Re-posted from SocialFinance.ca
by Adam Spence
This past Wednesday, a Dragon became Canada’s newest impact investor.
Arlene Dickinson, a leading Canadian investor and entrepreneur, CEO and owner of Venture Communications, and one of the “Dragons” on CBC’s Dragons' Den invested $450,000 in La Siembra, an Ottawa-based worker co-operative that owns Camino, a Canadian brand of fair trade, organic food products including chocolate and coffee.
It was a Big Decision. Arlene is clearly a discerning investor, and she was looking for a good investment that met her financial expectations. But she was clearly looking at the triple bottom line, too.
Why was it an impact investment?
La Siembra has a clear social mission:
"We, the worker-owners of La Siembra Co-operative, are committed to a model of equitable trade rooted in co-operation and the social solidarity economy. We offer consumers high-quality ethical products through partnerships with producer co-operatives that foster sustainable livelihoods and community development. We believe in meaningful, dignified employment and are guided by the co-operative principles, by the Fair Trade principles, and by a respect for the environment."
This mission clearly aligned with Arlene’s first reason to invest:
"Your (La Siembra’s) social conscience is really important to the future of doing business in this country."
They have demonstrated impact: La Siembra works directly with 18 producer co-ops, supporting more than 35,000 family farmers in 10 countries across Central and South America, and Southeast Asia.
Arlene also identified Camino as having high potential for return. It is already well regarded by the industry and by consumers for its quality, and she believed it could be a very significant, high value brand.
So why is this important?
A high profile, well-respected Canadian entrepreneur and investor made a very public and conscious commitment to make an investment that generates social and environmental impact alongside the potential for financial return. This bodes well for impact ventures and funds looking to secure capital from local, impact investors.
For more, please visit the Social Finance blog.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Finding common ground on ESG metrics
A new report reveals a disconnect between investors and companies on issues related to ESG disclosure and metrics.
The New York-based Investor Responsibility Research Center report finds that there is general agreement on key corporate sustainability issues, but not on the metrics used to measure the management of those issues, nor on the purposes served by examining corporate ESG information.
"Because traditional accounting metrics fall short in assessing sustainability, there is no agreement on how to measure corporate management of those issues," the study’s authors said in a press release. "As a result, investors find it difficult to gather and analyze corporate ESG data, even while companies are ‘survey fatigued’ by the time and resources required to fulfill data requests from various investors, investor advocates, and others seeking to create their own metrics."
The study finds that although ESG metrics are routinely reported on request by a substantial percentages of companies, few companies report all the ESG information they collect internally.
Among all U.S. firms in 2010, only 164 companies issued reports consistent with Global Reporting Initiative protocols (the standard for sustainability reporting) suggesting adoption rates of less than 15% among U.S. publicly traded companies.
"Too often the common vision of corporations and their shareowners to improve profitability and sustainability is obscured by disagreements over metrics and disclosure," said Jon Lukomnik, executive director of the IRRC Institute. "This report addresses that disconnect. It identifies environmental and social metrics that are meaningful to investors, companies and researchers. It also highlights the data mismatches between available corporate data and research needs. Finally, it suggests a way forward which could both reduce data gaps and ameliorate some of the reporting burden."
Read the full report.
The New York-based Investor Responsibility Research Center report finds that there is general agreement on key corporate sustainability issues, but not on the metrics used to measure the management of those issues, nor on the purposes served by examining corporate ESG information.
"Because traditional accounting metrics fall short in assessing sustainability, there is no agreement on how to measure corporate management of those issues," the study’s authors said in a press release. "As a result, investors find it difficult to gather and analyze corporate ESG data, even while companies are ‘survey fatigued’ by the time and resources required to fulfill data requests from various investors, investor advocates, and others seeking to create their own metrics."
The study finds that although ESG metrics are routinely reported on request by a substantial percentages of companies, few companies report all the ESG information they collect internally.
Among all U.S. firms in 2010, only 164 companies issued reports consistent with Global Reporting Initiative protocols (the standard for sustainability reporting) suggesting adoption rates of less than 15% among U.S. publicly traded companies.
