Corporate Responsibility Magazine has released its first annual list of the 30 least transparent companies, dubbed the ‘black list’. Looking at corporations traded on the US stock market in the Russell 1,000—the top 1,000 stocks in the Russell 3,000 list—the magazine pinpointed the bottom 30, exposing those companies that choose to hide in the dark.
“What gets you one the black list? Share no data beyond what is legally required,” explained Jay Whitehead on a conference call. Author of the Black List article in Corporate Responsibility Magazine, Whitehead is also the President of SharedXpertise Media LLC.
“Our black list is the scarlet letter for stakeholder disrespect,” Whitehead added.
The list ranges widely from clothing companies (Abercrombie and Fitch) to energy companies (Exco Resources, Inc) to real estate (HCP Inc), but what each of these companies has in common is a lack of transparency in issues including climate change, environment, philanthropy, and human rights.
The Corporate Responsibility Magazine’s article on the black list, however, points out that when it comes to environmental issues the majority of Russell 1000 companies hide in the dark. Sixty-one percent of the companies in the Russell 1000 have not disclosed any information related to their greenhouse gas emissions and climate change (currently not required by law). In addition, nearly as many companies, 60 percent, disclosed no information on broader environmental issues.
Yet, according to Corporate Responsibility Magazine, disclosing information actually helps a company’s bottom line: three-year returns for companies on the Black List average out to -7.378 percent, while companies on Corporate Responsibility Magazine’s “100 Best List” made +2.374.
To see the 30 companies that made the Black List: The full Black List
Find more videos like this on Planet Forward
Planet Forward host, Frank Sesno, interviews Richard Crespin, the head of the Corporate Responsibility Officer’s Association, about their release of the first ever CRO Blacklist. Video courtesy of Planet Forward.
Profit of biggest companies would be cut by a third if forced to pay for environmental damage from operations
(02/19/2010) Profits of the world’s 3,000 largest companies would be cut by $2.2 trillion per year if they were forced to pay for environmental damage from their operations, according to an upcoming U.N. report detailed by The Guardian. The study, conducted by Trucost, a consultancy, and scheduled to be released this summer, estimates that pollution and degradation of natural resources by the world’s 3,000 largest companies amount to six to seven percent of total revenue, or roughly one-third of profits.
Consumers fail at identifying green companies
(02/17/2010) An article today in New Scientist shows that American consumers have a difficult time correctly identifying green companies, often confusing ‘greenwashing’ for true green credentials or not bestowing enough credit where credit is truly due. By combining data from Earthsense, which polled 30,000 Americans about on their views of ‘green’ companies, and Trucost which assesses companies global environmental impact, New Scientist was able to discover just how confused American consumers are when it comes to identifying ‘green’.
Retailers Costco and Amazon.com flunk sustainable paper use, WalMart and Target fare little better
(08/27/2009) Every year forests are destroyed for the production of paper: habitat is lost, greenhouse gases are released, species are impacted, and fresh water sources damaged. Some companies have begun to move towards more sustainable paper production, seeking paper sources stamped by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and increasing the use of recycled paper, however other companies in the industry have yet to change their way.
The 3rd annual report card conducted by Dogwood Alliance and Forest Ethics focuses both on the companies who continue to make progress toward sustainable paper production—and those who don’t.