Latest Updates: UNGC RSS

  • Do as I say, not as I do

    9:16 am on May 8, 2013 | 0 Permalink | Comment
    Tags: stakeholder dialog, , UNGC, United Nations Global Compact

    ”He that gives good advice builds with one hand. He that gives good counsel and example builds with both,” said 16th century English philosopher Francis Bacon. It would seem the UN Global Compact is in need of a second hand.

    For Executive Director Georg Kell, UNGC stated values of transparency, dialog and accountability apparently don’t apply to how the UNGC is governed.

    In his annual letter to members from January, Kell announced a radical change in the organizations’ funding strategy–shifting its model from voluntary to mandatory membership fees. No dialogue was held with UNGC signatories prior to the decision—not even with its own Local Networks. There was no transparency on why the funding strategy was developed and how the money would be used. His letter was, however, accompanied by an invoice for up to USD 15,000 for signatories with a large turnover.

    hand

    Photo by Hortulus at Flickr

    Though most companies fully understand the need for the UNGC to adjust its income to an ever-expanding organization with an urgent agenda, signatories found reason to question the way the UNGC approached this issue. During a Local Network meeting in Geneva two weeks ago, Kell’s letter was the center of debate and meeting participants voiced the need for an inclusive approach when addressing the organization’s strategic issues.

    The epilogue? Kell has since backed down and his proposal has been temporarily suspended. The UNGC is now committed to working with its Local Networks on developing a revised collaborative funding model that is to be presented to signatories in September.

    One’s own advice is sometimes the hardest to take, Mr. Kell, but mistakes like these will take years from which to recover. The additional income will come in handy to fund all the stakeholder dialogue you’ll need to recapture the trust you’ve lost over the last couple of months.

     
  • This COP needs more cred

    9:40 am on March 20, 2012 | 0 Permalink | Comment
    Tags: 4.0, Advanced Level, COP, , , UNGC

    Almost a year ago to this day, I wrote a blog here called, Has the UNGC jumped the gun?, about the newly launched guidelines for UNGC’s Advanced Level Communication on Progress (COP). Guess what? They had.

    To be truthful, part of my frustration was over the UNGC’s off-kilter mid-February timing. In the last phases of a pressing reporting season, I wasn’t in the mood for having the rules changed.

    Like I stated last year, the UNGC Advanced Level COP was half thought-through. It should have been better aligned with GRI’s 3.1 guidelines and taken tools like the Ruggie ‘Protect, respect and remedy’ framework into stronger account. But they didn’t. As a result, the UNGC has been playing a game of catch up. They issued two versions of the Advanced Level COP – and at least two additional corrections – over the span of one reporting cycle!

    The UNGC’s second iteration, effective in January, 2012, involves an overhaul of their 24 criteria to closer align with core UN and Global Compact resources, including Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the Anti-Corruption Reporting Guidance as well as with GRI indicators. Like GRI’s 3.1, it now has Ruggie written all over it.

    There are strong arguments to support the fact that the UNGC should have extended their launch into 2013. Companies are waiting for GRI to issue version 4.0 of their guidelines. There is little reason give the Advanced Level COP much heed when they don’t know how the GRI will change in only a year’s time. Especially when you look at the UNGC’s fickle track record of the last year.

    Are continually revised reporting guidelines tearing your hair out? With the UNGC Advanced Level COP guidelines in its second iteration, with just as many corrections in ten months, the UNGC is not demonstrating the excellence that they expect of their reporters.

    If this COP is to gain any cred, it has to get its act together. The UNGC has to better understand the huge undertaking reporting is for multinationals. For the serious companies, it consumes a major part of the sustainability budget, and takes many months of production and preparation and is a complicated apparatus for data analysis and collecting best practice. If the UNGC is reaching for excellence among its signatories, it will have to demonstrate the same level of ambition themselves.

    Maybe UNGC will be able to answer a few of these questions at their webinar scheduled for Friday, March 23. I’ll be listening in – I hope you will too!

     
  • The UN Global Compact Management Model: sweet for starters

    1:15 pm on July 26, 2011 | 0 Permalink | Comment
    Tags: integration, ISO, management systems, , UNGC

     

    Try googling ‘management system’ images and your desktop instantly morphs into a Willy Wonka-esque sweetshop of brightly colored lozenges, pyramids and flow diagrams. And one of the brightest, most colorful new management candies on the block is the UN Global Compact Management Model.

