Complies As a small company with limited operational complexity, the Company does not have an internal audit function. The Board works closely with the Manager to identify and manage operational, financial and compliance risks which could prevent the Company from achieving its objectives.
7.4 A listed entity should disclose whether it has any material exposure to economic, environmental and social sustainability risks and, if it does, how it manages or intends to manage those risks.
Corporate responsibility risk
The Company’s operations and activities interact with a range of community stakeholders who have an interest in the impacts of the Company’s activities and require the Company to maintain a social licence to discover, develop and operate mining projects. This encompasses compliance with environmental laws and regulations, occupational health and safety laws and regulations, anti-bribery and corruption laws. It also encompasses establishment and maintenance of community relations in Mali. These give rise to a range of risks including land access, reputational risk and the risk of losing its social licence to operate.
Corporate social responsibility means that the Bank must perform its role conscientiously, ensuring that its customers receive first- rate services and get the support they need. In addition Arion Bank supports a select number of causes which it believes benefit and improve the community, such as: Innovation, environmental issues, financial education, sports, culture and charities. Many of these pro- jects require the active participation of employees, which is the key to achieving results.
sustainability risks and, if it does, how it manages or intends to manage those risks.
Compliant The Company’s goal is to create the foundations for a long- term, sustainable business which is respected, supported and welcomed wherever it operates. Health, safety, the environment and community are important to Wisr. This commentary details the Company’s exposure to material economic, environmental and social sustainability risks and how it manages these risks.
In 2010, recognizing the heightened interest in climate change matters, the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published an interpretive release (the
“2010 Interpretive Release”) that was intended to provide guidance to public companies regarding the SEC’s existing disclosure requirements as they apply to climate change matters. The 2010 Interpretive Release identified the “most pertinent non-financial statement disclosure rules” that could require disclosure related to climate change, including Item 101 of Regulation S-K – Description of Business, Item 103 of Regulation S-K – Legal Proceedings, current Item 105 of Regulation S-K (then Item 503(c)) – Risk Factors, and Item 303 of Regulation S-K – Management’s
In 2019, the UK government published its Transparency in Supply Chains Consultation Paper, which proposes amend- ments to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (MSA) in response to the Transparency in Supply Chains consultation, and in particular the requirement for certain organisations to produce a slavery and human trafficking statement. The proposed meas- ures include mandating that modern slavery statements cover certain areas that, under the current legislation, remain volun- tary. These areas include disclosure relating to: an organisation’s structure, business and supply chains; the parts of the business and supply chains where there is a risk of slavery and human trafficking taking place, and the steps the company has taken to assess and manage that risk; and the company’s effectiveness in ensuring that slavery and human trafficking are not taking place in its business or supply chains, and introducing civil penalties for non-compliance. The UK government is also considering the development of the Single Enforcement Body for employ- ment rights.
II. Statement of Problem
Historically ESG criteria have been synonymous with Socially Responsible Investment (SRI).
SRI is defined as the integration of social and environmental criteria into the traditional investment decision-making process to allow large institutions and individuals to make investments that are consistent with both their social and financial goals. 1 In general, social investors use four basic strategies to maximize financial return and attempt to maximize social good: negative screening, 2 positive screening, 3 divesting 4 and shareholder activism. 5 These strategies were traditionally performed by specialist SRI firms such as Calvert Group, SRI research firms such as Innovest Strategic Value Advisors and KLD Research and Analytics, or in specific funds such as the Domini Social Equity Fund.
University of Pennsylvania notes, “In a democracy and at great universities, diversity and excellence go together.” 24 The commitment to diversity is echoed by a broad cross-section of colleges and universities, many of which recognize “the great power in a diverse society” 25 and celebrate “the diversity of that community, which includes men and women from different backgrounds, abilities, economic circumstances, perspectives, races, religions, national origins, and sexual orientations.” 26 All schools, in accordance with federal legislation, have a policy statement declaring equal treatment for all students and employees regardless of sex, race, color, religion, age, handicap or national or ethnic origin. 27 Most schools also reject discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, although this is not federally mandated. Many are committed to actively recruiting minorities to fill staff positions; for example, at Yale, “university policy is committed to affirmative action under law in
This belief is reflected in the Trustee’s Statement of Beliefs as follows:
Sustainability, active share-ownership and corporate governance are important elements in the construction of portfolios which will assist to maintain long term returns.
In reviewing the expected risks and returns of individual asset classes, the Fund seeks to take sustainability considerations into account. Similarly, the Fund expects its investment managers to take sustainability considerations into account when selecting individual assets.
Charity trustees are required to invest to further the purposes of the charity. This is usually seen as being achieved by seeking the best return from investments at an acceptable level of risk. Under the Trustee Act 2000, trustees have a duty to consider the suitability and diversification of investments, and for charities with permanent endowments, this includes a balance between the interests of present and future beneficiaries. It is argued that this should include a consideration of the social and environmental world that future beneficiaries will inhabit. 12 Additionally, the Charity Commission permits trustees to make investment decisions on moral grounds, provided that they are clear this will not put their charity at risk of significant financial detriment. The Commission also recognises that a charity may wish to influence a company both to ensure that its business is conducted in the charity’s best financial interests and that its business does not conflict with the charity’s responsible investment policy. The requirement of the Charities’ Statement of Recommended Practice 2005 for charities to report on the extent to which social, environmental or ethical considerations are taken into account is an indication that responsible investment is a permissible strategy.
