A must read article on effectively how brands can use transparency ranking to greenwash us via #quartz "One side effect of globalization is that it’s become extremely difficult to know exactly what is happening in companies’ supply chains. 
These days, there are all kinds of frameworks for measuring companies based on their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices. The rankings often reward transparency, and they give companies something to crow about in press releases and corporate sustainability reports.

The trouble is, according to a new report (pdf) by New York University’s Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, transparency and effective efforts to make sure workers are treated fairly are far from the same thing.

The report analyzed 12 leading ESG frameworks, including those from Dow Jones, Bloomberg, and others, that investors and the public often look to for guidance on companies’ business practices. Its conclusion was that, while these frameworks provide a valuable service, many are falling short in their evaluations of companies’ social performance, which the authors define as the effects that a business’s operations have on the labor and other rights of the communities it touches.

Companies in the garment industry, for example, are often praised for publishing their supplier lists. Brands that have now done so include Gap, C&A, H&M, and many others. Groups such as Human Rights Watch applaud the step because it allows workers and advocates to keep an eye on supplier factories and quickly alert multinational customers to labor-rights issues.

But this information isn’t terribly helpful to the people most affected by the abuses—namely, the workers. (And meanwhile, reports of labor violations in countries such as India and Bangladesh, involving even some of the more transparent brands, continue to surface.) The report’s overarching conclusion is that ESG rankings are often measuring what is convenient, not what’s most meaningful, and they’re doing so based mainly on what companies willingly disclose" full article

https://qz.com/938161/global-companies-get-too-much-credit-for-their-transparency/
323 likes
  • livia_firthA must read article on effectively how brands can use transparency ranking to greenwash us via #quartz "One side effect of globalization is that it’s become extremely difficult to know exactly what is happening in companies’ supply chains.
    These days, there are all kinds of frameworks for measuring companies based on their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices. The rankings often reward transparency, and they give companies something to crow about in press releases and corporate sustainability reports.

    The trouble is, according to a new report (pdf) by New York University’s Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, transparency and effective efforts to make sure workers are treated fairly are far from the same thing.

    The report analyzed 12 leading ESG frameworks, including those from Dow Jones, Bloomberg, and others, that investors and the public often look to for guidance on companies’ business practices. Its conclusion was that, while these frameworks provide a valuable service, many are falling short in their evaluations of companies’ social performance, which the authors define as the effects that a business’s operations have on the labor and other rights of the communities it touches.

    Companies in the garment industry, for example, are often praised for publishing their supplier lists. Brands that have now done so include Gap, C&A, H&M, and many others. Groups such as Human Rights Watch applaud the step because it allows workers and advocates to keep an eye on supplier factories and quickly alert multinational customers to labor-rights issues.

    But this information isn’t terribly helpful to the people most affected by the abuses—namely, the workers. (And meanwhile, reports of labor violations in countries such as India and Bangladesh, involving even some of the more transparent brands, continue to surface.) The report’s overarching conclusion is that ESG rankings are often measuring what is convenient, not what’s most meaningful, and they’re doing so based mainly on what companies willingly disclose" full article

    https://qz.com/938161/global-companies-get-too-much-credit-for-their-transparency/

  • incredibusy@dancinginmywellies - interesting, just what we were talking about yesterday ...
  • steeeeefffGreenwash is a true issue, thank u for sharing @livia_firth ! 🙏🏻
  • badger__badgerThis is fascinating. I am British entrepreneur living in India trying to bring trust and transparency to the garment sourcing supply chain. There's so much brands can turn a blind eye to by not asking the right questions...
Log in to like or comment.