by Terence Jeyaretnam, Director of Net Balance (terence@netbalance.com), one of the world’s leading sustainability advisory firms. Terence is based in Melbourne.

A businessman would not consider a firm to have solved its problems of production and to have achieved viability if he saw that it was rapidly consuming its capital. How, then, could we overlook this vital fact when it comes to that very big firm, the economy of Spaceship Earth and, in particular, the economies of its rich passengers? E F Schumacher, Small is Beautiful, 1973

Erosion of natural capital has continued over the past 50 years, despite the heightened awareness of environmental impact of industrialization and population growth. Over the fifty years, there’s been a multitude of international conventions, giving birth to a large number of new institutions and protocols on sustainable development. They have proved just one thing – that there’s no silver bullet for the environmental predicament.

Next in the line of an ever-increasing number of international get-togethers is scheduled for 20th – 22nd June 2012, titled the Earth Summit 2012, or Rio + 20 to signify the 20 year milestone since the 1992 Rio Summit, which resulted in Agenda21, Blueprint for a Sustainable Planet.

The key objectives for the upcoming Summit are:

• Securing Political Commitment to Sustainable Development
• Assessing Progress Towards Internationally Agreed Commitments
•  New and Emerging Challenges

The Byron Bay Farmers Market is doomed!  Why? A hybrid flower stall turned up not long ago and selling these particular, non local, non native varieties of flowers point towards a bigger issue. Because hybirds are artificially refined.  Because of us manipulating nature to ‘improve’ it without consideration of unintended consequences or in the worst case scenario, through simple carelessness.

For more than two decades I have been in love with Byron Bay due to its natural beauty and as an experiment in sustainable living – healthy living on a small footprint in harmony with the environment.

100′s of yoga classes are offered here everyday, the small town had two vibrant organic food shops for humpteen years and  inspired organic farming and reforrestation projects have evolved over the years and resulted in, not just crops but the creation of value adding products like mueslies, cheeses and coffees to name just a few. Byron Bay was a mecca for vegetarians, vegans and those who were looking for chemical & hormone free products combined with self-exploration.

Farmers Markets  fit in well here with their commitment to clean, fresh, local produce at affordable prices. But they need to tighten their rules if they are to meet the expectations of the modern sustainable lifestyle tribe.  The local website states: “Come and see our great range of fresh seasonal produce grown locally in the greater Northern Rivers region.” And the website  states that both type of farming methods, those who don’t use chemicals and those who do, happily coexist.

Byron Bay Farmers Market could and should stand for more than locally grown – as much as buying local is a good start – if the market is to reach its full potential as an expression of sustainable living. The market should encapsulate all the elements of producing clean &  fresh food and ensure that, just because Byron is on THE MAP now, it won’t turn into just another coastal holiday destination but can keep its cutting edge as a successful experiment in sustainable living.

It will pay off in the long run! What do you think? I would love to hear your views!

Below are some relevant links.

Byron Bay Farmers Market

Austalian Farmers Market Association

Slow Food Australia

The Biodiversity Foundation

Dusseldorf Mediahafen

At the end of  October 2011 it is estimated that the world population will have reached 7 billion people – an achievement and challenge at the same time.

This article focusses on just three challenges and corresponding opportunities that might stretch the traditional mindset for social investments by corporates, trusts and foundation and governments. All three are interdependent and addressing one can have postive impacts on the other.

1: Addressing poverty and inequality through collaborations between sectors and industries: the time for collaboration between sectors to pursue a single vision of sustainable development is ripe and evidenced by a multitude of large scale corporate, government and civil society partnerships domestically as well as internationally.

Following the endorsement of the Independent Review of Aid Effectiveness, AusAid has opened the doors  to future private sector involvement in pro-poor, sustainable economic growth on the basis of international evidence that this type of economic investment in the ‘bottom of the pyramid’ can be profitable as well as deliver much improved development impacts – in other words, assists more people out of poverty than traditional development projects and is good for the environment at the same time.

