially.” (pg. 4)

“All companies face a direct impact from decreasing natural resources, rising populations and disruption from climate change. And what may be a subtle effect now will only become more intense over the next five to ten years. Never has business had a more crucial call to innovate — not just for the health and growth opportunities for our companies, but for the good of the world.” (pg. 5)

“We see sustainability, both social and environmental, as a powerful path to innovation, and crucial to our growth strategies.” (pg. 5)

“And for all the athletic and cultural and financial successes of the company, believe our work in sustainable business and innovation has equal potential to shape our legacy.” (pg. 5)

“There is now only one path and it leads to greater sustainability, equity, growth and prosperity.” (pg. 5)

Wal-Mart

From the Letter from CEO, Mike Duke

“I meant we would make sustainability a priority throughout our entire company and we would act with a sense of urgency.” (pg. 3)

“It shows that even during the economic crisis, our company does not slow down on sustainability or even just stay the course; we redouble and strengthen our efforts.” (pg. 3)

“When we look at the world today and the trends that will shape the world in the future, we see that sustainability is no doubt one of Wal-Mart’s greatest opportunities to make a difference for our business, our communities, our customers and the planet.”  (pg. 5)

Kimberly-Clark Corporation

From  the “Choices for a Sustainable Future” section

“Put simply, sustainability is critical to our future success. It’s an enormous challenge. But we choose to do it, and to work with those who support positive change, because it’s the right thing to do. That’s one choice that will never change.” (pg. 3)

From the Message from the Chairman and CEO, Tom Falk

“Sustainable business practices are woven into the fabric of our Global Business Plan. We challenge ourselves every day to look for ways to sustain the resources we enjoy today for generations to come. That’s why Kimberly-Clark is focused on setting and achieving sustainability performance metrics for our brands and facilities. And through our resource stewardship, we are demonstrating to our stakeholders that sustainability isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s also good business.” (pg. 4)

Industry: Automotives

Ford

The letter from Executive Chairman and Chairman of the Board, William Clay Ford Jr.

“We continue to aggressively search for new ways, both big and small, to improve our economic and environmental sustainability. Often the actions we take accomplish both goals.”

“Creating a strong business and building a better world are not conflicting goals – they are both essential ingredients for long-term success.”

From the Letter from President and CEO, Alan Mulally

“We also know that the successful companies of the 21st century will be those that understand global sustainability issues and offer viable solutions. Through a decade of work and a disciplined reinvention of our Company, we have built sustainability into our business model.”

Industry: Pharmaceuticals

Pfizer

From the Letter from the Chairman of the Board and CEO, Jeff Kindler

“In times like these, some companies might choose to focus simply on running their businesses and think of their corporate responsibility work as a luxury that can wait for better times. Not Pfizer. We believe successful companies can’t do one without the other.” (pg. 5)

Industry: Capitol Goods

Caterpillar

From the CEO and Chairman’s Message, Jim Owens

“We’re making sustainable development part of how we do business. In 2007, in the midst of our growth period, we set bold aspirational goals for 2020, and abandoning those goals, in the face of dramatic economic challenges, was simply not an option. This isn’t a passing fad that we only care about during prosperous times. It’s a serious commitment. And it’s a real business opportunity, now and in the future.”  (pg. 2)

“Good things happen when we integrate sustainability into our products, services and solutions. We improve our competitiveness and create and capture customer value. We save money, reduce our environmental impact and improve employee satisfaction. And by partnering with others, we can help ensure sound policies that promote sustainable development and innovation.” (pg. 2)

“In the next decade, the most successful companies will be those that integrate sustainability into their core businesses. That’s what we’re doing at Caterpillar, and we are also helping our customers do the same.” (pg. 3)

“Some of Caterpillar’s fastest-growing businesses are those focused on the sustainability of materials and resources.” (pg. 3)

“In fact, the economic downturn has helped secure sustainability’s place at the core of our strategy. It’s not something extra that we do during good times. It’s something that creates and captures value for the company, our customers, investors, employees, suppliers – and really, the world.”  (pg. 4)

Industry: Industrials

General Electric Company

From the Letter from the Chairman of the Board and CEO, Jeff Immelt

“Successful companies can only create solutions to some of the world’s toughest problems by working collaboratively. Business must engage — with communities, governments, customers and each other — because the status quo is not an option. It is not only possible for a global business leader to be a good citizen, but a requirement.” (pg. 4)

