Seven Steps to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations - Example

Project Name of the Student: Name of the Instructor: Name of the course: Code of the course: Submission date: Project Introduction In the recent decades, an increasing number of firms have been writing and distributing reports which communicate environmental activities and concerns. The primary goal of these reports which are rarely plainly stated include portraying to the investors that the company will not be liquidated as a result of environmental risks and liabilities and reassuring the host communities that the facilities at the local level are not hazardous. In addition, the firms engage in the undertaking of pursuing the employees in regard to the environmental intentions of the firm as well as convincing the environmentalists that the company is making significant environmental progress among other objectives (Walling & Batterman, 1997). At the center of streamlining environmental conservation and reporting efforts has been The Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES) which was formed soon after Exxon Valdez disaster. The principles of this non-profit institution requires the signatories to prepare an extensive annual report which entail information on biosphere protection, risk reduction efforts, environmental restoration, safe products and services, energy conservation. Natural resources, disposal wastes as well as management committees (CERES, 1992). This report will explore whether CERES would exist today if the Exxon Valdez wreck did not occur as well as the value thatCERES add to the current business environment. In addition, it will compare the ten CERES principles and the seven steps to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations. Moreover, it will compare and contrast the two formats for the CERES Report and give a rationale as to why CERES created these two formats. Lastly, it will review the progress of the initial GRI pilot program in terms of the reported success. It will also assess which areas need additional improvement or refinement before the GRI is ready to be launched. Would CERES exist today if the Exxon Valdez wreck had not occurred? In my opinion, CERES would be in existence even if the Exxon Valdez wreck had not occurred. Nonetheless, its instigation would probably have come at a later date but its establishment would have eventually materialized. This is based on the fact that environmental reporting has been around in the recent decades and CERES only catalyzed the establishment of standard principles governing environmental reporting by corporate bodies. This is epitomized by the fact that firms under various regulatory regimes both in the US and in Europe have for many years been required to report to the public authorities regarding certain aspects of health, environment and safety issues linked to their undertakings. This is exemplified by the Toxic Release Inventory in the US as well as Freedom of Access to Environmental Information in the EU. Both of these mandatory disclosure schemes have for a long time regulated environmental reporting in these regions (Emtairah, 2002). In addition, other continents like Asia have also experienced enormous pressure in regard to environmental reporting by the corporate bodies. This is evidenced in China where recent decades, mostly in the early 1990s saw increasing pressure being exerted on the Chinese companies from diverse sources to undertake voluntary environmental reporting and disclosure. Moreover, the government, the Ministry of Finance and China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) and the State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) also elevated its pressure which heightened the amount of mandatory environmental disclosure which was required from the companies (Peiyuan, 2005). On the other hand, it is imperative to point out that there were other corporate activities, mostly in the chemical manufacturing industry which had threatened environmental and human health welfare before the Exxon Valdez wreck in 1989. This are epitomized whereby chemical manufacturers had critical public relations issues in the early 1980s, mostly following the release of toxic chemicals in 1984 from a US-owned company in Bhopal, India. This caused substantial environmental concerns and pressure for action to curtail these trends. The above facts point to the fact that the pressure on increased environmental reporting by companies has been evident in different regions around the world even prior to the Exxon Valdez wreck. Nonetheless, the efforts towards elevated environmental reporting were poorly coordinated and the instigation of CERES served as a driving force behind efforts aimed at coordinated pressure on environmental reporting. Therefore, the establishment of CERES was as a result of accumulated environmental pressure overtime and not as a result of a singular environmental disaster (Exxon Valdez wreck) in 1989. In terms of the value thatCERES has added to the current business environment, the generic effort of lobbying the companies to come together and engage in environment has been a major milestone. In addition, setting the ten principles intended to minimize the harm to air, earth and water, diminish the use of toxic wastes and reverse damage done to the environment among other intents is an exemplary effort by CERES to uphold environmental conservation in the business environment. Lastly, the CERES report which was the first of its kind geared towards standardizing corporate environmental report format has been instrumental in systematizing environmental reporting in the business environment. Commonality and differences between 10 CERES principles and the seven steps to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations It is imperative to point out that the ten CERES principles and the seven steps to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations have some inherent principles as explored in the subsequent analysis. Firstly, both of them have a provision on the protection of employees who report misconducts whereby they are guided against any form of action by the companies. In the 8th CERES principle related to informing the public, the companies pledge that they will not take any action against employees for reporting dangerous incidents or conditions to management or to appropriate authorities. On the other hand, the 5th step of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations recognizes the importance of employees in detecting misconduct and being guided against potential victimization. This is whereby it stipulates that a reporting system must permit the employees and agents to report misconduct without fear, for instance, through anonymous ethics hotlines (Ferrell et. al, 1998). Secondly, both of them concur on