Figure20 - NNE Pharmaplan, the ten principles of the UNGC in a 'NNE context'
Figure 21 - NNE Pharmaplan, the ten UNGC principles in a 'NNE context' – cont.
Figure 22 - EAC describes how CSR is anchored and managed in their organisation
Figure 23 - ISS on CSR Governance
Figure 24 - ALK, CSR governance - integrated part of human resources
Appendix 7.6
Appraisal/Incentive systems
Figure 25 - ISS on appraisal and reward of employees
Figure 26 - Carlsberg on introduction of appraisal procedures
Appendix 7.7
Systems for translating policies into actions
Figure 27 - Extract from Danfoss' COP report, description of the relevant tools for ensuring implementation of principle 1 in the UNGC
Figure 28 - EAC matrix over policies, systems and actions
Figure 29 - NNE Pharmaplan, description of the systems in place to ensure human rights compliance
Figure 30 - Energi Danmark, description of their CoC /CSR policy- the system in place for ensuring compliance
Figure 31 - Egmont presents the purpose of its CoC - the system in place for translating policies to actions
Figure 32 - Hydro Aluminium, systems and policies regarding labour and human rights issues, framed as a Q&A, which allows for the inclusion of dilemmas
Figure 33 – BHJ's (part of risk group) reference to the system they have in place: their Code of Conduct
Figure 34 - Nordjysk Elhandel description of Code of Conduct, their system for translating policies into actions
Appendix 7.8
Reporting – use of GRI
Figure 35 - NNE Pharmaplan reports according to the GRI indicators
Figure 36 - ISS Global reporting according to the GRI indicators
Figure 37 - Vandcenter Syd reporting according to the GRI indicators
Figure 38 - Cheminova's reporting according to GRI
Figure 39 - Cheminova reports according to GRI, and explains the level of application
Appendix 7.9
Reporting – extent and nature of disclosure
Figure 40 - Danfoss elaborates on the dilemmas and issues they encounter in terms of labour and human rights
Figure 41 - ALK reports on number of accidents
Figure 42 - ISS reporting and elaborating on fatalities
Figure 43 - Carlsberg on room for improvement and inadequate results
Figure 44 - Cheminova on the dilemmas and challenges of their industry
Figure 45 - DSV on Occupational accidents and absence
Figure 46 - EAC on occupational health & safety, and an explanation to the increase
Figure 47 - Vandcenter on occupational increase in occupational accidents, including description of focus on near-accidents to prevent future accidents
Figur 48 - Barslund reports on 0 incidents of discrimination
Figure 49 - Arla reports on diversity in terms of gender and age
Figure 50 - EAC reports on % covered by collective bargaining
Figure 51 - Carlsberg reporting on % covered by collective bargaining agreements
Figure 52 - Hydro reports on No known instances of corruption or human rights violations
Appendix 8
Presentation of interviewed companies
Company A consist of two businesses: one working in only in Venezuela and the other one in Europe, Australia and Asia. The interview primarily centred on the one in Venezuela. Due to the highly socialist society of Venezuela they are forced to take on a highly socialistic approach to working conditions, working hours, collective bargaining etc. The risk of not doing this is that employees will simply refuse to work, and ultimately the Government will take over the business.
Thus, despite the fact that Company A did not articulate a human rights or labour policy before 2008 when they joined the UNGC, it is something they have been working with for a long time, due to the political and cultural context of their business. The two businesses of Company A are highly labour intensive, and has approximately 5000 blue-collar labours (out of 6500) working in
agriculture, production facilities, loading and unloading of trucks, transportation etc. – all jobs that are physically wearing. Thus, ensuring decent working conditions and standards are the primary focus areas in terms of human rights.
Company B works in the insecticide and pesticide industry and is thus, by virtue of their industry risks often under pressure and observation from external stakeholders. The company has worked systematically with CSR and reporting since 2006 but argues that the principles have always been a part of their mindset when doing business. The company does not work specifically with human rights but rather define these as working conditions and safety. Point of departure is taken in the dilemmas of their industry, on which the CSR policy is based. It is however stated in their CSR report that ‘procedures for ensuring human rights’ are in place, which through the interview was clarified as human rights being integrated into their quality control and CSR manual. Company B primarily serves the agricultural sector with its pesticides and insecticide, and emphasises its
contribution to the world’s food supply, which they perceive as their primary contribution to human rights. Thus, their core business area is fulfilling human rights and enabling people to get a decent living, yet this goes beyond merely respecting as prescribed by Ruggie’s framework and will therefore not be included as part of their human rights work in this context.
Company C is a global supplier of transportation and logistics services, and is composed by three business segments. Their CSR work has expanded in line with the company growing bigger, and in
2010 the CSR policy was revised and put into system. This also included the development of a specific human rights and labour policy, which is today implemented by 80% of their company. The development of Company C’s CSR activities has been much in line with the demands of their customers, which has resulted in a shift from primarily focusing on environmental figures to take on a broader scope for CSR. The company joined the UNGC in 2009.
Finally, Company D works in the shipping industry and is composed by four sub-units. The company has earlier in 2011 signed the UNGC and established CSR function, and is currently working on determining the scale and scope of their activities. Health, safety and security issues on board the ships are inherent and integrated issues to consider in the shipping industry. The company has therefore, prior to the CSR systematization they are currently working on, always worked explicitly with this in order to live up to industry standards.
Appendix 9
KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2011
Appendix 10
International Integrated Reporting Committee, 2011