“Based on a commitment to integrity, a commitment to performance and a commitment to learn and grow stronger, GE is creating a better company coming out of this reset — a renewed focus that is better for GE, and also better for our world.” (pg. 4)

Trade Associations and Consultants

BSR Report 2009: Innovating for Sustainability

From the Letter from the President and CEO, Aron Cramer

“2009 presented numerous challenges for the entire world, not least for all of us dedicated to sustainable business. At the start of the year, many observers thought companies would consider corporate responsibility to be an expendable luxury that could be cut along with other discretionary budgets. 'Sustainability,' they predicted, would be redefined as 'basic economic survival.'  Fortunately, these predictions did not play out. Rather, 2009 showed us that sustainability can—as we had argued—help pull business out of the recession.” (pg. 1)

“Despite the difficulties presented by the economic conditions, it is clear that sustainability remains as important to business—and to the world—as ever before.” (pg. 1)

From the Text of the Report

“What’s more, revived economic growth is again exacerbating existing challenges related to climate, water, and biodiversity.  Long after the recession passes into history, these trends will be shaping economic conditions. They are the reference points that business should consider in shaping their strategies.

More and more companies recognize this. As a result, they are making sustainability not just a program, but, in fact, the defining feature of success in a fast-changing world.” (pg. 5-6)

“While calmer economic conditions have returned, the road to tomorrow’s prosperity is not the same as what came before. The businesses that assert leadership, take a comprehensive approach, use sustainability as a driver for innovation, and champion sustainable consumption will not only become the sustainability champions, but also the most successful companies in the years ahead.” (pg. 11)

Accenture Report: “A New Era of Sustainability”

This report summarizes findings from a survey of CEO’s globally

From the Forward by Georg Kell, Executive Director UN Global Compact, and  Bruno Berthon, Managing Director Accenture Sustainability Services

“It is a decade that, CEOs believe, could usher in a new era where sustainability issues are fully integrated into all elements of business and market forces are truly aligned with sustainability outcomes.” (pg. 2)

“Today’s CEOs are more convinced than ever of the need to embed environmental, social and corporate governance issues within core business. But they are also convinced that good performance on sustainability amounts to good business overall: The imperative to act has shifted from a moral to a business case.” (pg. 2)

From the Text of the Report

“93 percent of CEOs see sustainability as important to their company’s future success.” (pg. 10)

“Demonstrating a visible and authentic commitment to sustainability is especially important to CEOs because it is part of an urgent need to regain and build trust from the public and other key stakeholders, such as consumers and governments—trust that was shaken by the recent global financial crisis. Strengthening brand, trust and reputation is the strongest motivator for taking action on sustainability issues.” (pg. 10)

“Our survey found widespread agreement among CEOs about what the next era of sustainability will look like: It is one where sustainability is not only a separate strategic initiative, but something fully integrated into the strategy and operations of a company.” (pg. 11)

“96% of CEOs believe that sustainability issues should be fully integrated into the strategy and operations of a company (up from 72% in 2007).” (pg. 14)

“80 percent of CEOs believe that the economic downturn has raised the importance of sustainability as an issue for top management.” (pg. 16)

“74 percent say that the downturn has led their company to align sustainability more closely with core business.” (pg. 16)

“Also bolstering the continued commitment to sustainability during the economic downturn has been demand for sustainable products and services.” (pg. 18)

From “Industry perspectives: Belief in the importance of sustainability varies considerably by industry”

“Fully 100 percent of automotive CEOs identify sustainability issues as important or very important to their future success. This finding reflects how environmental concerns present both a challenge to the industry and an opportunity to serve a new market with low carbon alternatives such as e-vehicles.” (pg. 19)

“CEOs from the energy and utilities sectors also see sustainability issues as critical to their future success.” (pg. 19)

“Wolfgang J. Ruttenstorfer, CEO and Chairman of European oil and gas company OMV, said, ‘I regard these issues as bringing competitive advantage in the long term; a transparent approach clearly oriented toward values, human rights and environmental objectives is the only right approach that will be  appreciated in the long term.’” (pg. 19)

“Support is especially high in the banking industry, for example: 68 percent of CEOs note that sustainability is “very important” to their success…a commitment to environmental and social issues may be a prominent part of restoring brand value as the financial industry struggles to regain the trust of consumers.” (pg. 19)

“CEOs in the communications and electronics & high-tech sectors are the least likely to identify sustainability issues as critical to their future success— just 22 percent and 31 percent of those industries’ CEOs, respectively, cite sustainability as very important to their future success…leading companies in these sectors are beginning to think beyond the direct physical impacts of their business on sustainability issues, and are looking to shape a vision of the role that they can play in society by driving sustainable development…providing companies around the world with new technologies and ways of working that will help them achieve their own environmental objectives.” (pg. 19)

KPMG

This report published every 3 years; following statements are from the 2008 report.

