I normally don’t read corporate sustainability reports, and even if I did, I’d hesitate to review one. But when I saw the ShoreBank Pacific 2007-2008 Sustainability Report and Integrated Financials (“Report”) in my inbox, I resolved to suppress my habit. My motivation: I was curious because I’ve been watching ShoreBank Pacific for a while.
The bank’s mission is to “profitably assist businesses, and through them their communities, to be sustainable in economic, social, and environmental practices.” It makes loans to “for the specific purpose of improving the health and vitality of our communities and strengthening the rural-to-urban economic link within the Northwest.” To that end, the bank uses the Natural Step framework to evaluate the long-term impact of each customer’s business on the world around it, i.e. not only a company’s financial but also social and environmental aspects.
What does a triple-bottom line bank say about its sustainability efforts in the middle of a recession which originated in finance?
The Report is only the second accounting of the bank’s sustainability practices and accomplishments. Written in accordance with the Global Reporting Initiative framework, it is an internal self-assessment, unverified by any third party (self-reporting is one of the reasons I avoid corporate reports). The Report compares the 2007-2008 period with the previous 2006 period, detailing the bank’s efforts, accomplishments, and improvements in the areas of
- governance – who’s who
- buildings – 2 out of 3 are LEED certified
- services – primarily banking and consulting for sustainable businesses and nonprofits
- business – the financial performance summary indicates the bank is doing well, save for some non-performing assets
- sector focus – the bank focuses on fishing, agriculture, energy, and building and building materials
- Mission Assessment Program – visual evaluation of customers’ improvements (+5%) as well as a self-evaluation (+12%)
- carbon impact of operations and environmental initiatives and policies – the Planet bottom line (travel, energy, office operations, waste management, built environment, and more)
- community – Community Reinvestment Act-rated involvement
- employees – composition, compensation (both getting gender-balanced), training, development, benefits
- communications - primarily the EcoNotes newsletter
- partners
- financials – more detailed look at the bank’s finances
The Report also highlights a number of the bank’s customers and their efforts in sustainability, and profiles the bank’s “Science Officer” (sustainability officer) Kathleen Sayce.
The bank does have a lot to show for itself in terms of sustainability. Its systemic view of business should be a model, and I’m glad to see it highlighted in case study after case study. It measures and accounts for its own and its customers’ efforts and accomplishments. It makes money, works to limit its environmental impact, and benefits its community. It’s a change agent, which works to continually improve its triple-bottom line.
In addition to sustainability, the bank knows its marketing (corporate-speak is another reason why I rarely read corporate communications like reports). As can be expected, the Report’s language is positive and upbeat, though thankfully without being annoyingly back-patting. The Report highlights only the good stuff in detail, while shortcomings are presented as generalized opportunities, as in “We recognize that we have areas for improvement, and welcome the challenge of becoming a more sustainable company.”
Admirably, the Report states it “isn’t only about highlighting what we are doing well, but perhaps more importantly, what areas need improvement.” However, in contrast to 20 or so pages of detailed information and hard data about past performance, the goals for the 2009-2010 reporting period are summarized in a single-page table with scant metrics. It seems the bank will only compare its accomplishments from period to period and not against measurable objectives. Perhaps a good alternative would be to state the objectives next to the accomplishments rather than separating the two.
Of course, there’s only so much a company can or should say about its inner workings. Yet only one other Portland company’s sustainability report has crossed my desk – New Seasons Market’s short Sustainability: Walking our talk, Progress to Date – 2009 – which, in a city whose economic development strategy seeks to “build the most sustainable economy in the world”, is a bit underwhelming. (If you know of any other sustainability reports by Portland-based companies, please post the links in comments.) The mere publication of the Report is, therefore, a good thing.
Have you read this report? What do you think? How does it stack up against other sustainability reports? And, how do triple-bottom line companies’ sustainability reports compare with traditional companies’ sustainability reports?
