Sinopec Sustainability Report. Different, but Good
September 16th, 2008 by Rich
When writing the post The Difficulty of Evaluating CSR Reports, I had not begun reading Sinopec’s 2007 Sustainability Report.
Had I, I would have had another example of just how wide the spectrum can be.
Using the image below as a start, for Sinopec, sustainability for them is about 3 things :improving the financial value of the firm, improving human capital,and improving the environment. There are none of the pictures of executives helping children read or plant trees, and what “kids and babies” angles they did through into this went into the back
What they did cover, often, was corruption and how they had programs to deal with that, and they had programs that supported the development of their employees and their families. It was like reading a state owned enterprise guidebook at time as I began to see that Sinopec’s angle on this document was not only honest.. it was holistic in many regards.
As an assessment under traditional means Sinopec’s report as a pure environmental report was not complete. they failed to mention many of the key programs I would have hope to see from an oil firm, and what programs they have are pretty thin at best. I thought that there would have been more mention on R&D related to clean technologies - like a BP - or that there would be some discussion around their process to clean up their supply chain. However, neither happened
However, by taking their view of sustainability out to a position of where a traditional CSR report is positioned it did force me to think about how different parties view sustainability in different ways. Surely everyone can admit that the system is not a perfect one, but what I found almost amusing in my second read was that Sinopec had some of the best statistics (and presentation of their statistics), unlike many firms that bury or hide numbers with in reports.
Where I would recommend this report for readers is to spend some time thinking about how China and the West see sustainability from a cultural perspective and how this highlights that gap. It is not necessarily a bad thing that Sinopec took this route in their report, and I do appreciate seeing their view, but if they need to really work on their supporting information for next year so that we can see just what it is they are doing.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 16th, 2008 at 5:19 pm and is filed under Civil Society, Environment, Governance & Policy, Health & Safety, Labor & Management, Supply Chain, Sustainable Development, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
April 26th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Learned today that the different fungicides and other agricultural crop science products that Bayer sell are almost 4 times more expensive than their competitors.
Learned today that all of Bayer Crop Sciences’ products ‘dissolve’ (if that is the right word) within 6 months of use (i.e. leave no chemical residue).
Learned today that even in very poor parts of the countryside there is still some demand for Bayer’s products, because some farmers recognise the benefits (to the crops as well as to the environment) of using the more environmentally friendly product.
interesting…
NB: this was not learned at a Bayer press conference, but through a conversation with a rural farmer selling crop products!
April 26th, 2008 at 5:10 am
Adam,
Interesting insights.
I learned that manure smells like Sh*T. Learned that from the fields near our schools today as well
If you read Omnivore’s Dilemma (reviewed last week), you will learn that manure is actually the best stuff if used as part of a natural process. Bayer may dissolve, but what does it add to the soil is my question? Should farmers be chemically addicted, or should they develop natural methods of crop rotation, fertilization, and water utilization?
R
April 27th, 2008 at 10:29 am
[...] Crossroads China. Vote for this article in social media: [...]