2: Addressing women and girls empowerment including their reproductive health and rights – this is one, if not THE key ingredient for successful social investment programmes impacting the economic  and social wellbeing of a community as well as the environmental sustainability – also referred to as the ‘girl effect‘.

3. Addressing the threat to our ecosystem – through investing into research and programmes aimed at managing  population growth and it’s impact on the environment, the creation of new ecologically friendly technologies and radical economic reform which entails rewarding positive behaviour rather than propping up traditional models that exaserbate problems.

There are people and organisations that work at developing solutions to these challenges already, of course, and  if you would like to find out more, here are some links to start off with:

7 Billion Actions – 7 Billion People | 7 Billion Actions; a Global Movement for all Humanity

B4MD – provides Australian businesses with the opportunity to do much more to reduce poverty while developing business with the emerging markets of the Asia Pacific region.

Creating Shared Value - Global corporations including BHP Billiton, PepsiCo, Digicel, Oil Search, IBM and BASF share their thinking about projects where profitability and social impact go hand in hand at the B4MD Summit 25-26 October 2011 in Sydney and Melbourne.

Volans -  driving corporations and organisations towards a zero impact growth economy – an oxymoron? Check it out for yourself.

Happy reading!

harmonizing giving and investing as a necessary step for Foundations to meeting the ‘public benefit’ test

by Stephen Viederman

I listened and lectured in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane in October 2005 and I admit I became an Australiaphile. While there I was struck by many similarities and differences between our philanthropies. One similarity of special interest to me was the limited interest in and even lesser practice of using assets as a way of adding value to giving as an instrument of change.

Each year the effort to “invest as if the future mattered” becomes easier as new and more sophisticated investment vehicles in all asset classes enter the market. In addition, the concept of ownership and stewardship has grown urging shareowners to engage with the companies they own by voting proxies and in other ways.

The public benefit is how the Charity’s Commission of England and Wales describes the charitable purpose of foundations. This is as clear and concise a definition as I have seen.

Unfortunately, however, this only seems to apply to giving, not to the use of the assets that make the giving possible. In Australia, I suspect, as is the case here in the US, the chasm between mission and giving, on the one hand, and investment, on the other, is still more the rule than the exception. I firmly believe that harmonizing giving and investing is a necessary step toward meeting the ‘public benefit’ purpose.

Three recent publications from the US and UK on climate change and philanthropy reflect the chasm. Each thoughtfully lays out a variety of opportunities for grants to respond to climate change that could be helpful for US and English foundations and charities with varied missions.

What these publications do not do is even hint that investment of foundations’ endowments— in the US presently estimated at over US$500 billion — could have value in dealing with climate change. Acting more like investment bankers than philanthropists, every day foundations direct most of their financial assets away from their philanthropic missions, despite the availability of appropriate, mission related investment vehicles dealing with climate, water and other issues in virtually all asset classes.

Language often presents a problem. I speak now of ‘investing as if the future mattered’ which does not easily roll off the tongue. Let me explain. As an investment committee member I would look at conventional financial analysis as well as past societal and environmental indicators. What is different evolves from an additional set of unconventional questions about future societal and environmental issues. Looking at the food industry, for example, I would raise questions about the policies, procedures and practices that are in place regarding obesity, water, climate, labor, land, food security and scarcity. These are real issues as well as surrogates for governance. Asking the questions and getting the answers can avoid predictable and often preventable surprises.

This perspective moves the discussion from too narrow a focus on ‘mission’ to a broader discussion of public benefit. An arts and culture funder, for example, could do a loan guarantee for an arts or culture organization if it focuses specifically on its mission.

But if the focus shifts to investing as part of purpose, for the public benefit, the arts funder, and all funders, would consider other issues and other investment vehicles that are of public importance. Among these might be water availability and utilization and climate change, labor and human rights, including the relationship between aboriginal communities and corporations, land use and agriculture, diversity, and many more.