From the Forward

Message from Global Head of Citizenship and Diversity, KPMG International, Lord Michael Hastings of Scarisbrick CBE

“As you will see in the results, there has been an important shift in this direction with CSR reporting becoming the norm instead of the exception within the world’s largest companies. Three years ago only 50 percent of companies surveyed included CSR in their reporting, in this survey the number jumped to 80 percent. More companies report the information as it relates to specific objectives and more companies include this information in their annual reports.” (pg. 5)

Message from Global Head, KPMG Sustainability Services Partner, KPMG in the Netherlands, Wim Bartels

“But would these reports pass the “greenwash” test? For the first time in the 15 years we have been doing this survey, we think they just might. Nearly all of the Global 250 companies that report also publish a corporate responsibility strategy with defined objectives.” (pg. 5)

From Text of the Report

“One of the most significant findings of the 2008 survey is that corporate responsibility reporting has gone mainstream - nearly 80 percent of the largest 250 companies worldwide issued reports, up from about 50 percent in 2005.

National trends - National level companies trail the G250 with only 45 percent of the total sample issuing reports, but numbers vary from less than 20 percent in Mexico to more than 90 percent in Japan.” (pg. 7)

“Now that some of the world’s largest companies have been able to quantify the business case for corporate responsibility and reporting, it is likely that the practice will spread through countries and sectors to the smaller players.” (pg. 7)

“Reporting is necessity if companies are to know and understand their social and environmental impacts, and how to minimize the dangers and maximize the opportunities associated with new and emerging challenges.” (pg. 10)

““In these challenging times it is now perhaps more crucial than ever for companies to show their commitment to transparency through sustainability reporting. Effective public disclosure of economic, environmental, and social performance can enable a company to rise above the rest and take advantage of the opportunity to position itself as a forward-thinking leader among an increasingly sophisticated constituency of stakeholders. No longer is publishing a sustainability report merely a matter of mitigating risk to reputation and costs. More than ever, employees, investors, and consumers are looking to the companies from which they buy, invest in, and work for to join them in addressing the critical sustainability issues of the day in innovative ways.” (pg. 17)--Judy Henderson Board of Directors, Global Reporting Initiative

Dear EarthTalk: What are the most important foods to buy organic? -- Rachel Klepping, Bronxville, NY

Given the usual higher prices of organic versus conventionally-grown foods, it can be a challenge to get the biggest bang for our buck while eating healthy and avoiding the ingestion of synthetic chemicals along with our nutrients. One approach, say some experts, is to only buy organic when the actual edible parts of a non-organically grown food might come into direct contact with toxic fertilizers and pesticides.

The nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG) reports that consumers can reduce their chemical exposure by some 80 percent by either avoiding the most contaminated conventionally grown fruits and vegetables altogether, or by eating only the organic varieties. To help us sort through what and what not to buy, the group offers a handy Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides, which fits on a small piece of paper that you can keep in your pocket and have handy on grocery trips. You can print it out for free from EWG’s FoodNews.org website, or you can download it as a free App for your iPhone.

To make it easy to use, EWG has distilled its analysis into two lists. The first, “Dirty Dozen: Buy These Organic,” lists foods that when grown conventionally contain the largest amounts of pesticide and fertilizer residues. These include peaches, strawberries, apples, blueberries, nectarines, bell peppers, spinach, cherries, kale/collard, greens, potatoes, and (imported) grapes. Consumers should definitely spend the extra money for organic versions of these foods.

On the other side of the coin, EWG’s “Clean 15” list includes foods that contain the least amount of chemical residues when grown conventionally. These include onions, avocados, sweet corn, pineapples, mangos, sweet peas, asparagus, kiwi, cabbage, eggplant, cantaloupe, watermelon, grapefruit, sweet potatoes and honeydew. It’s OK to eat conventionally grown varieties of these foods.