"Too often the common vision of corporations and their shareowners to improve profitability and sustainability is obscured by disagreements over metrics and disclosure," said Jon Lukomnik, executive director of the IRRC Institute. "This report addresses that disconnect. It identifies environmental and social metrics that are meaningful to investors, companies and researchers. It also highlights the data mismatches between available corporate data and research needs. Finally, it suggests a way forward which could both reduce data gaps and ameliorate some of the reporting burden."
Read the full report.
Friday, March 9, 2012
PDAC 2012: Now I’m a believer
For the past number of years, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada’s annual convention has offered sessions on sustainability, CSR, aboriginal issues etc. I have attended both the convention and some of those sessions, always feeling a bit irrelevant.
However, this year the CSR Event Series played to a packed audience at sessions I was at, and from talking to other delegates, it appears that the entire series of 6 was very well attended. The level of discussion and questions was also excellent, especially compared to a kind of ‘tell me again why this matters’ attitude that I have sometimes heard in the past.
The first ever CEO panel on sustainable development and corporate strategy took place on Tuesday afternoon, organized by the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM). ICMM President Tony Hodge, moderating the panel, opined that had he suggested such a topic a few years ago, he would have been met with bewilderment, ‘it’s a remarkable reflection of the growth in this industry that we are having this conversation, and something we should be very proud of.’
Identifying the top three issues they face with respect to sustainable development were the CEO’s of Barrick Gold, Avalon Rare Metals, Teck, Iamgold and Minmetals Resources. Establishing and maintaining a social license to operate was a given. Discussion focused more on what it takes to do that. How do we deal with law and order, especially as we go into less developed countries and conflict zones? What about water, at both extremes – trucking water in to drought stricken areas, and dealing with capturing and containing run off during flooding? Local and indigenous employment, resource endowment/nationalism – it was apparent that these companies are not just paying lip service to the idea of sustainability but are grappling with complex issues that have no easy answers.
A few of the CEO’s commented on the challenge and opportunity offered by social media. Don Lindsay of Teck noted that stories about mining operations can now be spread worldwide in a matter of minutes. ‘But for those companies that have made sustainability an integral part of their operations, it’s also a chance to tell our story.’
However, this year the CSR Event Series played to a packed audience at sessions I was at, and from talking to other delegates, it appears that the entire series of 6 was very well attended. The level of discussion and questions was also excellent, especially compared to a kind of ‘tell me again why this matters’ attitude that I have sometimes heard in the past.
The first ever CEO panel on sustainable development and corporate strategy took place on Tuesday afternoon, organized by the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM). ICMM President Tony Hodge, moderating the panel, opined that had he suggested such a topic a few years ago, he would have been met with bewilderment, ‘it’s a remarkable reflection of the growth in this industry that we are having this conversation, and something we should be very proud of.’
Identifying the top three issues they face with respect to sustainable development were the CEO’s of Barrick Gold, Avalon Rare Metals, Teck, Iamgold and Minmetals Resources. Establishing and maintaining a social license to operate was a given. Discussion focused more on what it takes to do that. How do we deal with law and order, especially as we go into less developed countries and conflict zones? What about water, at both extremes – trucking water in to drought stricken areas, and dealing with capturing and containing run off during flooding? Local and indigenous employment, resource endowment/nationalism – it was apparent that these companies are not just paying lip service to the idea of sustainability but are grappling with complex issues that have no easy answers.
A few of the CEO’s commented on the challenge and opportunity offered by social media. Don Lindsay of Teck noted that stories about mining operations can now be spread worldwide in a matter of minutes. ‘But for those companies that have made sustainability an integral part of their operations, it’s also a chance to tell our story.’
Friday, March 2, 2012
SRI Monitor Weekly News Update
Bernanke says Volcker Rule won't be ready by July deadline...read it here
Why do we need a Volcker Rule...read it here
Canada raising alarm over Volcker Rule...read it here
Paul Volcker on the 'Volcker Rule'...read it here
and from last week's Economist's Special Report on Financial Innovation, an interesting discussion of Social Impact Bonds...read it here
Why do we need a Volcker Rule...read it here
Canada raising alarm over Volcker Rule...read it here
Paul Volcker on the 'Volcker Rule'...read it here
and from last week's Economist's Special Report on Financial Innovation, an interesting discussion of Social Impact Bonds...read it here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)