The Bermuda Triangle of foundation investing seems to swallow up discussions of assets as an instrument of change. On one side of the triangle is the board and investment committee; the second is the investment office; and the third is the consultant. Their views on finance, formed in the same business schools and work places, see the world all too often as an externality, and intangible. The issues noted above are not factored into their investment decisions, which are made for short-term returns as if the future did not matter.

There are hurdles to overcome. Foundations boards and investment committees often don’t leave enough time for discussion of broader and new issues for the longer term. There is also an underlying myth that investing in this new way results in underperformance. The boards and finance committee members, often personally very involved with social issues after work and on weekends, do not see these same issues as matters of concern for investment by the foundation and in their day jobs.

I do not underestimate the difficulty of getting started but I know it can be done. The Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation (www.noyes.org, see especially the investment policy), The Needmor Fund (www.needmorfund.org), and The Christopher Reynolds Foundation (www.creynolds.org) have done it with more than 80 percent of their investments looking toward the future, and other foundations are on the path.

For a foundation to get started it ideally requires:

• a champion for this new way of looking at investment – depending upon the culture of the group, a board member or the chairperson is usually the initiator;
• time allotted to discuss the implications for the foundation – it is helpful if there is a model among the foundation’s peers that can serve as an example;
• an emphasis on process – many foundations begin with a small portion of their assets to find comfort levels, others begin with corporate engagement and specifically proxy voting, expressing their sense of ownership
• a knowledgeable finance professional present at the discussion not to sell products but to answer questions that arise – questions about performance, asset allocation, the investable universe, corporate engagement and other matters.
• once agreement is reached, the investment policy needs to be revised to reflect the links between investment and purpose throughout the document such as environmental, societal and governance issues that are of particular importance, or guidelines for managers to vote proxies;
• finally it is time to make changes as necessary in investment management – the goal should be an investment strategy and practice that is future-oriented, risk–adjusted and opportunity-directed adding value to the foundation’s public benefit.

Investing as if the future matters is worth doing. I have found that at Noyes and the other foundations I have been involved with it was the first time that the board really paid attention to the finance committee reports which were easily understood because they were in English rather than financese. As the board explored the links between giving and investing finance became fun, two words not usually used in the same sentence. Paying attention is one of the first duties of fiduciary responsibility.

St. Augustine observed that one of Hope’s beautiful daughters was Courage. I hope that we all have the courage to move ahead with our investments to serve the public benefit as if the future mattered.

About the author:
As President of the Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation I have been involved from the early 1990s in what we called mission-related investing. I worked with the board to reduce the dissonance between our grantmaking—economic and environmental justice, reproductive rights and sustainable agriculture—and our investments. After retiring in 2000 I continued efforts as a member of the board and finance committee of the Needmor Fund, and now with the Christopher Reynolds Foundation. In addition to writing, lecturing, consulting, listening and grandparenting, I am on the Advisory Committee of Inflection Point Capital Markets, a contributing editor to the Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment and co-chair of the Get Off Your Assets Committee of the International Human Rights Funders Group. Comments and questions are very welcome at s.viederman@gmail.com.

Australian starting points:

Responsible Investment Association Australasia

Australian Ethical Investment

Ethical Investor

Ulaanbaatar Mongolia

Following consultation for a population strategy for Australia, the Australian Government has just released its ‘Sustainable Population, Sustainable Communities’ strategy and ignored the most important factor: the negative unsustainable environmental impact of population growth. How is this possible when submissions pointed these implications out so eloquently and conclusively? What a missed opportunity to engage in a mature debate about population control and pave the path to a sustainable Australia that considers itself part of a global community and wishes to maintain a decent quality of life for all.

Unfortunately, the Australian Government is not alone – although this is by no means to be interpreted as an excuse.  The much loved  and extremely well respected Sir David Attenborough, known for his wonderful nature documentaries, pointed out in his President’s Lecture at London’s Royal Society of Arts: ” … the [UK's] Government’s ‘Foresight Report on the Future of Food and Farming’….[It] shows how hard it is to feed the seven billion of us who are alive today. It lists the many obstacles that are already making this harder to achieve – soil erosion, salinisation , the depletion of aquifers, over-grazing, the spread of plant diseases as a result of globalisation, the absurd growing of food crops to run into biofuels to feed motor cars instead of people – and so on. … …It recommends the widest possible range of measures across all disciplines to tackle this.. but doesn’t state the obvious fact that it would be much easier to feed 8 then 10 billion people.”