    The fruit of a partnership with Deloitte, its goal is to provide a framework that is at once flexible, dynamic, practical, straightforward and scalable – to help leaders and learners alike translate the UN Global Compact’s 10 principles into practice. Geared at continuous monitoring and improvement of an organization’s alignment with the principles, six management steps are presented in a circular process. Sustainability and management experts, civil society and academia have all chipped in.

     

    PDCA to CADIMC

    The result is a vivid gobstopper that adapts the basic operating principles of ISO management system standards – Plan, Do, Check, Act – to the requirements of the Compact: Commit, Assess, Define, Implement, Measure, Communicate. At the end of the process, companies are expected to reaffirm their commitment to the Compact, and the cycle begins again. To work successfully, the model relies on three additional factors: governance, transparency and engagement.

     

    An undoubted virtue of the UNGC management model is in offering those new to the Compact a clear, simplified way to approach and apply it – and here I think it can play a big, de-mystifying role.

     

    Handy tips are provided for those ‘getting started’ as well as insight into ‘leadership practices.’ It is universal, generic and stand-alone.

     

    But it’s this last quality, I would argue, that’s also its weakness when it comes to more advanced signatories.

     

    While putting in place a dedicated management process may help in the early stages of implementing the Compact, ultimately, the ten principles must be intrinsic to a company’s culture, across all functions, not a separate, bolt-on process working in parallel.

     

    For those already well advanced on the corporate responsibility road, the real challenge lies in merging the 10 principles seamlessly into existing management approaches, into ‘the way we do business.’ Setting up a new, dedicated management system runs the risk of keeping the UNGC commitment forever at arm’s length to the core of the business.

     

    Total integration is by far the sweetest model of all.

     

     

     
  • Has the UN Global Compact jumped the gun?

    4:41 am on March 18, 2011 | 0 Permalink | Comment
    Tags: Global Reporting Initiative, , , UNGC

    A new sustainability reporting framework popped into my mailbox last week, and it left me gagging on my morning coffee.  Dated February 25th, the UN Global Compact’s ‘differentiation framework‘ defines expectations on how UNGC members are to report their annual Communication on Progress. The COP outlines members’ support of the UNGC 10 principles on human rights, labor, environment and anti-corruption.

    With the long-standing criticism that the Global Compact’s endorsement isn’t worth the paper it is written on, I’m the first to admit that it’s high time that the UNGC got serious about structuring expectations on corporate signatories. The number of non-COP reporters has been a huge blemish on the UNGC’s reputation. Over 2,000 signatories have so far been expelled for insufficient reporting, according to a recent UNGC tally. This is indeed a large number considering there are currently some 4,700 active business signatories listed on their website.

    But the UNGC’s timing is lousy!  I’m sure we’re not alone in burning the midnight oil writing sustainability reports. Deadlines are looming ominously for a lot of listed companies. At this late hour in the reporting cycle, the last thing we need  is more advice on how to structure our reporting.

    The Global Compact’s COP policy added another layer to an already complicated set of 79 GRI performance indicators and disclosure requirements that reporters are juggling. And there is more where that came from. Significant changes in the GRI frameworks can be expected with G4 in the coming years, and even a revision in the coming month, with the G3.1.

    About 4,700 companies support the UN Global Compact. Time will tell how many of these will choose the route of being an Advanced Level reporter on how they meet this endorsement.

    It’s not that the Framework is entirely misguided.  I appreciate the greater focus on supply chain, which is thin with the GRI.  I like their emphasis on outcomes and not only processes. But in many ways, the criteria for their GC Advanced level can create more questions than they try to answer. The introductory text states “Over time, participants at the GC Advanced level are encouraged to implement all best practices that are relevant to their context of operation.” A tall order indeed and this open formulation sounds like a perfect excuse for a procrastinator. And finally, encouraging reporters to report on a Level A+ just adds fuel to the fire as far as to whether ‘A+’ reporters are better than ‘B+’ reporters. I strongly resist this grading of the GRI system based on reporting scope rather than the quality of what’s reported.

    If UNGC was seeking the legitimacy it so desperately needs, the Differentiation Framework should have followed at the heels of GRI’s announcement of G3.1 instead of preceding it. It would have eliminated a lot of confusion among some very exhausted reporters.

     
c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
esc
cancel