EWG analysts developed the “Clean 15” guide using data from some 89,000 tests for pesticide residues in produce conducted between 2000 and 2008 and collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). What’s the difference, you may ask? EWG found that by eating five conventionally-grown fruits and vegetables a day from the Dirty Dozen list, a consumer on average ingests 10 different pesticides; those who stick to the Clean 15 list ingest less than two.

Other foods you and your family eat, such as meats, cereals, breads and dairy products, might also be exposing you to unwanted chemicals. According to EWG, the direct health benefits of organic meat, eggs and milk are less clear, but you should play it safe by sticking with all-natural, free-range, grass-fed meats that are not fed antibiotics or growth hormones, and by choosing only organic dairy products.

Thanks to increasing demand, more and more food purveyors are putting extra emphasis on organics. This will ultimately result in both lower prices and larger selections. Natural foods market aisles are already teeming with organic choices—and chances are your local supermarket or big box store has introduced organic versions of many popular items. Consequently, there has never been a better time to take stock of what you are feeding yourself and your family, and to make changes for better health.

Image by beautifulcataya, courtesy Flickr

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Asbestos has long been known to cause debilitating and often fatal diseases such as lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis. It is banned or restricted in 52 countries, and its use has plummeted in the United States since its peak in the early 1970s.

But since the mid-1980s, a global network of lobbyists has spent nearly $100 million to maintain a market for asbestos, according to an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity. Borrowing a page from the tobacco industry, these trade associations have funded scientists whose studies raised doubts about the health risks of asbestos and have preserved significant sales by focusing on the developing world.

Today's remarkable investigation describes the asbestos trade in the countries where it is still flourishing: India, where asbestos use is booming among the rural poor; Brazil, where one federal inspector has battled the industry for a quarter-century; Russia, which produces nearly 1 million tons of asbestos each year; and China, the world's biggest asbestos consumer.

A leading industry group, the Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers' Association, said in the report that the only type of asbestos that is currently used -- chrysotile, or white asbestos -- is much safer than brown or blue asbestos, which were commonly used in the past.

The investigation cites statements by several health organizations warning that all forms of asbestos are dangerous and carcinogenic. You can read the whole report here.

ProPublica is an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest.   This article is republished with permission under a Creative Commons license.

I admit it: I judge people by the way they behave, with me and with others. Which makes me think that, despite the lofty environmental goals of Green Garmento, I won't be doing business with that company any time soon.

Why? Because the owner, Rick Siegel, appears to have stolen credit for his business idea -- not the idea itself but credit for the idea.

How you react to his story depends on how you define both good business practice and social enterprise. I've tried to define "social enterprise" before but let's revist the subject.

In a New York Times article some weeks back, Siegel was lauded for social entrepreneurship, innovation, and environmental good works inherent in his business, Green Garmento. Green Garmento is a reusable dry cleaning bag that eliminates the need for all that flimsy plastic headed to landfills.

Just one month later, The Times ran a second Green Garmento article, laying out some new information. In the original story, Siegel had credited his product to his own frustration dealing with hangars and plastic and dry cleaning. He recounted his struggles perfecting his product, the failures along the way, and noted that after his product was well into development, he learned of a similar product called Converta Bag.

Not his inspiration. Not a problem.

But he failed to mention yet another eco-friendly cotton dry cleaning bag, Clothesnik. This is a problem because, as he and Clothesnik's founder Jane Wyler agree, Siegel attempted to invest in Clothesnik after seeing the product at a trade show ... before he "invented" his bag.

In fact, Siegel's emails to Wyler indicated that her product was enticing precisely because "it could be replicated by potential competitors” and a strong competitor "could undermine your uniqueness and reap the available rewards."

Which is what Siegel did.

(I'm not sure why an easily replicated product is an attractive investment but to each his own.)

Entrepreneurs often see a product, tweak it, improve it, and make it their own. That's just plain good business: Build a better mousetrap.

But Siegel did something else. He specifically claimed that the idea sprung fully formed from his brain; when asked, he failed to give credit to the real innovator.

Legally, he is probably on solid ground. How about ethically?

I think a better business man, with good marketing and ethical sense, would have acknowledged the inspiration of Clothesnik and then detailed why his product was better and what problems it solved that Clothesnik hadn't.

He'd have given credit where credit was due and he'd have promoted his product nicely.

How you treat other people, other businesses, your clients, your employees -- it all matters. At least it does to me.