Sir David continues: ” I suspect that you could read a score of reports by bodies concerned with global problems – and see that population is clearly one of the drivers that underlies all of them – and yet find no reference to this obvious fact in any of them.”  He concludes that there is an absurd taboo around the issue of population growth which prevents us from making progress on the most important issues facing humanity. In order to offer a decent life for everybody we need to stabilise our numbers and to achieve that Sir David proposes that we:

• gain a better understanding about the problem by breaking the taboo;
• change our culture to understand that having large families means compounding the problems their children and everyone else’s children will face in the future;
• require action by Governments in the shape of solid family planning and reproductive health services freely available to every one and empower and encourage them to use it .

And by the way, the latter could prevent a large number of the 80 million unintended pregnancy that occur globally per annum. He then goes on to say:

It is tragic that the only current population policies in developed countries are, perversely, attempting to increase their birth-rate in order to look after the growing number of old people.  The notion of ever more old people needing ever more young people, who will in turn grow old and need even more young people and so on ad infinitum is an obvious ecological Ponzi scheme.

The UN is predicting that the world populations will reach 7 billion on 31 October 2011 -only 12 years after we reached 6 billion on 12 Oct 1999.  We currently don’t live sustainably. How far do we want to let the population numbers get out of hand, how many catastrophies, be they diseases or weather related does it take to provoke concerted, positive action?

Prof Mike Archer, Prof of Life Sciences, University of NSW, suggests (in a recorded interview) that:

Every continent has to take a deep breath, every country has to decide – how can we use this land we sit on sustainably rather than be driven by the insane growth in people numbers that is going to basically undermine sustainability for every human being on the planet.

That makes a lot of sense, but what can we do about this? Let’s follow Sir David Attenborough’s call to break the taboo and start debating the impact of population growth – without fear of being called racist or any other negative epithet. An understanding of the root causes as to why this debate is suppressed would also be useful.

Talking points could include:

• the fact that only 6% of Australia is arable land
• the appropriateness of a baby bonus to encourage a higher birth rate (should we instead introduce a no-baby bonus for couples who remain childless?)
• people’s different cultural understanding of what constitutes a family and
• how to reconcile people’s right to reproduce with the rights of the community to a healthy environment

and for the more politically minded:

• the objectives and terms of reference of a Ministry for Sustainable Population (and its limitations)
• the need for an independent Environment Commission.

For a clever graphic illustration of overpopulation and it’s side effects watch this short video:

Below are two further reference points to get ideas about the population debate in Australia:

Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) was formed in 1988. See their CEO’s response to the Australian Federal Government’s population report: Welcome to Sustainable Population Australia Inc. and more.

Dick Smith’s Population website including an outline for anybody under 30 who could win the Wilberforce Award of $1m.

And for the more globally minded you could listen to Sir David Attenborough’s President’s Lecture at the Royal Society of Arts, London 10 March 2010:

About the author: Ulrike Schuermann is an experienced international consultant & social profit coach. Her main areas of interest are social investments, income development for social profits; sustainable development and business and human rights. She regularly facilitates workshops for social profit organisations and corporations and can be contacted at ulrike@momentumpartnerships.com

World Environment Awards 2011

Did you know that  2011 to 2020 is the United Nations Decade of Biodiversity, that this year is the International Year of Forests, that 22 April is Earth Day and 5th June World Environment Day, celebrated since 1972? If yes, you belong to a relatively small group of ‘insiders’ and if not, why not?

Earth Hour on the other hand – the one day a year where we are prompted to symbolically turn our lights off for one hour is known by millions around the world. How come the latter has become a global phenomenon and yet directly related, mature environmental awareness raising initiatives lack momentum?

