The 2010 Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations is a list of companies who have profited through the recognition and implementation of sustainable initiatives. Among the top 10 companies were the General Electric Company of the US and Unilever Plc of the UK. The rankings of the companies were determined by rating them on strategic governance, human capital/labour relations practices and environmental initiatives, among many other criteria. The question is, how have these companies utilised sustainable initiatives and what research and development have they used in the process?

Back in 2005, General Electric committed itself to utilising clean technologies and reducing their environmental footprint. Since then, a hybrid-engine train has been put into development, a state-of-the-art wind-turbine blade has been manufactured and a super-efficient washing machine and coal-gasification technology have seen the light of day. Meanwhile, the multinational corporation Unilever also demonstrated its commitment to investing in energy efficient power and steam generation technology and hence attempted to make headway towards reducing the energy intensity of its own manufacturing processes. In the past few years in Europe alone, Unilever has built CHP plants that generate electricity through utilising waste steam and hot water, while in Vietnam one Unilever factory utilises energy from the sun to preheat water for the generation of steam.

These sustainable initiatives have been put into place with the knowledge that going green is not just good for the environment, but good for business too. Both companies’ devotion to pioneering the next generation of clean, green technologies and to lowering emissions and enhancing energy efficiency could be described as being broad and ambitious yet it cannot be denied that the enthusiasm of these companies alone is worthy of them being placed in the top ten of the 2010 Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations. General Electric in particular should be noted for its pledge to double its investments in the research and development of environmentally-friendlier technologies. The total budget for research and development went from the $700m in 2004 to $1.5bn in 2010.

While Unilever Plc and General Electric have utilised several sustainable initiatives to date, there is still more that can be done. General Electric is committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by one percent and to improving energy efficiency by 30 percent by the year 2012. These sustainability targets were developed by General Electric with the aid of the World Resources Institute. In the not so distant future, Unilever’s ice cream freezer cabinets are set to be replaced with energy-efficient alternatives and the company plans to lessen indirect environmental impacts by educating both their customers and suppliers on the issue of sustainability. Furthermore, Unilever is committed to reducing the carbon intensity of their manufacturing operations by 25 percent by the year 2012. In its research, the company measures its manufactured goods against a total of four green indicators: greenhouse gas emissions, water, waste and sustainable sourcing. Research has shown that almost half of the volume of raw materials utilised by Unilever are derived from agricultural and forestry crops. Unilever has acted on this research to encourage the growers and suppliers of their products to comply with the Unilever guidelines for good agricultural practice.

General Electric and Unilever have benefited from implementing strong environmental policies.  These two companies have come to the realisation that they can use their global capabilities, market knowledge and technological leadership to aid in solving some of the world’s greatest challenges while making money in the process.

The celebration was designed to raise awareness of the issue of biodiversity the world over and to elevate awareness so that it will be closer to ranking as a top issue on the political agenda. The main targets of The International Year of Biodiversity 2010 include enhancing public awareness of the value of biodiversity conservation and of the threats to biodiversity, raising awareness of the steps already taken to conserve biodiversity, promoting solutions to lessen the impact of our activities on biodiversity, encouraging individuals, large and small corporations and governments to begin to reduce biodiversity loss where possible and to commence dialog between stakeholders in order for steps to reduce biodiversity loss to be taken sooner rather than later. What effect has the International Year of Biodiversity 2010 had on the attitudes of business executives, and how have these executives transformed their business models in response to environmental concerns?

Biodiversity was ranked as the tenth most vital environmental concern for industry representatives in a recent worldwide survey conducted by McKinsey & Company. In this survey, 64 percent of the 1,576 industry representatives considered biodiversity to be “somewhat important” on the corporate agenda. The majority of companies surveyed reported a positive outlook on biodiversity issues, with 59 percent of respondents claiming that their business has taken steps to reduce the impact of their actions on the environment. For celebrants of the International Year of Biodiversity 2010, this is welcome news.

It has been reported, however, that 59 percent of business executives view biodiversity as an opportunity rather than a risk. That said the majority of these respondents have begun to transform their business operations and make increased use of renewable resources with a view to reducing the impact on the environment. A total of 43 percent of respondents claim that they consider energy efficiency to be among the most important issues relating to biodiversity.

