Few still are the companies whose undertakings on the environment will meet the test of integrity when scrutinised thoroughly in public. Even fewer are those with commitments on how they will change their business models so as to mitigate their contributions to climate change. And many are those simply hoping the spotlight of responsibility for action will somehow pass over them without them having to amend their ways.
Based on its own published ambitions to sell in increasing volume the brands it stocks, David Jones appears to meet the typical profile.
As with others, it purposefully omits from its own accounting the dominant negative environmental impact on which its entire business model is based.
In a transparent economy, of course, this can no longer persist without the company facing difficult questions in the court of public opinion.
Typically, when under investigation, the inability or unwillingness of a company to respond appropriately to charges made against it will have negative consequences and create a loss of trust amongst key stakeholders. This may cause damage to the reputation and image of the organisation.
Poorly managed stakeholder relationships are expensive and can result in the diversion of substantial resources, time and money on the part of management.
Quite apart from creating potential difficulties in attracting and retaining quality staff, the attractiveness of ownership of such companies will decline, potentially affecting their share price - and the directors' bonuses - as well, possibly, as their ability to attract future funding.
Many companies will find that through the social investigations that distinguish the future’s transparent economy from that they are used to, the progress of their environment undertakings will be narrated and shared. Ideally, most would wish to control rather than be the victim of the story.
How David Jones will cope with the investigation of its managerial competence on climate and environment is of course not yet known.
Next, we’ll outline the ways in which the narrative will be constructed.
Based on its own published ambitions to sell in increasing volume the brands it stocks, David Jones appears to meet the typical profile.
As with others, it purposefully omits from its own accounting the dominant negative environmental impact on which its entire business model is based.
In a transparent economy, of course, this can no longer persist without the company facing difficult questions in the court of public opinion.
Typically, when under investigation, the inability or unwillingness of a company to respond appropriately to charges made against it will have negative consequences and create a loss of trust amongst key stakeholders. This may cause damage to the reputation and image of the organisation.
Poorly managed stakeholder relationships are expensive and can result in the diversion of substantial resources, time and money on the part of management.
Quite apart from creating potential difficulties in attracting and retaining quality staff, the attractiveness of ownership of such companies will decline, potentially affecting their share price - and the directors' bonuses - as well, possibly, as their ability to attract future funding.
Many companies will find that through the social investigations that distinguish the future’s transparent economy from that they are used to, the progress of their environment undertakings will be narrated and shared. Ideally, most would wish to control rather than be the victim of the story.
How David Jones will cope with the investigation of its managerial competence on climate and environment is of course not yet known.
Next, we’ll outline the ways in which the narrative will be constructed.