The United Nations has celebrated World Environment Day on the 5th June since 1972. So how can we focus the millions of people who symbolically turn their lights off on rapid action for the environment, including forests and biodiversity?

Apart from collaborating with Earth Hour organisers to ensure it is more than a feel good exercise (more about this here), we can learn and transfer those social marketing lessons.  Any social campaign that moves us to change our habits needs to:

• be easy and come with ‘how-to-implement’ tools
• be visible so it can grow quickly
• make it personal
• be social (appeal to the ‘champagne environmentalist’ as well as those who have been at it forever…)
• be impartial.

Many initiatives prepare comprehensive, informative and easily accessible materials but fall short on ‘selling’ the materials. In other words, the social marketing component that ensures visibility and take up is missing.

We can make biodiversity personal for each and every one of us and start by nominating somebody or an organisation for the World Environment Day Award.

“Each year on World Environment Day, June 5, the United Nations focuses world attention on the environment, and in particular, on positive programs that work towards protecting or restoring the world’s natural heritage. The United Nations Association of Australia (UNAA) actively promotes World Environment Day through the annual national World Environment Day Awards. In 2011, the Awards support the International Year of Forests and UNEP World Environment Day theme ‘Forests: Nature at your Service’. The national awards program invites nominations from individuals, organisations, community groups, schools, businesses and the media across Australia whose work demonstrates environmental leadership. For more information including award categories and entry criteria, please visit our website.”

And why are biodiversity and forests a personal issue, some would say a human right? According to the UNAA

• Forests cover one third of the earth’s land mass (31%), performing vital functions and services.
• 1.6 billion people depend on forests for their livelihoods.
• Forests play a key role in our battle against climate change, releasing oxygen into the atmosphere while storing carbon dioxide.
• Forests provide a home to more than 300 million people worldwide, and a
• Forests are home to 80% of  biodiversity on land.

Yet global deforestation continues at an alarming rate — every year, 13 million hectares of forest are destroyed.  That is equivalent to 36 football fields a minute. (quote World Wildlife Fund, 2009)

Many precious species face extinction.  Biodiversity is being obliterated.

What are we waiting for? Let’s do something.

UNAA World Environment Day Awards 2011 from UNAA Victoria on Vimeo.

>Ulrike Schuermann is an experienced international consultant & social profit coach. Her main areas of interest are social investments, income development for social profits; sustainable development and business and human rights. She regularly facilitates workshops for social profit organisations and corporations and can be contacted at ulrike@momentumpartnerships.com

Saturday the 26th of March was Earth Hour – a social marketing phenomenon that started in Australia in 2007  and is now known around the world. The high visibility of switching off lights makes Earth Hour  a corporate responsibility dream.  In just 5 short years it has captured the imagination of a global audience with its initial intend to

” make a bold symbolic statement about the critical issue of climate change and to engage Australians in taking action”.

This rapid growth must make it one of the most successful social marketing campaigns globally.

I have been an Earth Hour sceptic since its inception, wondering how on earth switching the lights off for one hour could possibly assist in moving us towards a sustainable lifestyle – although I did switch off our lights on Saturday at 8.30pm.  I do, however, recognise Earth Hour’s potential to build on its success and speed up positive social change.

My main concern is that this ‘bold symbolic statement’ let’s us off the hook, offers an easy way out.

We switch off the light for an hour and feel good about the difference we make. Earth Hour’s local and global ambassadors, Miranda Kerr and Jamie Durie, have enormous public appeal and are walking and talking sustainability contradictions: both are directly involved in promoting consumption through modelling, advertising and re-modelling or landscaping gardens.  (Like the rest of us who may drive a hybrid car, buy organic vegetables & meat;  use organic cosmetics; and fly around the world for work and leisure.)

We think of ourselves as environmentally responsible by switching to ‘green’ consumer products often with a hefty price tag. We know we should reduce, re-use, recycle and offset in that priority order but at best dabble in reduction and maybe off-set our bad habits .  We lead a  pseudo-sustainable lifestyle of the well to-do.

