By Stephen Hall, Senior Staff Writer

So Copenhagen was, shall we say, underwhelming. But here’s a new decade and many will keep the faith that business can make the difference and lead the progress toward sustainability. Plenty of companies have expressed good intentions, but maybe it’s time to look at something more concrete.

Look at Nike. Here is a brand that has had, and for some still does have, image problems. It announced its corporate responsibility report for 2007-09 in January.

“Sustainability is key to Nike’s growth and innovation,” proclaimed Nike president and CEO Mark Parker. Accordingly, the report is teeming with aims such as achieving zero waste in the supply chain, being ahead of the curve on governance and energy price increases, and using a web-based marketplace to share sustainable innovations.

Nike claims it cut 4% emissions from its supply chain between 2008 and 2009. However, unlike many other companies whose reductions corresponded with the shrinking business, Nike maintained, admittedly weak, growth throughout the period.  

While this is undoubtedly a minor triumph, its strategy is unusual in several ways. The company has no reduction targets. It also recently made the decision to stop purchasing carbon offsets.

A negative way of looking at this would be to say that these cuts are sufficient to help the brand turn a corner towards a more positive image. By setting themselves fewer targets, the company is able to dismiss any failures or indiscretions as it will be accountable only to itself.

But is that enough?

On one hand, sustainability undoubtedly slipped down the agenda for some during tough times in the economy and companies like Nike that have kept up the pressure should be recognised.

On the other, as recovery very gradually spreads over the Eurozone and the US, how companies respond to the challenge of increasing production whilst maintaining or even reducing those recession-period emission levels will be crucial.

If a few years down the line the majority of companies are able to back up their boasts about sustainability with consistent cuts, there’ll be clear evidence as to which schemes work, whether carbon offsetting and targets are necessary to drive transformation or whether the demand for ‘green goods’ alone is enough.

This then, I’d argue, is a tipping point.

It may or may not be a match made in heaven but the acquisition of Cadbury by Kraft has already lit the blue touch paper over fears that the English company’s approach to CSR may not be shared by its new owner.

Cadbury has long traded on its strong ethical code, and hit the headlines last year when it announced plans to use only fair-trade cocoa beans in its Daily Milk bars.

Now the Fairtrade Foundation has begun talks with Cadbury’s executives in an attempt to establish whether the company’s agreement to purchase all it cocoa beans for Dairy Milk from fairtrade sources will continue.

“The Fairtrade Foundation and Cadbury have a shared vision for the future, and there are contractual commitments in place, which will form part of any intellectual property transfer between Cadbury and Kraft in any takeover,” read a statement from the Foundation following the announcement of the acquisition.

For its part, Kraft has also invested heavily in its cocoa suppliers in the Ivory Coast, and its UK corporate affairs director, Jonathan Horrell, recently confirmed to the Guardian that the company planned to maintain Cadbury’s contracts with the Fairtrade Foundation.

Kraft Food’s executive vice president, procurement, Julia Brown, also outlined the increasingly important role that sustainability was playing in the company’s sourcing strategy.

“We have a very strong focus on sustainability and protecting the planet,” said Brown. “Given that so much of what we buy is agriculturally based, it’s about how you preserve the land and preserve the planet for the future.

“We’re not only keeping on eye on that (sustainability) in terms of what we’re doing but in terms of what our suppliers are doing. We try to partner with those that have pretty robust sustainability goals and targets.”

Those sentiments would surely have the approval of those involved in Cadbury’s sustainability operations - although whether Kraft has done enough sweet-talking to calm ongoing fears over its future plans remain to be seen.

Unilever has dumped one of its palm oil suppliers following the publication of a Greenpeace report that cast doubt on the ethical record of Indonesian company PT Smart.

The news, which follows a troubled year for the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, of which Unilever is a member, was described as “unnerving” by the pressure group, which also called on Nestle and Procter & Gamble to take positive action against irresponsible suppliers.

For its part Unilever said that the allegations outlined in the report were “far too serious” for it to ignore.

Despite Unilever’s swift response, Greenpeace claimed that the RSPO was still doing little to tackle the threat of deforestation and other associated threats related to palm oil production.

“The aim of the group is to create clear standards for producing sustainable palm oil but at present these standards are far too weak to ensure that forests and peatlands are not destroyed to meet growing demand for palm oil,” a statement read.

The RSPO attracted widespread criticism back in November  when it opted not to include greenhouse gas emissions standards as part of its criteria for ‘sustainable’ palm oil.

Kenneth Richter, a biofuels campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said that the decision proved that palm oil was not a sustainable biofuel option.

“…palm oil producers have themselves answered the question of whether palm oil can be a sustainable biofuel – with a resounding no,” said Richter.

Richard Edwards

The current financial crisis is placing companies under an obligation to focus on the social side of corporate responsibility – that’s the view of the head of sustainability at one of the UK’s largest utility companies.

According to a study by the Institute of Credit Management, two-thirds of businesses saw at least one customer attempt to extend credit terms in the final quarter of 2008. Kieran Brocklebank, sustainable supply chains manager at United Utilities, believes that companies should be working with their suppliers in a mutually beneficial manner to help ward off the worst effects of the credit crunch.

“We need to make sure we’re not disadvantaging our suppliers in terms of paying invoices on time,” he told Sustainable Sourcing. “If they deliver products and services on time then we pay on time – it really is that simple.”

British Gas, John Lewis and Asda are just three high profile companies to sign-up to a new voluntary prompt payment code, and more could follow after the UK government threatened to “name and shame” those companies that withheld payment beyond the terms of their existing agreements. It is, however, a two way process.

“The end-to-end process involves a lot of people and a lot of different departments,” Brocklebank says. “We can only pay them on time if they present their invoices correctly. At present, we’re running a number of compliance campaigns, both with our internal buyers and our suppliers. We have identified those suppliers that we’ve failed to pay on time and some were significantly disadvantaged. We’re now working through the whole process with them in order to speed up payment.”

Alliance Boots was one of a number of companies that came in for heavy criticism in late 2008 after announcing plans to extend its payment terms to 75 days from the end of an invoice. “The practice of large retailers – in particular – abusing their buying power continues to have a very negative impact on smaller businesses,” said Phil Orford, chief executive of the Forum of Private Business (FPB).