Businesses should link environmental and financial impact, investors urge

[Turborama]

Source: The Guardian

Influential investor group outlines new guidelines on company reporting to encourage disclosure and improve sustainability

Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent | Monday September 12 2011 00.32 BST

Businesses should have to disclose much more information about their environmental performance, social impact, and how they are improving their governance, a group of influential investors will urge on Monday.

The investors, with the support of the Prince of Wales and several leading business figures, have set out a new set of guidelines they hope will lead to more stringent rules that companies will follow – voluntarily, at least at first.

Their aim is to encourage companies to link their environmental and financial performance, in order to gain more support for sustainability measures such as carbon reduction.

Sir Michael Peat, former private secretary to Prince Charles and chairman of the International Integrated Reporting Committee, which produced the discussion paper, said: "The range of issues – economic, environmental and social – which determine an organisation's success has never been broader or more pressing. It is for this reason that we need an approach to reporting that is fit-for-purpose in the 21st century. The world has changed – reporting must too."

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/12/environmental-social-impact-business-guidelines

[ibegurpard]

1. I think this would be great

and would be a good resource to use to invest in companies that are responsible citizens.

[defendandprotect]

2. First, had we never engaged in "bus-i-ness" to give profits to the few ....

we wouldn't be controlled and owned by elites/corporations now --

and we'd still have a planet and a chance for humanity --

[defendandprotect]

3. Second, "financial institutions began to feel the heat in 2003" --

Global Warming is obviously also creating huge financial threat to citizens --

communities, towns, states --

"Pension fund managers, bankers, and Wall street advisers" issued a "call to action" --

UN-sponsored meeting in 2003 -- California Treasurer stated ...

"In global warming we are facing an enormous risk to the US economy and to retirement

funds -- that Wall street has so far chosen to ignore."


At the same time, ExxonMobil was announcing an anticipated 50% increase in global lcarbon

emissions by 2020.

In an interview last week with Rep. Anita Lowey/D-NY, she mentioned that the costs of

IRENE for NY were $1.5 BILLION.

[sam11111]

4. "SOCIAL COST" is the term progressives use for this

Which means "the cost to society at large, when (eg) a factory makes a fatter profit for the owner by not buying smokestack filters, and the emitted smoke then causes 30,000 cancer deaths in the town over the next 30 years."

A Progressive economy has a bottom line that

combines

profit at the factory, and
all Social Costs.

So it sees an overall "profit" when it spends to

LOWER

Social Cost.

But our current Private Sector ignores Social Cost. --------------------
Want a great Jobs Program?
See my sig below:

[Trillo]

5. I'd like to know the Social Costs of all the Radiation released

since WWII. I simply don't believe the seeming meme: "Plutonium milkshakes are healthy."