All this makes me think about  the effectiveness of social marketing strategies to bring social change to scale – in this case, reducing consumption to a sustainable level. Earth Hour has succeeded in raising awareness and making a global statement about climate change but is it translating into action?

The Earth Hour website states:

Earth Hour is not just about one hour of darkness, it’s about a lifetime of sustainability.

Earth Hour has so far been mainly a public relations exercise, displaying an effectiveness rarely seen in awareness raising strategies directed at changing attitudes. While it needs to keep the momentum to reach more and more people, Earth Hour now needs to go beyond the one page “take action beyond the hour” on its website and link to action oriented tools.

The behaviour change required to galvanise us into action can only be achieved in collaboration with existing organisations focussed on the  same goal  and by building on existing resources to create a transition to a lifetime of sustainability.

Sustainable development requires collaboration beyond anything we have seen in the past. 2010 saw the beginning of a potentially transitional decade. We need international cooperation that brings about real long-term structural changes and deepens collaboration.

Earth Hour has a real opportunity to translate a bold statement into transformative action! Bring it on!!!

Earth Hour is organised by WWF. WWF’s mission is

“to stop the degradation of the Earth’s natural environment and build a future where people live in harmony with nature.”

To go beyond the hour visit WWF and check out your ecological footprint.

Integrated Reporting for Corporates by Terence Jeyaretnam & Amanda Nuttall

I have spent a significant part of my life focusing on how corporate reporting could be expanded from traditional financial accounts to non-financial (environmental, social and economic metrics).  I have not been alone on this path.  Happily, a number of us recently convened at the Harvard Business School (HBS) in Boston to talk about the future of corporate reporting; that is to pave a vision forward for a framework for Integrated Reporting.

“Integrated reporting” is a term that is generating excitement in sustainability circles.

The idea that sustainability issues should be fully integrated into business strategy and reporting seems like a no-brainer.

Environmental, social and governance issues do have a very real impact on the bottom line of a company – just look at the impact of the Deepwater oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on BP’s bottom line – and as such should be integrated into a business’ risk management, target setting and reporting processes.

However, there is still some way to go. Companies that integrate sustainability strategies into business strategies are the exception rather than the norm. There is also confusion about what integrated reporting actually means, what format it should take and who the target audiences for the reports are.

An integrated report provides readers with a complete picture of how an organisation is performing by including environmental, social and governance information along with financial performance.

In 2009, HRH The Prince of Wales said a framework was needed “to help ensure that we are not battling to meet 21st century challenges with, at best, 20th century decision making and reporting systems.” As a result the Prince established the Accounting for Sustainability initiative which developed a Connected Reporting Framework to provide guidance for companies to link social and environmental strategies with business and financial strategies.

Following this, in August 2010, Accounting for Sustainability and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) announced the establishment of an International Integrated Reporting Committee (IIRC). The Committee aims to develop a framework for reporting financial, environmental, social and governance information in an integrated format.

Our contribution (or should I say conversation between multi-stakeholders) at HBS literally starts that ball rolling on this movement. Net Balance will be engaging and tapping into the international network built through the Harvard session and our representation on the GRI Stakeholder Council. We also have recently contributed to an Ebook that is a collection of articles submitted by the participants to the Harvard Business School’s 2010 “Workshop on Integrated Reporting: Frameworks and Action Plan.” The purpose of this EBook is to help broaden the awareness of integrated reporting, to help give it greater definition and clarity, and to help spread its broad adoption around the world.

The Net Balance position is that:

• The development of an integrated reporting framework needs to recognise that integrated reporting will only be possible if it reflects the reporting organisation’s strategy.
• The involvement of key stakeholder groups such as business, government, civil society and experts in both non-financial and financial accounting will be critical if integrated reporting is going to be worthwhile to companies and their stakeholders.
• The GRI G3 guidelines require further development and we support current planning by GRI for G4, the next  generation of the Guidelines, to shape and enhance an integrated reporting framework.
• Net Balance will be working with some of our clients on the integrated reporting journey and undertaking some local research through Net Balance Foundation.

