Comments on: Corporate Sustainability Goals: Too Scared To Fail?

By: David Lemming

David Lemming — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 16:25:21 +0000

James,
I agree with you points. Companies need to set goals, but as it has already been stated they need to make sure that these are goals that are within the company’s reach. I will go along with you as well that they need to make some “grand” goals, but they should follow up with more short-term goals that are linked together and provide a fairly solid path to reach the ultimate “grand” goal that was stated to begin with.

By: James Governor

James Governor — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:41:04 +0000

Keir – well said on all accounts. this is a pivotal moment, and we need to demand change. we may have voted for change, but we need to push for more of it.

By: Keir Asher

Keir Asher — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 01:18:09 +0000

James,
Great points. The iron is certainly hot on green topics such as these. This may be our(consumers) best opportunity to demand our vendors pony up with greener products and solutions. With economic challenges and considerable focus on green, vendors can be persuaded more than ever to be accountable. No one wants to lose business because they aren’t doing their part.
Some are ahead of the game, some are very much behind.
I agree that any commitment is better than none, but much like being fraudulent in misreporting financial statements, corporations should be held accountable in misrepresenting their sustainability. It can be argued it is as much as our (the consumer) responsibility to demand more accountability for sustainable options as it is for the vendor or firm to present them.

By: monkchips

monkchips — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 12:55:27 +0000

is feeling impressed by Greenpeace engagement with, and commentary on, his posts yesterday http://bit.ly/1i9enE http://bit.ly/aeI

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

By: Tom Dowdall

Tom Dowdall — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:50:46 +0000

Hi James,

It is a valid point that companies should continue to set ambitious commitments/goals, but of course meeting these by company action is the highest priority. Over on Greenmonk I posted some background to our electronics campaign and HP. Rather than repeat these points here:

http://greenmonk.net/hp-claims-greenpeace-critique-unfair/#comment-5058

I’ll address why we specifically focused on several PC companies who have announced or simply dropped targets for removing hazardous substance by end 2009.

Of PC makers, Apple has very nearly completed the phase out of toxic BFRs and PVC. They have proved it is technically possible and achievable given enough priority in the company. Other PC makers might sell very different products for different prices than Apple but the same suppliers make PC’s for Apple, Dell, HP, Lenovo and Acer.

HP has the least products of the PC makers with even reduced amounts of hazardous substances so we consider them to be furthest behind phasing out these substances.

When companies make commitments/set goals that go beyond legal minimum requirements, which is a key part of Greenpeace’s campaign on electronics, it’s essential that companies meeting these targets are recognized and those that fail to meet targets that their competitor have reached are singled out.

The success of much corporate campaigning depends on pushing companies to take progressive measures beyond the legal minimum and then use the leverage of these progressive companies to ensure governments raise the requirements of legislation.

It’s a complex area, but in summary – In an ideal world that should not be the way environmental standards are improved but right now we see it as the best approach to counter the many forces that continually push for weakening of environmental legislation.

Specifically on HP – when you are significantly behind the progress of others in the industry it’s time to really step up your efforts.

Tom Dowdall,
Greenpeace International

By: DKMatai

DKMatai — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:22:00 +0000

Critical observation “Corporate sustainability goals: Risk of backlash” Obama’s got same problem!? @exectweets @timoreilly http://ow.ly/2fR5

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

By: aresnick

aresnick — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 05:40:03 +0000

Shoot for the moon? “The danger is that environmental reporting goes the way of financial reporting” via http://bit.ly/1i9enE

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

By: On Sustainability mobile edition

On Sustainability mobile edition — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 01:05:26 +0000

[...] compromise product performance or quality and will not adversely impact health or the environment James Governor had this to say about the whole affair: I want to see the likes of HP make big bold predictions [...]

By: TwitLinksRSS

TwitLinksRSS — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:42:12 +0000

James Governor’s Monkchips » Corporate Sustainability Goals: Too Scared To Fail?: I wrote a post on .. http://tinyurl.com/c6eqrk

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

By: Steve Burt

Steve Burt — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:53:03 +0000

James I agree that we must give companies a chance to succeed without feeling they will be hammered if they miss the targets they set themselves. However companies must set targets and they must be realistic just like the financial reporting. A company would not forecast profit performance if they where not sure that they could get close or exceed market expectations. Companies need to view environmental reporting the same.
I often review statements by organisations who say they are committing to doing certain actions, but what does “committing “ mean, is it lip service because they must be seen to be doing something. By committing should we give such organisations a tick or a cross in the box? One very large organisation I had a meeting with recently impressed me with their honesty, they do not make statements about commitments, they only state what they have done. I believe we need to support companies and help them feel free to set good targets and get away from all the green wash commitment that is still very much used my many.