The truth is an inconvenience when it comes between public companies and threats to their share prices.
This being the case, anyone with a concern for the environment and a brain between their ears should give David Jones’ annual report’s spin on its environmental conduct extremely short shrift.
A retailer, by definition, sells to the public at an inflated price the products it buys from others. They are the last seller in the chain of supply. That is the “business”, as it is where the money changes hands and from which it makes its profit.
David Jones claims in its annual report to have “developed a whole-of-business environment strategy that aims to [enhance its] ability to protect shareholder value”.
Yet, over time, it has made an investment, a very big investment, in developing as a science the art of selecting, buying, displaying and taking money for the products of others.
And nowhere does this portrayal of its alleged “whole-of-business” strategy actually address this.
If there is no hard evidence produced of any requirements it makes of the suppliers of those products that ensures they are produced in a manner which is environmentally sustainable, it can hardly be accounting on a “whole-of-business” basis.
Such a statement that does not bring clarity on this truth can only be misleading, if not purposefully deceptive.
But, it does not want this inconvenient fact getting in the way of its claims of being an environmentally responsible trader.
That also puts to the test reassurances offered to investors in the company’s risk policy, which says: “Material risks are those with significant areas of uncertainty or exposure at an enterprise level that could have an impact on the achievement of company objectives ... David Jones considers risk in at least the following categories … brand and reputation [and] sustainability.”
What about deceiving readers? Is that not also a risk? After all, a corporate statement built on at least one misstatement of fact might also be found wanting in others. And if you’re an investor, that could be the biggest risk of all.
This being the case, anyone with a concern for the environment and a brain between their ears should give David Jones’ annual report’s spin on its environmental conduct extremely short shrift.
A retailer, by definition, sells to the public at an inflated price the products it buys from others. They are the last seller in the chain of supply. That is the “business”, as it is where the money changes hands and from which it makes its profit.
David Jones claims in its annual report to have “developed a whole-of-business environment strategy that aims to [enhance its] ability to protect shareholder value”.
Yet, over time, it has made an investment, a very big investment, in developing as a science the art of selecting, buying, displaying and taking money for the products of others.
And nowhere does this portrayal of its alleged “whole-of-business” strategy actually address this.
If there is no hard evidence produced of any requirements it makes of the suppliers of those products that ensures they are produced in a manner which is environmentally sustainable, it can hardly be accounting on a “whole-of-business” basis.
Such a statement that does not bring clarity on this truth can only be misleading, if not purposefully deceptive.
But, it does not want this inconvenient fact getting in the way of its claims of being an environmentally responsible trader.
That also puts to the test reassurances offered to investors in the company’s risk policy, which says: “Material risks are those with significant areas of uncertainty or exposure at an enterprise level that could have an impact on the achievement of company objectives ... David Jones considers risk in at least the following categories … brand and reputation [and] sustainability.”
What about deceiving readers? Is that not also a risk? After all, a corporate statement built on at least one misstatement of fact might also be found wanting in others. And if you’re an investor, that could be the biggest risk of all.