Macquarie’s commitment to ongoing WHSE performance improvement is outlined in the WHS, and Environmental Risk Policies, both of which establish comprehensive frameworks for management and oversight of WHSE risks and obligations across Macquarie’s businesses. The policies are supported by WHS and environmental management systems, which are based on international standards (1) . In addition to the management systems, the frameworks require completion of stringent WHSE due diligence by independent specialist advisers prior to investment, in order to reduce the likelihood of poor performance at individual assets, and to facilitate effective WHSE management post investment. These requirements enable early identification and attention to performance improvements for newly acquired assets and continuous improvement for existing assets.
• Economic and demographic experience for pension and other postretirement benefit plans (e.g., discount rates or investment returns) could be worse than Ford has assumed;
• Pension and other postretirement liabilities could adversely affect Ford’s liquidity and financial condition;
• Ford could experience unusual or significant litigation, governmental investigations, or adverse publicity arising out of alleged defects in products, perceived environmental impacts, or otherwise;
• Ford may need to substantially modify its product plans to comply with safety, emissions, fuel economy, autonomous vehicle, and other regulations;
Committees: Audit, Governance
J. Steven Whisler
J. Steven Whisler is the retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Phelps Dodge Corporation, a mining and manufacturing company, where he served in many roles from 1981 until his retirement in 2007. During his tenure at Phelps Dodge Corporation, Mr. Whisler was instrumental in the implementation of its “Zero and Beyond” safety program designed to eliminate workplace injuries and its “Quest for Zero” process-improvement program designed to, among other things, eliminate environmental waste while enhancing product quality.
labour, child labour, discrimination, general working conditions and other human rights.
We act responsibly in our decision making in order to make a positive contribution to the communities we work in. HEG is committed to sustainable business practices and environmental protection, seeking to ensure that our activities do not have a detrimental effect on the environment and society. We aim to align our environmental and social responsibilities with our business strategies, operations and in the everyday world of the individual employee.
Despite the fact that NGOs have notoriously poor standards of governance themselves, the stakes for the corporate world in terms of reputation and profits are high. In addition, investors have their own increasing concerns. They may not want to invest in companies making or selling arms, alcohol or tobacco products, or mining coal. So-called
‘sin’ stocks may perform well in the short term. But from an investor perspective, investments in companies with environmentally or socially ‘harmful’ activities may leave them with exposure to companies with stranded assets, facing higher regulatory risks or declining sales.
This paper maintained that the way forward is to have more proactive European governments which address societal, environmental, governance and economic deficits. It reported how governments’ regulatory roles with stakeholders are intrinsically based on relational frameworks with civil society and commercial entities. Governments have a vital role to play in improving on the environmental and social practices of business and industries operating from their country (Camilleri, 2015). This case study has reported how regulatory changes in certain EU countries involve the efficient and timely reporting of non-financial performance of corporate business. It indicated that ESG reporting is primarily aimed at the larger businesses rather than SMEs. Undoubtedly, the EU is acting as a driver of CSR policy. To a certain extent, it is providing structured compliance procedures. On the other hand, national regulatory authorities are expected to explain their strategic objectives to business stakeholders and NGOs. The CSR practices and their measurement, their reporting and audit should be as clear and understandable as possible for businesses. Very often, the European governments’ reporting standards and guidelines are drawn from the international reporting instruments (e.g. GRI, Compact, ISO, SA and AA). Nevertheless, it must be recognised that there are different businesses out there which consist of various ownership structures, sizes and clienteles. In addition, there are many stakeholder influences which may possibly affect the firms’ level of social and environmental engagement.
Ritu is a Director and Senior Advisor in the ESG team. She joined Actis in 2006 and has over twenty years of experience working within the industry on environmental and social issues. Ritu has worked with the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation and established the European affiliate of a leading Indian organisation, The Energy and Resources Institute in 2000. Ritu holds a BA and an MA in Economics from Delhi University, and an MSC in Economics from the London School of Economics. She has specialised in Environmental Economics from Harvard School of International Studies and has experience in implementing labour standards in developing countries.
In Europe, our corporate impact program has focused on generating social value through product donations. In partnership with donor partner In Kind Direct, in 2020 SharkNinja donated several pallets of Shark and Ninja products to 374 charities across the UK. The 347 charities included over 100 community groups, 60 children’s charities and over 40 charities that support people with disabilities. The total estimated retail value of the distributed products is approximately £28,000. Of the 347 charities receiving SharkNinja donations. The Oak Foundation, which supports children and adults with disabilities, has provided Shark products to their staff to support with cleaning their community centres, and a range of Ninja smoothie makers have been provided to parents of disabled children to help with mealtimes. The Caxton House Community Centre, which is a community hub in North London, also received a range of Shark and Ninja products that have been used to support intergenerational cooking classes. In addition to our donor partnership with In Kind Direct, the London Eco Committee donated 32 pairs of football boots to Chisitu in Malawi to support the sporting dreams of children in the local community.
History does not repeat itself but we can learn from it in current times of economic and environmentalgovernance turmoil. Originating from religious and moral considerations, Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) evolved in the wake of sociopolitical deficiencies, legislative compulsion and corporate social responsibility. As part of human nature, social responsibility guides corporate activities and financial considerations. In the global rise of financial social conscientiousness, differing national legislations and regulatory traditions have led to various SRI practices, which are harmonized by the United Nations (UN) (Puaschunder, 2010). The societal demand for imbuing social responsibility in economic markets has risen steadily in recent decades due to globalization and socio-political trends. In the aftermath of the 2008/09 World Financial Crisis, the call for social responsibility in financial markets climaxed. The announcement of the recapitalization of the banking system in October 2008 created a need for reconsideration of social responsibility in a newly defined finance world. Novel sources of economic tension make ethical, environmental, social and governance- oriented investments appear as more stable investment option to deal with global imbalances and other structural problems.