Net Balance Foundation, with Swinburne University’s National Centre for Sustainability, is an accredited training organisation by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). We are currently delivering two-day GRI training sessions, which may be of interest to you (see http://www.netbalance.com/gri_training.html).  Net Balance is also pleased to have contributed a prize available on this site for one spot at an upcoming training session.

For more information please contact Terence Jeyaretnam is a Director of Net Balance (terence@netbalance.com) and Amanda Nuttall is a Senior Associate (amanda@netbalance.com), both based in Melbourne.

Amanda Nuttall

In case you haven’t heard:

There are few if any internationally recognised rights business cannot impact – or be perceived to impact – in some manner.  Therefore, companies should consider all such rights.” Professor John Ruggie, UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Business and Human Rights. Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for Business and Human Rights, April 2008.

So now that’s clear, what are we doing about it? And how do our beloved corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives fit into the business and human rights agenda?

Following almost six years of work by Prof Ruggie, supported by civil society, business and – to some governments, a clear framework has emerged for business. An increasing number of case studies, illustrating the positive and negative impact  business can have on each and every human right, are aiding translation of international human rights treaties into the business context. The final draft of the “Guiding Principles” – to assist with the implementation of aforementioned framework has now been submitted to the UN Human Rights Council and will be considered in June this year. We are also fortunate that the lovely and smart Vanessa Zimmerman, Legal Advisor to the UN Special Representative on Business and Human Rights, is based in Melbourne, Australia thus providing access to up to the minute developments and sharing her expertise.

Regardless of progress made and the fact that some of the largest Australian companies operate in industries most complained* about when it comes to abuses of human rights (the Extractive sector (gas/oil/mining); Food & beverages; Apparel & footwear; IT & Communication), we have been slow in embracing the business and human rights agenda.

Various organisations have emerged as key players:

We have at last seen the establishment of the Global Compact Network Australia, which has boosted the sign up of Australian businesses to the Compact by 50% since its inception in mid 2009. There are some 80 of these networks around the world.

The Global Compact Network  has, in turn, established the Business and Human Rights Working Group, a promising development convening for the 2nd time this April in Sydney creating momentum and building expertise.

The National Human Rights Commission has also lifted its game and produced “Four fact sheets to help make human rights part of your core business”. and generally, Human Rights Institutions Internationally are putting this issue squarely on their agenda – some have done so for many years as part of their mandate. For those of you with a special interest in the role of human rights institutions in business and human rights, the International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions prepared a concept note in preparation of their biennial conference in October 2010 on the exact topic.

The Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Instituions‘  Advisory Council of Jurists  has also made a series of useful recommendations on the practical steps that national human rights institutions can take to promote greater observance of human rights by business, including transnational corporations.

The Castan Centre for Human Rights Law published a guide about how human rights treaties related to business: Human Rights Translated. A Business Reference Guide. The guide is full of useful examples.

Allen Arthur Robinson is one of the international law firms that provided pro bono support to Prof Ruggie to “examine if and how the national corporate law principles of 39 countries foster corporate cultures respectful of human rights”.

So now that we understand the impact of business on human rights and the respective roles of government, business and civil society – what’s next?

Is this the end of fluffy, feel good CSR initiatives so loved by public affairs professionals for their capacity to draw positive publicity? Will all CSR initiatives now become aligned with human rights and and be deep and meaningful?

Hardly.

There is still considerable confusion about the various guides that include human rights obligations for business and how these relate to one another. The required integration combined with appropriate regulation of universal minimum standards – is in my view one of the most important tasks ahead.  However, this is not the place to discuss requirements for meaningful Government regulation (an oxymoron?) and a human rights framework for corporate social responsibility initiatives.This will be the topic of another blog.

In the meantime, let’s await the decision of the UN Human Rights Council in June and keep the momentum for business engagement in human rights going in Australia.

