Influencing Power - WWF UK

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ContentsAcknowledgementsPublication Details3446688891010101414161819191920Executive Summary1.0 Introduction1.1 Benchmarking Corporate Lobbying1.2 The Scale of Corporate Lobbying1.3 Background to Lobbying andCorporate Responsibility2.0 Our Approach2.1 Scope of the Project2.2 Method2.3 Limitations3.0 Results and Findings3.1 Transparency is Increasingly Accepted3.2 Key Drivers3.3 Disconnects3.4 What Gets Covered and Why3.5 A Common Approach3.6 Recommendations4.0 Where Next?4.1 Creating Competitive Advantages4.2 Third Generation Lobbying4.3 Final WordWe are extremely grateful to the severalindividuals who reviewed Influencing Power,providing thoughtful and challengingfeedback. The report has benefited greatlyfrom their input, and any outstandingerrors of fact or judgement are ours alone.Our sincere appreciation to:Robin Aram, External Relations, Policyand Social Responsibility, Royal Dutch /Shell; Mike Barry, Head of CR, Marksand Spencer; Philippe Blanchard,Managing Director Public Affairs, Hilland Knowlton Brussels; Shelly Fennell;André Fourie, Chief Executive, NationalBusiness Initiative South Africa;Matt Gorman, BAA; Professor R.H. Gray,Centre for Social and EnvironmentalAccounting Research, University of StAndrews; Adrian Henriques, MiddlesexUniversity; Jane Leavens, Assistant Director,UK Department for Trade & Industry;Professor Jean-Pierre Lehmann, IMD /The Evian Group; Jiggy Lloyd, formerDirector of Sustainable Development atAWG; Alex MacGillivray, Senior Associate,AccountAbility; Michael Massey;Paul Monaghan, Head of SustainableDevelopment, Co-operative FinancialServices; Professor Tim O’Riordan,Professor of Environmental Sciences,University of East Anglia; Liz Umlas,Senior Research Analyst, KLD Research &Analytics, Inc.; and Allen White, VicePresident and Senior Fellow, Tellus Institute.Influencing Power:Reviewing the conduct andcontent of corporate lobbyingFirst Edition 2005ISBN 1-903168-14-7© 2005 SustainAbility Ltd and WWF UKAll rights reserved. No part of thispublication may be reproduced, stored in aretrieval system or transmitted in any formby any means, electronic, electrostatic,magnetic tape, photocopying, recording orotherwise, without permission in writingfrom the copyright holders.Any errors of fact or judgement are ours.If you detect any, please let us know.WritingSeb Beloe, SustainAbilityJules Peck, WWF-UKJodie Thorpe, SustainAbilityResearchKelly Cruickshank, SustainAbilityPhilippa Moore, SustainAbilityInformation DesignRupert Bassett+44 (0)7958 629290We would also like to express particularappreciation to Bruce Freed, Center forPolitical Accountability; Steve Lippman,Vice President of Social Research andAdvocacy; Trillium Asset Managementand Daniel E. Rosan, Program For PublicHealth, The Interfaith Center on CorporateResponsibility who provided insightsinto the US perspective.In addition, there were several individualsfrom SustainAbility and WWF-UK whoprovided input and feedback. Our thanksgo to:Yasmin Crowther, Tom Delfgaauw,John Elkington, Jeff Erikson,Mark Lee, Dax Lovegrove, Geoff Lye,Sally Nicholson, David Norman,Sophia Tickell and Peter Zollinger.
Influencing Power3Executive SummaryThis report describes the results of aSustainAbility and WWF research project toreview how 100 of the world’s largestcompanies report on their lobbyingpractices. Our objective was to assesscorporate transparency on lobbying andpublic policy behaviour, and the degree towhich reported activities align with corebusiness values, particularly when it comesto influencing governments on keycorporate responsibility issues, such asclimate change and human rights.Benchmarking Corporate LobbyingThis report is very much a work in progresson this agenda and follows on from our2000 publication, Politics and Persuasion,produced in partnership with the Omnicomlobbying firm Government PolicyConsultants (GPC). Where the 2000 reportmade the then bold claim that corporateresponsibility practices should be explicitlylinked with a company’s lobbying andpublic policy activities, this report looks athow a cross-section of businesses hassubsequently responded to the challenge oftransparency and reporting in this area.The report ranks how 100 major companiesnow report on lobbying and its relationshipto their core business — from the provisionof no information, through to basic,developing, systematic and integratedreporting. While the methodology revealedthat over 50% (51) of our