Do you think his behavior was ethical? Is it more disturbing because he was touted as a social entrepreneur? Is there a higher standard of behavior for social enterprise? Should there be?

Geri Stengel is founder and President of Ventureneer, an online education and peer support service

Investors filed a record 101 climate and energy-related resolutions with 88 U.S. and Canadian companies in 2010, a 50% increase from the year-earlier, according to activist shareholder organizations.

A record 51 resolutions were withdrawn after the companies agreed to climate change and energy-related commitments.

Sixteen of the 42 resolutions that went to a vote achieved 30 percent or greater support, nearly three times the number that achieved that level of support in 2009.   The average vote for the 42 resolutions voted on so far this year was 24.6 percent, up from 21.7 percent last year.

The statistics were compiled by Ceres, a coalition of investors and environmental groups, and the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), a coalition of nearly 300 faith-based institutional investors.

”The BP spill is only the latest reminder of why investors are ratcheting up their attention to climate and other environmental risks across their portfolios,” said Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres. “This year’s record results send a powerful message that companies should boost their attention to these issues.”

“If our portfolio companies are to provide long-term shareowner value, they need to be proactive, not reactive, in addressing climate change and other ESG matters,” said Jack Ehnes, CEO of CalSTRS, the second largest pension fund in the U.S.   Mr. Ehenes said the record results for shareholder filings in 2010 are “an encouraging sign that investors and companies are paying increasing attention to long-term drivers of value.”

Among the resolutions, requests for companies to provide a corporate responsibility or sustainability report have “increasingly resonated with investors,” according to Tim Smith, Senior Vice President for Walden Asset Management.  He  pointed to a  record 60 percent vote at Layne Christensen and votes at Gentex and St. Jude in the low 30s and low 40s, respectively. “We believe this signals a tipping point for the case for transparency on CSR,” he said.

Correction 7/26: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported the comments of Walden Asset Management’s Tim Smith in discussing vote results at Gentex.

The issues with key high votes and share value of votes in favor, according to Ceres and ICCR, were:

Adopt greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals:
CMS Energy, 35.1%  ($729 million)
ExxonMobil, 27.2%   ($39.7 billion)
Massey Energy, 53.1% ($852 million)
Ryland, 37.4%  ($234 million)

Issue a sustainability report including GHG reduction strategies:
Boston Properties, 44.1%  ($3.2 billion)
Chesapeake Energy, 31.5%  ($2.4 billion)
EQT Corporation, 37.4%  ($1.4 billion)
Federal Realty Investment Trust, 44.6%  ($1.4 billion)
Layne Christensen, 60.3%  ($234 million)
St. Jude Medical, 42.8%  ($3.1 billion)

Report on the environmental and health risks associated with coal ash:
CMS Energy, 43.1%  ($875 billion)
MDU Resources Group, 40.5%    ($962 million)
The Southern Company, 21.0%  ($2.6 billion)

Report on risks posed by the environmental, social and economic challenges associated with oil sands operations:
ConocoPhillips, 27.1%  ($13.8 billion)
ExxonMobil, 26.4% ($38.3 billion)

The allegation that BP put profits ahead of the environment shouldn’t be a surprise. In fact, BP’s failure to stop the worst oil spill in U.S. history is indicative of a much larger problem with companies that have embraced one of the central ideas in management today: stakeholder theory. The idea that companies can meet the needs of “stakeholders” leaves them open to moral abuse without normative principles at its core.

It was R. Edward Freeman’s 1980 book Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach that developed stakeholder theory into management practice arguing for a widening of managerial focus away from the exclusivity of stockholders to include any individual or group having an interest or is affected by organizational activity. In its broadest terms, stakeholder theory helps managers create organizational mechanisms and procedures for dealing with social issues in a proactive, rather than a reactive, way of achieving economic gains.

Stakeholder theory includes environmental stewardship under its rubric, since the environment can be affected by corporate activity. And many companies pay homage to the environment as stakeholder in their glossy reports. BP does likewise. In their 2009 sustainability report they state, “At BP we define sustainability as the capacity to endure as a group: by renewing assets; creating and delivering better products and services that meet the evolving needs of society; attracting successive generations of employees; contributing to a sustainable environment; and retaining the trust and support of our customers, shareholders and the communities in which we operate.”

