Last class we spoke about the World Economic Forum that takes place in Davos, Switzerland, during which Corporate Knights released their annual “Global 100” list of “the world’s most sustainable companies.” Among the 14 measures they consider when making this list, one aspect is diversity in the workplace. Many people, including myself, often define sustainability strictly by the environmental aspects of this word, i.e. has the company significantly reduced their annual greenhouse gas emissions? or have they implemented take back policies to reduce the waste in the post-use portion of the consumption process? We immediately jump to environmental sustainability and forget to include other important aspects such as diversity, employee turnover, or even injury rate. Sustainability, through it’s many definitions, is without doubt the concept of “the endurance of systems and processes. (Wikipedia)” While we often consider this system to be the environmental well being of the planet, systems can be found in every workplace or industry, and those systems rely on a variety of measures. This is how Cisco found itself at number three on the Global 100 list. Not because of their waste reduction (though they likely did that too), but primarily as a result of the fact that “38% of their senior executives are women” compared to an average of 21%. The Global 100 list is one of the few of these types of lists to put so much weight on aspects such as diversity and pension payments. Overall, the Global 100 measurement system sticks true to the word ‘sustainability’ with its extensive variety of definitions and factors. Perhaps there are drawbacks to widening this definition, but as was mentioned in class we should be applauding the incremental efforts, regardless of what sector of sustainability they fall under.
Interesting and insightful viewpoint. I agree with the fact that there are multiple perspectives we can take when looking at the actual definition of sustainability, but I don’t think it’s that we (as both product consumers and sustainability students) define sustainability in a narrow scope. Rather, I think that we often overlook some of the other definitions that “sustainability” entails. It is because as an outsider to a company, we see what the brand wants us to see (or in some cases, what others expose). This oftentimes reflects only the environmental aspects of the product/service, and not the actual composition of the corporation’s employment. Having said that, it is refreshing to see such a large and influential company like Cisco take the initiative and strides to improve diversity in the workplace, and actually consider other aspects of being a sustainable company.
It’s very true what you said about only seeing what the brand wants us to see. Often times this only seems to include environmental aspects of sustainability, but it’s exciting that the corporate knights choose to take into account many aspects of a companies operations.
I came across the Corporate Knights Global 100 list when searching for “sustainable companies” I might like to work at for Co-op or even after graduation. When starting my first blog post I revisited the list and was surprised to see companies like Coca-Cola, Adidas, and Loral on the upper half of the list. In class, we have talked about how Coke “greenwashes” because although they have some sustainability initiatives the core of their company profits off consumerism and produces billions of plastic bottles. I really like your analysis of the Global 100 list. No company is perfect but we have to remember sustainability has a broad definition and there are multiple things to consider when evaluating how sustainable a company is.
Exactly! Though we may see Coca Cola as a company that is greenwashing based on their environmental pursuits, they may in fact have other aspects of sustainability that outperform the companies we aren’t seeing on the Global 100 list.