sample achievedat least a basic rating and that a handful ofcorporate reports make it into thesystematic category — BASF, BP, Chevron,Dow, Ford, General Motors,GlaxoSmithKline and HP — no high scoreswere without issue or qualification. Widerresearch and the process of independentreview raised several questions with regardto the consistency of wider corporatelobbying activities that may not have madeit into their formal corporate responsibilityreport.For instance, while Ford and GeneralMotors may have high levels oftransparency and a growing sophisticationin reporting their lobbying activities, theystill actively resist controls on greenhousegas emissions via sponsorship of theirindustry trade group. Similarly, whileGlaxoSmithKline may report on theexcellent work it is doing on access policiesfor essential drugs in developing countries,it is also a major member of PhRMA, whoseposition on intellectual property rights isstrongly criticised by HIV/AIDS policyexperts.Transparency and ConsistencyInconsistent approaches to corporatelobbying — saying different things todifferent people via different parties — areunlikely to be tenable for the long term.Legislative developments and growinginterest from shareholder activists andNGOs, plus internal aspirations for greateralignment, are likely to drive change. Beingseen to conduct lobbying activities in waysthat are transparent and consistent withcore business — and wider societal — valueswill be essential to re-establish trust with avariety of stakeholder groups. Based onemerging good practices within ourresearch group, the report makesrecommendations on how companies canconsider and evolve their current approachto responsible lobbying and influence.Third Generation LobbyingAlthough our research finds thattransparency around lobbying isincreasingly accepted, most companiesstrike an overwhelmingly defensive tone —asserting their right to lobby and theirpositions on particular issues. This approachwe characterise as ‘second generation’corporate responsibility. Here, the maindriver is risk management, and transparencyand consistency in lobbying are promotedprimarily as a way of minimisingreputational risk to the business.In contrast a ‘third generation’ approachwould view corporate responsibility as astrategic differentiator and recognise thepotential for lobbying to help drive strongersocial and environmental policy frameworksin support of core business. A fewcompanies show indications of evolving thisapproach, such as the support IBM andPhilips give to waste recycling, or the verypublic stance that the Corporate LeadersGroup on Climate Change took inencouraging UK Prime Minister Tony Blairto pursue more aggressive policies onclimate change. However these initiatives,while welcome, are largely underminedwhere other lobbying activities appear toreflect a ‘first’ or ‘second generation’attitude. The overall impact is contradictionand inconsistency, communicating a senseof hidden agendas and stories only halftold.Shortly before this report went to print, itseemed apt that there should be mediacoverage of the role ExxonMobil hasplayed in helping frame the USadministration’s position on climatechange, 1 as well as alleged inconsistenciesbetween BP’s position as a member of theCorporate Leaders Group on ClimateChange and its lobbying activities inWashington DC. 2 It seems unlikely thatthese are exceptional instances in theblurred and complex relationships betweenbusiness and government. The shift towardstransparency and consistency in thepractice, reporting and disclosure ofcorporate lobbying appears to have onlyjust begun.Three Generations of Corporate Responsibility and LobbyingLobbyingFirst GenerationSecond GenerationThird GenerationState of CR‘CR as PR’CR as a way ofmanaging reputationor operational riskCR as strategicdifferentiatorRole of LobbyingLinks betweenlobbying and CRare rejectedTransparencyand consistencysupported primarilyas part ofreputational riskmanagementLobbying as anopportunity to drivestronger social andenvironmental policyin support of corebusinessFigure 0.1
Page 1: Influencing PowerReviewing the cond
Page 5 and 6: Influencing PowerIntroductionA Comp
Page 7 and 8: Influencing PowerIntroduction7Money
Page 9 and 10: Influencing PowerOur Approach2.3 Li
Page 11 and 12: Influencing PowerResults and Findin
Page 19 and 20: Influencing PowerWhere Next?Where N
Page 23 and 24: Influencing Power2334See, for examp

Influencing Power - WWF UK

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?