Stakeholder theory is massively popular but without strong normative principles as its foundation, it can be usurped by short-sighted self-interested initiatives leaving ethical considerations excluded from managerial analysis. The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico by British Petroleum is one such example.

Preliminary results into the cause of the Gulf spill, according to BP, reveal significant failures of equipment designed to prevent a blowout. To what extent and when BP knew of this equipment failure is unclear, but eyewitness evidence from rig workers claim that BP knew weeks before the blowout that equipment was malfunctioning. Despite BP being unaware of the technological malfunction, according to stakeholder theory, they would have still had to weigh potential equipment failure and environmental harm against cost and profit. From a strategic management approach, BP would have to consider the natural environment as a stakeholder and take steps to incorporate environmental components into their goals, strategies, and structures as a way of achieving an overall company approach.

But what is lacking is the ethical content within BP’s strategic environmental management system. Stakeholder theory would correctly identify the environment as a stakeholder but it provides no guidance regarding the ethics of how or what we ought to do in order to protect the environment. From a moral point of view, BP ought to have stopped drilling and fixed the blowout preventer before continuing even if it meant losing money. After all, morality tells us the “right thing to do” often requires us to forgo our own self-interest for the good of others. However, from a stakeholder perspective, nothing requires BP to stop drilling so long as they consider the interests of all stakeholders relative to their own interests. A moral point of view would require a manager to look at other sources for inspiration, such as philosophical arguments, to determine if polluting the ocean with oil is ethically legitimate.

Stakeholder theory has many advantages; it allows managers great flexibility to “balance” the “interests” of various groups, individuals, or even the natural environment for mutual gain; it also provides managers clear strategies for dealing proactively with potential negative issues. However, it is still fraught with problems. First, balancing stakeholders is difficult. Determining who is a stakeholder with legitimate interests, given the countless groups and individuals monitoring a firm’s activity, requires a level of analysis that most managers don’t have time for.

Second, assessing stakeholders is often based on descriptive, not normative, assumptions. Who is a stakeholder and who ought to be a stakeholder need not be the same; self-interested biases often blind managers to who they ought to include in their analysis but don’t.

Third, individuals are often members of more than one stakeholder group and it is unclear how this is to be included into the calculation.

Fourth, “balanced” is an especially vague term, falling outside of an objective decision-making methodology. Consider BP, once again. The investigation into the Deepwater Horizon drill rig explosion is accusing BP executives of putting drilling costs ahead of well safety in order to save time and money. Executives agreed to give more weight to cost saving and future profits than environmental considerations, the wholesale loss of the seafood industry, and decades of decimated oceans for future generations. But we shouldn’t be surprised. Given the financial pressures on employees and executives, it is difficult to assume that they will make “balanced”, let alone ethical, decisions under stakeholder theory. The justification of one stakeholder over another usually favours the shareholder, thus creating an unrealistic attempt to “balance” with any success.

But we shouldn’t be pessimistic. Stakeholder theory is not inimical to ethics; establishing an ethical culture within organizations with strong ethical leadership must be at the center of any stakeholder assessment. Merck’s helping cure river blindness and its more recent voluntary withdrawal of Vioxx; Johnson & Johnson’s removal of Tylenol capsules after some were tampered with cyanide; Interface’s environmental sustainability; Home Depot’s work with the Forestry Stewardship Council; and Nike’s commitment to improving labor standards overseas, are just a few examples of how normative standards can play a role in dealing with stakeholders and the ethical issues they present.

Perhaps the greatest advantage of stakeholder theory, once normative principles are incorporated into organizational decision-making, is that it allows managers to give an unbalanced or biased weighting of issues in order to preserve ethical integrity. That is, it gives managers permission to put other stakeholder interests ahead of shareholders as a way of making the ethical choice for long-term, not short-term, gain. BP should have heeded this advice. Putting the environment ahead of well-costs could have saved BP billions and potentially the company itself.

Stakeholder theory can help managers solving ethical problems, such as the environment, and gives managers a practical framework for assessing and balancing interests so long as normative principles are the foundation upon which decisions are made. If only BP had taken this advice to heart.

Dr. David Ohreen is an Assistant Professor at the Bissett School of Business, Mount Royal University, Calgary, Alberta.

Photo: Copyright BP.