*Complaints mainly relate to inadvertent support of human rights abuses through business dealings in conflict zones, violations of labour rights and large scale corruption.

>Ulrike Schuermann is an experienced international consultant & social profit coach. Her main areas of interest are social investments, income development for social profits; sustainable development and business and human rights. She regularly facilitates workshops for social profit organisations and corporations and can be contacted at ulrike@momentumpartnerships.com

When most people think Girl Guides they probably don’t think of progressive girls and young women who play a significant advocacy role in local and global issues?

Well,  think again everybody!

This is precisely what the 10 million members of the world’s largest  volunteer organisation for girls and young women do, with memberships across 145 countries including Australia.

As their Global Action Theme, girls worldwide say: “Together we can change our world”. This theme is based on the Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s). An activity pack supports the curriculum and helps children and young women to learn about the MDG’s and, most importantly, to take action on the issues that affect them and their communities.

The girls are encouraged to learn about the MDGs and, most importantly, take action on the issues that affect them and their communities.   The Australian Guides Say…2010 Survey found that girls who are Guides have a keen awareness of global and local issues such as homelessness, poverty and environmental sustainability. The survey results, which were launched by  Kate Ellis, the Federal Minister for the Status of Women,  Mia Freedman and Girl Guides Australia’s Chief Commissioner Helen Geard found that there is a high level of awareness among Guides of the MDG’s.

When asked about the (MDG’s) many people think of a sports stadium rather than 8 goals developed by the United Nations to combat extreme poverty. The high awareness of MDG’s among Girl Guides – 51% of those surveyed – is in stark contrast with that of the general public and will have a major impact once these girls and young women are take up leadership roles in society – which many do.

In addition to conducting a regular survey on issues that matter to them, Girl Guides also embark on many more activities to fulfill their goal of “Enabling girls and young women to grow into confident, self-respecting, responsible community members”.  For example, to expand the MDG work across Guiding and to take it to the broader community Girl Guides Australia organised the “Be the change” Roundtable, for which I received an invitation to facilitate.

I had the opportunity to learn first hand about the Girl Guides’ pro-active stance on collaboration and leadership development at the roundtable.  Girl Guides Australia has turned the third goal: “promote gender equality and empower women” into an action oriented  slogan: “Girls worldwide say: Empowering Girls will Change the World”  as part of their Global Action theme.

The Be the Change Roundtable was driven by the success of a peer eduction project in the Philippines. The project saw young girls being educated by young girls on issues that weren’t adequately addressed elsewhere. It was conducted in “An environment that encouraged open to frank discussion without judgement, criticism or gossip.” This peer education project was perfectly aligned to one of the key goals of Girl Guides: to provide girls and young women with the knowledge and skills to make educated, positive life choices.

Following the success of this project, Girl Guides instigated a peer education project in Australia to address some of the critical issues facing girls and young women. Girl Guides then invited key organizations to work with them on developing the project. Several organisations became involved including:

• the Butterfly Foundation;
• the Inspire Foundation;
• Unicef,
• Plan International,
• YEAH and
• AERF

The project will aim to deal with a variety of issues including self-image, depression and mental health, violence against young women, sexually transmitted infections and gender equality. All organisations welcomed the opportunity to contribute to a peer education program aligned with their own youth participation strategies.  to build on their expertise and available resources.  This is a most encouraging development and ought to be welcomed by funding agencies as an ideal channel for social investment. There is great interest among social profit organisations to pool resources to deliver the very best outcomes for the people for whom they share concern. This project is a great opportunity for businesses, trusts, foundations and governments to align themselves with a best practice initiative that with the benefit of collaboration has the potential to scale up rapidly.

Here is the Girl Guide Australia launch video and for more on the ‘girl effect’ or why to invest in girls and young women click here.

about the author: Ulrike Schuermann is an experienced international consultant & social profit coach. Her main areas of interest are social investments, income development for social profits; sustainable development and business and human rights. She regularly facilitates workshops for social profit organisations and corporations and can be contacted at ulrike@momentumpartnerships.com.