The results of the survey, conducted by McKinsey & Company, indicate that business executives are viewing the issue of biodiversity as being of greater importance than in the past. The results provide evidence to show that businesses are becoming increasing concerned over the issue of biodiversity and that this is affecting the way in which businesses operate. Furthermore, consumer surveys conducted by McKinsey & Company in 2008 showed that consumers would rather purchase products from environmentally-conscious businesses. In this survey, 90 percent of consumers claimed to hold the belief that large businesses should do more to reduce the impact of their activities on the environment. Consumers were therefore found to favour companies who had an outstanding reputation for reducing the impact of their activities on the environment.

The results of the industry survey may therefore go to show that business executives are making changes to the way in which their businesses operate as a result of increased awareness of the threats to biodiversity. It can hence be concluded that the International Year of Biodiversity 2010 has had an impact on the views of businesses. However, this is true of customers too. While consumers’ attitudes towards the environment can undoubtedly influence corporate agendas, it can also be said that changes in corporate agendas in response to biodiversity concerns can also influence businesses’ profit margins.

There has been an abundance of suicides amongst employees at the Foxconn factory in China which is responsible for making some of the most sophisticated Western gadgets, including iPads and iPhones. The blame for these suicides has been placed on the stressful working environment which has proved too much for those who have taken their own lives.

Foxconn has taken steps to be seen to be dealing with the problem. They have announced plans to provide more staff  benefits which will be directly linked to relieving stress amongst the factory’s employees. Their plan is to increase the leisure facilities which are available to staff. They are also recruiting counsellors who will be accessible by all staff.

However, they are also keen to distance themselves from liability. They have already asked all employees to sign a waiver which states that Foxconn is not to blame for the successful suicides of any staff members. The company is being proactive in a bid to avoid possible lawsuits from the families of those who have died. Given the insensitive nature of their response, though, they have faced a barrage of criticism in China for trying to cover themselves in such a blatant manner that they have effectively been forced to withdraw this line of defence.

There is a suggestion that the suicides have actually been planned as a result of the attractive ‘death on site’ bonus payable to the families of Foxconn employees in such an eventuality. Most employees earn the equivalent of £200 per month, but their families would receive a lump sum of £1,000 upon their death.  The cost of living is extraordinarily high in China and wages are very low.  This leads to working long hours, feeling isolated, morale hits rock bottom and desperation can set in. The suggestion is that individuals have made the ultimate sacrifice for their families. Reports have claimed that Foxconn is planning to increase the basic wage as a result.  Of course, they may also look to reduce the death in service benefit.

At present there is a never-ending supply of workers available to work for the newly-increased minimum wage. However, over-population in China led to the introduction of the one-child policy many years ago. Industry experts do not expect this pool of labour to reduce considerably in the coming years.

The introduction of a minimal pay rise by Foxconn will also put pressure on other international and multinational companies to follow suit since all too often companies base their production in China due to the cheap operating costs and cheap labour. Many  individuals working in electronics factories across China are experiencing ‘sweatshop’ conditions in respect of long working days and weeks, low pay, unsafe working conditions and discrimination. There is a code of conduct applicable to the electronics industry which is overseen by the EICC. Foxconn had signed up to this code of conduct and, as such, would have been audited and yet first hand reports suggest that the working conditions in the factory are unacceptable. Big name brands and suppliers will have to act by investing money in their associated workforces to ensure that working conditions are improved and wages are increased. Only then will change truly be effected in China.

As such there is an abundance of employers cutting their losses and cutting a cheque to each employee for the accrued funds to date. This leaves employees looking for a private pension fund or an alternative method to saving for that elusive retirement.

The choice of whether or not to continue an employee pension scheme has been a very real and costly quandary for many businesses in recent years. When revenue fails to meet the associated costs with running a scheme, many businesses have opted to freeze their schemes. Even a rise in profits is often not enough to keep up with the demand of offering a scheme for all employees. After all, the take up may be minimal in the first year a scheme is in operation but a company must be able to fund its contributions if all employees take up the scheme. They also must be able to see this commitment through. The choice, however, can come down to ceasing a pension scheme or redundancies. Many individuals do not consider the risks involved in a company pension scheme. In fact, many do not scrutinise the scheme as much as they should – choosing to trust the choice their employers have made.

