Challenges Multi-industry Multi-national Conglomerates face in making the Sustainability Transition

The transition to greener and cleaner technologies and management practices is not an easy one for business, and it is especially challenging for multi-industry, multi-national conglomerates.

Most large business conglomerates have the following features:

  1. A combination of businesses operating in different industry sectors : primary (raw material extraction), secondary (manufacturing and construction) and tertiary (services)
  2. A combination of old and new businesses
  3. Operations in multiple countriessustainability transition

For business conglomerates, the sustainability strategy flows from the top, following from the group-wide sustainability vision. Customizing the sustainability message of the top management to individual companies (discrete strategic business units) within the group is a challenge.

Companies within the same group, but operating in different industry sectors face different sustainability issues. While businesses engaged in raw material extraction such as mining, oil&gas, forestry, fisheries and agribusiness are faced with the problem of mitigating impacts resulting from unsustainable extraction, businesses in the manufacturing sector have to manage the impacts caused due toinefficient use of materials and energy and due to emissions and wasteemanating from their operations. Service industries operating in the IT, telecommunications, retail and financial services sectors seem to have small environmental impact (except energy and material consumption of their commercial installations) but, in reality, their impacts are quite significant  – while the impacts of retail companies lie in their supply chains, those of the financial service companies arise out of the projects they finance or insure. In fact, being customer-facing, service sector companies have to be more cognizant of their environmental impacts.

Another challenge conglomerates face in making the sustainability switch comes when they have a mixture of old and new manufacturing units. Old factories face the classic problem of having been locked into decades-old technology and machinery, compliant with the regulatory requirements of the time when they were deployed. With time, however regulations are bound to get more stringent and transition to cleaner and more efficient technology either requires huge investment or retrofitting. Pre-empting change in regulation is thus a very important strategy to ensure smoother transition in the future. A similar problem is faced when a conglomerate purchases a business – the business brings with it a legacy of environmental performance which may not be easy to reverse.

Multi-national conglomerates have unique hurdles to overcome to make the sustainability transition. When a conglomerate has operations located in different countries, it has to be cognizant of compliance requirements specific to those countries. In such a case, it pays to go beyond compliance and be an industry leader in environmental performance – it is easier to apply consistent performance norms across all locations.

Notwithstanding their diverse challenges, large conglomerates are the ones who have the wherewithal to blaze a trail towards greater business sustainability.

Advertisements

Catching ’em Young with Responsible Management Education

The economic meltdown of 2008 made it clearer than ever before that the consequences of
business operations can reach far and wide, affecting a range of stakeholders in significant ways. It was also felt that business schools had failed to sensitize future managers on how their decisions could have widespread economic, social and environmental ramifications.Responsible Management Education

A need to integrate sustainability into management education and research was palpable. Responding to this call for action, the United Nations Global Compact laid down the Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) to facilitate B-Schools in adapting their curricula, pedagogy and research to the new realities of doing business. Each addressing a different aspect of management education viz. Purpose, Values, Method, Research, Partnership, Dialogue – the six principles have sustainability at their very core. Thus the impetus for change also came from businesses who are increasingly looking for managers who can help them address social, environmental and governance concerns, which is something – that now businesses have come to realize – on which hinges their very survival and sustainability.

However, the vision of management education acting as a catalyst of business transformation and eventually a driver of sustainable development will remain a pipe dream unless sustainability is integrated into the very DNA of management education. Teaching sustainability as a separate subject or elective will relegate it to a secondary concern for managers. What needs to be done however is to look at all the aspects of management education through the lens of sustainability. In addition, immersive experiential learning is being seen as an effective pedagogical technique for making MBA students better understand the global realities and constraints in which they will operate and affect. There isn’t enough clarity on how this will be achieved by B-Schools and their faculty. But what is absolutely certain is that the entire exercise will shake some deep-seated assumptions about the prevalent paradigms of economic growth and capitalism. The 607 signatories of PRME from over 80 countries have initiated efforts to integrate sustainability in management education and have started sharing information on their progress. Beyond Grey Pinstripes has been publishing MBA rankings on the basis of the degree of integration of sustainability in them. All this augurs well for a systemic change in how business managers will be groomed and businesses will be run in the future.

Can Corporate Governance Drive Corporate Sustainability?

The evidence that business has recognized the imperative of sustainability is overwhelming and unambiguous. Businesses around the world are more interested and involved in sustainability than they were ever before.  They are no longer oblivious to the fact that there are complex, serious and urgent sustainability challenges on the horizon such as climate change, biodiversity loss and resource depletion, which are material to their survival and profitability.

A number of global cross-industry surveys such as those by The Boston Consulting Group and KPMG International have demonstrated that most large corporations have already adopted sustainability practices. Most large corporations now appoint sustainability managers, have sustainability strategies in place and publish sustainability reports (UNGC, 2013; KPMG, 2011; Deloitte, 2010; Sustain Ability, 2000). With sustainability reporting standards, stock market sustainability indices and corporate sustainability ratings fast becoming the norm, corporate sustainability is clearly emerging as a new paradigm.