Dear EarthTalk: I always thought eating fish was healthy, but now I’m concerned about mercury in tuna and other fish. Are there any fish that are still safe to eat? -- Brit Brundage, Fairfield, CT

You should be concerned about contaminants in certain fish, including some kinds of tuna. The non-profit Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) recommends minimizing consumption of albacore (white) tuna, a large fish that accumulates moderate amounts of mercury in its fatty tissue. But other kinds of (smaller) tuna, such as skipjack (usually canned as “light”), which accumulates a third the amount of mercury as albacore, are OK to eat in moderation, though consumption by those under age seven should be limited.

To further complicate the issue, some canned light tuna may contain yellowfin tuna, which has mercury levels similar to those of albacore; these products are sometimes but not always labeled as “gourmet” or “tonno”—and their consumption should be limited, even by adults.

Mercury, a known “neurotoxin” (a poison that affects the nervous system), is particularly insidious because it is widespread in our oceans, primarily due to emissions from coal-burning power plants. These smokestacks deposit mercury into waterways, which carry it to the ocean where bacteria convert it into methylmercury. Fish then ingest it with their food and from water passing over their gills.

Generally speaking, bigger, older and large predatory fish (such as sharks, swordfish, tilefish, king mackerel and some tuna) near the top of marine food chains are more likely to have high levels of mercury than fish lower in the marine food chain. People exposed to high levels or frequent doses of mercury can suffer nervous system disorders, impaired mental development and other health problems.

An April 2003 study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, found that 89 percent of study subjects, chosen because they ate a significant amount of fish, had blood mercury levels above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) safety threshold of five micrograms per liter. Even though there are health benefits to eating fish (including the intake of healthy omega-3 fatty acids), the EPA advises that young children, pregnant women, nursing mothers and women of childbearing age limit their intake of high-mercury fish to one serving per week at most, while limiting their overall intake of any fish or shellfish to no more than two to three servings, or 12 ounces total, per week.

Mercury isn’t the only harsh pollutant lurking in the ocean. Industrial chemicals like PCBs and pesticides like DDT are awash in marine food chains around the world. According to EDF, it can take five years or more for women of childbearing age to rid their bodies of PCBs, and 12-18 months to appreciably reduce their mercury levels. EDF adds that moms who eat toxic fish before becoming pregnant may have children who are slower to develop and learn because fetuses are exposed to stored toxins through the placenta.

To learn more, visit the EPA’s Fish Advisories website. It includes links to individual state advisories, which have details on what fish should or shouldn’t be eaten from nearby lakes or coastal areas. Catfish, Pollock, salmon, shrimp and canned light tuna are currently on the EPA’s safe list, as they feed toward the bottom of the food chain and thus have less opportunity to accumulate mercury and other contaminants.

Photo: Mark H. Anbinder, courtesy Flickr

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Dear EarthTalk: What does it mean when one uses the phrase, “building a green economy?” I’ve heard it repeated a few times lately and would like to have a better understanding of the concept. -- Rosie Chang, Islip, NY

The phrase “building a green economy” means different things to different people, but in general it refers to encouraging economic development that prioritizes sustainability—that is, working with nature and not against it in the quest to meet peoples’ needs and wants—instead of disregarding environmental concerns in the process of growing the economy. The primary way governments around the world are trying to “green” their own economies today is by increasing investment in—and, by extension, creating jobs in—industries on the cutting edge of non-polluting renewable forms of energy, such as solar and wind power.

President Obama has repeatedly invoked his vision of a green economy as a tool for helping the U.S. lift itself out of recession and position itself as an economic powerhouse in a carbon-constrained future. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, the $787.2 billion stimulus package that Congress signed into law in 2009, was chock full of provisions to boost renewable energy, energy efficiency and environmental restoration initiatives. Examples include $4.5 billion to convert government buildings into high-performance green buildings, $8.4 billion for investments in public transportation, and tens of billions of dollars more for research into new technologies to amplify existing efforts. ARRA also earmarks $11 billion for the implementation of the “smart grid,” a new approach to power distribution that will bring more clean energy sources into the mix and promote energy efficiency.

Infusing such huge amounts of cash into sustainability-oriented projects is one way the Obama administration hopes to “green” the U.S. economy while simultaneously pulling the country out of recession. “To truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy,” Obama told Congress a few months ago.

Of course, Americans aren’t the only ones bent on building a green economy. During the 1980s and 1990s, while the American government was largely asleep at the wheel on environmental issues, countries such as Denmark, Germany, Spain and Japan were already busy investing in wind and solar research and implementation. And while these nations’ ongoing efforts are nothing to sneeze at, economists point out that what is most needed is action on the part of the world’s fastest growing economies—China and India.

