Published: 8 September 2014

‘Green growth’ one of nine steps to a better life for Pacific Island nations

A new United Nations report, launched prior to a recent International Conference on Small Island Developing States (SIDS) in Samoa, has called for stronger action to foster more inclusive and sustainable human development in the Pacific region.

Bussing to School in Apia, Samoa.

Credit: OER Africa CC BY 2.0

According to the State of Human Development in the Pacific: A Report on Vulnerability and Exclusion in a time of rapid change, one in four people are now living below their national basic-needs poverty-line in Pacific Island countries. They also have limited access to essential services such as education and health services. Further, obesity, diabetes and other non-communicable diseases are on the rise throughout the region.

The report presents a picture of a changing social and economic regional landscape. Economies are shifting from traditional systems built on the exchange of products to market-led cash-based ones; young people are migrating from their villages to find jobs in cities and abroad, leaving women, the very old and the very young behind; traditional family and social protection systems are in decline; climate change is threatening agricultural production and traditional livelihoods and intensifying the impact of natural disasters.

‘Youth and women deserve particular attention,’ said Nicholas Rosellini, Deputy Director of United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific.

‘Low and volatile growth has made job creation increasingly difficult. Women have lower access to employment and often work in informal sector with no labour rights, social security or welfare. For youth, the unemployment rate is 23 per cent, on average.

‘The report provides useful analysis of poverty and exclusion data and offers recommendations on how to strategically address exclusion, inequality and vulnerabilities in the Pacific,’ said Ambassador Odo Tevi, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Vanuatu to the UN.

The report’s key recommendations include:

Give priority to social protection: Universal cash grants to all children under five would lead to a 10 per cent reduction in the proportion of households living in poverty. Other examples include pension and care for the elderly, free medical care for pregnant women and support for people with disabilities. The report also mentions using new technology and mobile teams to bring health and other essential services to people living in rural areas and outer islands.
Develop a better understanding of vulnerability and exclusion through improved surveys and data-collection systems can help to inform and target policies and programmes to those most in need.
Promote broader access to basic education for children and youth: Adequate national budgets for school literacy and numeracy, and making public secondary education free or less costly would greatly assist low-income families.
Expand employment opportunities for youth and women: Creating more opportunities for technical, vocational and trade skills for youth and women and providing free or low-cost public secondary education to assist low-income families.
Provide adequate health services for prevention and care: Improve infant, child and maternal health by strengthening primary health care programs, improving access to emergency obstetric care and expanding immunisation programs and prevention efforts against HIV and AIDS. Concerted campaigns to promote better nutrition and physical exercise and discourage smoking and excessive alcohol consumption.
Target poverty reduction programs: Allocate resources and assistance directly to poor households. Better use of data from household income and expenditure surveys can help to inform and target poverty reduction initiatives.
Adopt a ‘green-growth’ approach to development: Green-growth policies should aim to improve productivity and promote the sustainable use of land and marine resources by the rural poor. Land and natural resource management decisions should be based on both environmental and social costs.

Source: UN Development Programme

Published: 4 July 2011

Assured sustainability reporting – navigating obligations

Nick Fleming

As the way in which organisations address environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues comes under increasing scrutiny, sustainability reporting is gathering importance and momentum. Yet reporting must be seen as a product of sustainable business practices, not the focus of it.

Emphasis on more robust sustainability reporting is helping to drive the wider assessment and reform of companies’ associated supply chains and logistics infrastructure.

Credit: iStockphoto

While sustainability reporting is new territory for some organisations, many leading businesses have been engaged in reporting for over a decade. Indeed, sustainability reporting is typically one of the first vehicles for engagement with the topic and issues of sustainability, often at the encouragement of a few passionate staff.

However, the call for greater organisational accountability and transparency is growing. An increasing number of shareholder resolutions are placing pressure on company boards to ensure they are effectively identifying, disclosing and addressing ESG risks. Institutional investors are already using ESG data to differentiate firms and guide investment decisions.¹

Powerful customers are also forcing their suppliers to become more transparent. The classic example is Walmart, which launched a supplier sustainability initiative in July 2009. Locally, Woolworths recently announced its own Sustainable Fish Sourcing Strategy.²

There is also an expectation for assurance. This reflects a stakeholder desire for reports to be relevant, reliable and free from bias, while the reporting organisation wishes to build a case for lower costs for finance and insurance. This all takes time and money; reporting can be a costly exercise and carries risks.

The banking sector provides an insight to the challenges posed by sustainability reporting. In Australia, banks have typically lead sustainability reporting and have performed well against international benchmarks such as the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. Yet this year, the big four banks have been publically criticised over their involvement with coal-fired power stations.³ People ask how an organisation that receives sustainability accolades can also finance environmental pollution. This questions the connectivity between sustainability reporting and governance.

Scrutiny is also being applied by the regulators. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has prosecuted cases against companies such as GM Holden and Prime Carbon for overstating their ‘green’ credentials. It’s clear that inaccurate communication on ESG matters presents serious risks to an organisation’s reputation – and that of the rating or assurance agency.

These issues have been behind recent reviews of reporting guidelines and benchmarking methods.⁴^,⁵ The reviews found that ratings and reporting tend to be backward-looking measures of compliance with ‘good practice’, failing to enable a meaningful assessment of an organisation’s ability to create and sustain value, in the short and longer term.

What’s lacking is adequate interrogation and reporting of the strategic capabilities and the core competencies required to underpin business continuity and delivery of sustainable outcomes; that is, a truly sustainable enterprise.

However, the push for integrated financial and non-financial (sustainability) reporting may offer a silver lining – the trigger to focus conversations among executives and boards about the things that will drive genuine business continuity, profitability and sustainability. Without these conversations, there will neither be the understanding, focus nor commitment to cultivate truly sustainable enterprises.

The adage ‘What gets measured gets managed’ remains true; as does ‘It’s what you do, not what you say, that counts’. Reporting without subsequent actions to manage risks and create value is meaningless, and arguably harmful.

While there are growing market and stakeholder pressures for integrated reporting of financial and ESG matters, reporting should only be entered into with an eye on:

material business risks
core competencies for organisational continuity
a core set of meaningful performance measures that offer real insight
integrating reporting into governance
commitment to real action in response to identified risks and opportunities.

Organisations that assume this approach take sustainability reporting beyond a ‘nice?to?have’ PR exercise to a ‘must?have’ business improvement tool. It’s a factor in the superior financial performance demonstrated by ethical and sustainable organisations. Getting it right is good for business – and good for communities.

Dr Nick Fleming is Chief Sustainability Officer Sinclair Knight Merz, leading the application of sustainability thinking in business operations and client services. Through his Sustainable Enterprise column, Nick provides insight to how businesses and organisations are effectively putting sustainability theory into practice.

¹ Ernst & Young (2011). Shareholders press boards on social and environmental risks. tinyurl.com/social-environmental-risks
² tinyurl.com/sustainable-fish
³ Greenpeace (2011). Pillars of pollution. www.greenpeace.org.au/climate/GI-profundo.php
⁴ Eccles RG, Cheng B, Saltzman D (Eds) (2010). The landscape of integrated reporting: reflections and next steps. Harvard Business School. tinyurl.com/integrated-reporting
⁵ SustainAbility (2011). Rate the raters: uncovering best practices. www.sustainability.com/library/rate-the-raters-phase-one

Welcome to the ECOS Archive site which brings together 40 years of sustainability articles from 1974-2014.

For more recent ECOS articles visit the blog. You can also sign up to the email alert or RSS feed