 

However, there may not always be a business case for sustainability. In fact, ‘sustainable business practices can sometimes entail profit sacrifices, particularly in the short term’. (Sneirson, 2009, p.3). This lack of a business case pits sustainability against the currently predominant ‘shareholder value’ model of corporate governance.

The OECD Principles of Corporate Governance (1999) define Corporate Governance as follows:

‘It involves a set of relationships between a company’s management, its board, its shareholders and other stakeholders. Corporate governance also provides the structure through which the objectives of the company are set, and the means of attaining those objectives and monitoring performance are determined.’

Corporate Governance is essentially the stakeholder relationships that determine the decision-making and in turn the performance and direction of a company. (Shailer, 2004, Tricker, 2009 and Monks and Minnow, 2011). During the last two decades of the 20th century, the ‘shareholder value’ model of corporate governance and the profit-maximization goal it promotes dominated the corporate landscape because of the apparent role it played in the stock market boom in the US and Europe. It became entrenched as a corporate governance principle, at least among companies in the west, with even The OECD Principles of Corporate Governance of 1999 emphasizing that ‘corporations should be run, first and foremost in the interest of shareholders’ (Lazonick and O’Sullivan, 2000, p.14).

However, the recent corporate scandals and financial crises have called into question the soundness of the ‘shareholder value’ paradigm and its relationship with long-term economic prosperity (Vitols and Kluge, 2011; Lazonick and O’Sullivan, 2000). As a result, the past few years have witnessed ‘a virtual explosion of interest in corporate governance’ (Ricart, Rodrıguez and Sanchez, 2005). The corporate scandals have also redirected attention to issues of ethics, accountability, transparency and disclosure (Gill, 2008; Jamali, Safieddine and Rabbath, 2008). According to Elkington(2006), issues such as ethics, human rights and climate change ‘increasingly cross-cut the rarefied worlds of corporate boardrooms’.

The perceptible steering away of corporate governance from the ‘shareholder value’ model is concurrent and in sync with the evolution of the new paradigm of corporate sustainability. 

In fact, Corporate Governance is already being seen as a primary driver of corporate sustainability. A recent report by IFC’s Global Corporate Governance Forum, titled Corporate Governance: The Foundation for Corporate Citizenship and Sustainable Businesses, postulates that corporate governance can ‘provide well-informed strategic direction and engaged oversight’ to company management for integrating sustainability targets in the action plans, targets and day-to-day operations of the company (UNGC and IFC, 2009).

Integrating Corporate Sustainability into Corporate Governance

Corporate Governance and Corporate Sustainability

 Source: UNGC and IFC, 2009

Of late, a spate of international codes and guidelines of best practice for corporate governance have been developed by organizations including the IFC, the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), the International Corporate Governance Network (IGCN) and the UNCTAD. With a view of improving corporate governance standards, in 2004 the OECD also reviewed and revised its Principles of Corporate Governance in response to the numerous ‘high-profile cases of corporate governance failure’ (Kirpatrick, 2004). Another review of the principles has started in 2014. The sustainability principles outlined by the aforesaid international initiatives call on corporate boards to be accountable to their broad set of stakeholders including not just employees and customers but also the communities in which the business operates, adhering to a high standard of corporate ethics. Thus, it is clear that the new paradigm of corporate governance perfectly aligns with corporate sustainability and plays a pivotal role in mainstreaming it.

 

References

Deloitte, 2010, Sustainability in business today: A cross-industry view, Deloitte Development LLC.

Elkington, J., 2006, Governance for Sustainability, Corporate Governance: An International Review Volume 14, Issue 6, pages 522–529, November 2006

Gill, A., 2008, Corporate Governance as Social Responsibility: A Research Agenda, 26 Berkeley J. Int’l Law. 452 (2008).

Jamali D., Safieddine A.M. and Rabbath M., 2008, Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility Synergies and Interrelationships, Corporate Governance, Volume 16 Number 5 September 2008.

KPMG, 2011, Corporate Sustainability: A progress report, KPMG International.

Lazonick W. and O’Sullivan M., 2000, Maximizing shareholder value: a new ideology for corporate governance, Economy and Society Volume 29 Number 1 February 2000: 13–35

Ricart J.E., Rodrı´guez M. A. and Sa´nchez P., 2005, Sustainability in the boardroom: An empirical examination of Dow Jones Sustainability World Index leaders, Corporate Governance Vol. 5 No. 3 2005, pp. 24-41

Shailer, G., 2004, An Introduction to Corporate Governance in Australia, Pearson Education Australia, Sydney

Sneirson, 2009, Green Is Good:Sustainability, Profitability, and a New Paradigm for Corporate Governance. Iowa Law Review, pp 987-1022.

SustainAbility, 2000,The Global Reporters. SustainAbility: London.

UNGC, 2013, Global Corporate Sustainability Report 2013, United Nations Global Compact.

UNGC and IFC, 2009, Corporate Governance: The Foundation for Corporate Citizenship and Sustainable Businesses

Vitols, S. and Kluge, N., 2011, The Sustainable Company: a new approach to corporate governance.European Trade Union Institute (ETUI)