A recent report by the consulting firm McKinsey & Company found that China—which surpassed the U.S. as the world’s largest generator of greenhouse gases three years ago—has great potential for building a green economy over the coming decades. According to McKinsey, by 2030 China could reduce its oil and coal imports by up to 40 percent and its greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by investing upwards of 1.5 trillion yuan ($220 billion in U.S. dollars) per year in both existing and new green technologies. China has begun to see the light with regard to reducing emissions, increasing energy efficiency and embracing renewable alternative energy, but it has yet to make significant financial commitments, which will be key to both warding off catastrophic climate change and building a truly global green economy.

Photo: P. Roth, courtesy Flickr

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Dear EarthTalk: I heard about a supposed dangerous chemical called “triclosan” that is in many personal care and other consumer products. Can you enlighten? -- Carl Stoneman, Richland, WA

Triclosan is a synthetic chemical compound added to many personal and household care products to inhibit illness by preventing bacterial infection. It works by breaking down the biochemical pathways that bacteria use to keep their cell walls intact, and as such kills potentially harmful germs if used in strong enough formulations. First developed as a surgical scrub back in 1972, triclosan is now used in upwards of 700 different consumer-oriented products, many of which people use more than once a day. They include hand soaps, deodorants, toothpastes, kids’ toys, yoga mats and, of course, hand sanitizers.

Whether triclosan is actually as effective as advertised, especially in the small doses found in consumer products, is a topic of much debate. Manufacturers insist that the product helps reduce infections. But researchers from the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health found, after surveying 27 different studies conducted between 1980 and 2006 on the effectiveness of antibacterial soaps, that washing hands with products containing triclosan was no more effective in preventing infectious illness—and did not remove any more bacteria—than plain soaps. The analysis, “Consumer Antibacterial Soaps: Effective or Just Risky?” was published in 2007 in the peer-reviewed journal, Clinical Infectious Diseases. According to lead researcher Allison Aiello, triclosan—because of the way it reacts in living cells—may cause some bacteria exposed to it to become resistant to amoxicillin and other commonly used antibacterial drugs, but she adds that more research is needed to bear out this hypothesis.

Anti-bacterial soaps and other products utilizing triclosan may in fact be doing more harm than good for the people who use it regularly. According to the non-profit Beyond Pesticides, triclosan has been linked to various human health problems. “It is associated with skin irritation, has been shown to interfere with the body’s hormones, and has been linked to an increased risk of developing respiratory illness, or asthma, and cancer, as well as subtle effects on learning ability,” reports the group, adding that 75 percent of Americans are walking around today with trace levels of triclosan in their bloodstreams. Tests using lab animals have verified that exposure to large doses of triclosan can cause irreparable health damage, but industry representatives say that the levels found in consumer products are much too small to do so.

Beyond its potential human health effects, triclosan can also harm the environment. According to Beyond Pesticides, some 96 percent of the triclosan from consumer products is washed down drains where it flows into wastewater treatment plants often ill-equipped to deal with it. Inevitably some of the triclosan escapes treatment and is released into local waterways, where exposure to sunlight can convert it into dioxins, a highly toxic group of chemicals responsible for contaminating waterways and wreaking havoc on wildlife.

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is finally taking a fresh look at triclosan after years of controversy, consumers can do their part by asking the places they shop to stop selling products containing the controversial chemical additive. The Beyond Pesticides website offers a customizable sample letter designed to help consumers convince local retailers to forego stocking items with triclosan.

Photo: Jack Black's Stunt Double, courtesy Flickr.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

DiNapoli said he has hired the law firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll to represent the Fund. “It’s my duty to protect the interests of the Fund and the retirees and employees who rely on it,” DiNapoli said. “BP misled investors about its safety procedures and its ability to respond to events like the ongoing oil spill and we’re going to hold it accountable.”

DiNapoli said he is seeking to lead the class action against BP “to give the Fund and other investors their best chance at recovering damages sustained from the decline in shareholder value subsequent to the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill.” DiNapoli said the Fund held more than 19 million shares at the time of the event.

The New York State Common Retirement Fund provides benefits to more than one million active and retired state and local government employees, police officers, and firefighters.

Photo copyright BP p.l.c.