The freezing of a company pension scheme will entitle each member of the scheme to keep the funds they have accrued to that date, but the scheme will not earn any more. Most people choose to transfer their pension scheme at this stage but it is often difficult to find a scheme which will offer comparable benefits. For those who are nearing retirement age it can be incredibly difficult to recoup their losses.

The difficulties are being felt everywhere. Research conducted by KPMG has found that a third of pension schemes operated by blue chip companies are currently drastically underfunded. Profits have been knocked by the global economic crisis which has had an effect on these firms’ ability to pay out on final salary schemes. Deficits are such that, according to KPMG’s research, one in three blue chip firms are unable to “payoff deficits in any realistic time frame from discretionary cash flow.”

KPMG’s Pensions Partner, Mike Smedley, believes that the solution lies in bolstering the business of these companies. This will, in turn, strengthen the economy and the ability of these businesses to continue to host these pension schemes for their employees. He recommends against FTSE businesses refusing to pay out dividends due to pension payouts. Mr Smedley commented: “If a business says to its shareholders we’re not going to pay any dividends until we’ve met our pensions deficit, their share price probably collapses, the banks won’t lend to them, they can’t invest in the business and then they might struggle to make the profit to fund the pension scheme – potentially.”

President Nicolas Sarkozy has come
under fire for his repatriation scheme affecting hundreds of Roma Gypsies whose
camps have been shut down. The French
government has defended their position as moving the Roma population on from
deplorable conditions in a “decent and humane” manner. They have also stated that travellers’ camps
were often the source of illegal activity such as drug trafficking and the
“exploitation of children for begging, prostitution and crime.”  Of course, under treaties signed by Member States, all citizens have the right of non-restrictive travel within the European Union.

What was originally the free movement of workers has evolved, through community law, into the free movement of persons as the right of all European citizens.

Many of those moved on have stated their intention to return to France as there are simply no jobs in Romania. However, despite the freedom of movement throughout Europe, French law actually requires individuals from the Roma travelling community to be in possession of a work permit. They also must be able to prove an ability to support themselves financially in order to be allowed to stay for more than three months. Those affected have reported the difficulty the Roma community have in obtaining these permits.

So, given that workers should have free
movement within EU countries, is Sarkozy’s removal of the Roma population, or
the requirement placed upon them to obtain permits, in contravention to this EU
legislation? Well, further clarification is needed regarding the free movement
of workers and, in particular, what the term ‘worker’ actually means. There have been many challenges to this
legislation resulting in its development as interpreted by European Court of
Justice case law. What was originally the
free movement of workers has evolved, through community law, into the free
movement of persons as the right of all European citizens.

With
regards to Article 39 of the EC Treaty, which allows an EU national to leave
their country of birth to undertake employment in another EU country, there are
some responsibilities and restrictions. The classification of a worker is someone who
is paid for working under someone else. The work must be effective and genuine. However, there are restrictions to members of
countries who joined the EU in recent years. The Roma population originate from Romania and
Bulgaria who joined the EU on January 1, 2007. Their movement throughout other
European countries can be restricted for a maximum period of seven years during
the transition of the accession to the EU. These measures were introduced by the existing states in order to protect and preserve their labour markets.

It has
been this enlargement of the EU which has resulted
in the need for further governmental responses in relation to Employment Law. The position adopted by the UK has changed as
the number of member states have increased. Workers
are now requested to register in the UK under the Workers’ Registration Scheme. While this is not a requirement, it is
in the interests of the individual to do so as registration unlocks entitlement
to social housing and particular in-work employee benefits. An individual registers based on their current
employment in the UK. As such, the
registration is nullified as soon as employment with that employer ceases.

There
is also protection for migrant workers travelling within the EU. Particular attention is paid to both direct
and indirect discrimination based on an individual’s nationality. Workers can also work between EU states for
the same employer, but there is responsibilities placed on the employee to be
respectful towards the labour standards of each country they are working in.