the importance of organizational management in various levels taking responsibility on compliance and policy implementation. This is best exemplified in the 9th CERES principle whereby companies commit towards sustaining a process which will be central in ensuring that the board of directors and chief executive officer (CEO) are entirely informed about significant environmental issues and have the full responsibility for environmental policy. Moreover, the selection of the board of directors will take into consideration the demonstrated environmental commitment of the candidates. Likewise, the 2nd step of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations alludes to the necessity that particular high level personnel ought to be responsible for the compliance programs, mostly the compliance officers and the top management (including the BOD) must support the ethics/compliance program (Ferrell et. al, 1998). Thus, it portrays the role of the management organ in ensuring compliance and their responsibility in supporting and implementing programs/policies. Lastly, the 10th CERES principle regarding audits and reports provides that the companies will conduct an annual self-evaluation of their progress in implementing these principles. In addition, they will support the timely creation of generally accepted environmental audit procedures. Lastly, they commit to annually complete the CERES report, which will be made available to the public. Similarly, the 7th step of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations also has a clause on self-evaluation and monitoring whereby it cognizes the fact that a plan to review and modify the complianceprogram is necessary to demonstratea continuous improvement process in self-monitoring. This is a major commonality between the two. In terms of differences,the 10 CERES principles are predominantly concerned with environmental issues at the organizational level related to the biodiversity, production of harmful products, disposal of waste products and energy conservation among others. On the contrary, the 7 steps of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations are concerned with general misconducts, deterring these misconducts through punishment as well as ensuring compliance through internal audits and reporting among others aspects. On the other hand, the 6th step of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations outlines the concept of punishment enforcement to curb non-compliance. This is where it clearly states that there must be consistent enforcement of the standards and punishments at the organizational level. Also, companies ought to create a mechanism to deter further offences from occurring (Ferrell et. al, 1998). Nonetheless, the aspect of punishment is lacking from the 10 CERES principles and is left at the discretion of the different organizations committed to upholding these principles. The last difference is that the 3rd step of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations cognizes that the persons who have the tendency of engaging in illegal conduct ought not to be given considerable discretionary authority in the organizations. However, this limitation is not evident in the 10 CERES principles. Comparison and contrast of the two formats for the CERES Report The CERES report, which as previously mentioned was the first standardized corporate environmental report format was created aimed at stimulating change among the companies that use it. This is exemplified whereby using the CERES report format permits a company to monitor its progress and performance and in turn facilitate the establishment and adaptation of objectives (CERES Website, 2010). In a generic sense, the CERES report has been availed in two standardized formats. This is geared towards accommodating the diversity in the characteristics of different companies and environmental concerns. These formats are the standard form and the short form. Their similarities and differences are explored in the subsequent analysis. In terms of similarities, both of these forms have the company profile (Oregon green permits program guide, 2000). This section generally entails a brief history of the company, the location of its main operations and branches it has some as well as the various departments which make up the company and the management structure. In addition, this section outlines the primary undertakings that the company engages in and the main policies which are aimed at environmental conservation. This latter aspect is reflected in the corporate social responsibility component of the report. Another similarity is that both report formats have the section on workplace health and safety (CERES website, 2010). This entails the initiatives that the companies have undertaken to ensure that the health and safety of the workforce is guaranteed and well as the measures to ensure compliance. In addition, there is also the section on use of natural resources in both forms. This comprises of information on the extent to which the company is utilizing natural resources in its production processes and the measures it is taking to conserve them. On the other hand, the standard form has a section on emission and waste (Oregon green permits program guide, 2000). This is also evident in the short form which outlines the emission ratios as well as the disposal mechanisms of these effluents. This section also entails information on the compliance of the company with major regulations on emissions and wastes and the instituted mechanisms to facilitate compliance. The last similarity between both of these forms is the final section on priorities and challenges (CERES, website, 2010). This section outlines the impediments that are confronting different companies in their environmental conservation and reporting efforts as well as the mechanisms already in place or planned to address these challenges. Moreover, the priorities in terms of the mechanisms to redress these challenges are also outlined in this section in both forms. In regard to differences, it is imperative to point out that the variations are primarily founded on the utility of these forms. This is whereby the standard form is basically reserved for companies which have more than $25 million in terms of revenues. Thus, this form was primarily designed for manufacturers, most notably those who use chemicals, huge amounts of resources, toxic substances as well as sophisticated production processes. On the contrary, the short form is primarily used by the smaller companies, mostly those whose operations are not manufacturing oriented. It is also imperative to point out that despite these inherent differences in these forms used by these two distinct groups, all the companies are expected to provide information in the order that is requested in terms of maintaining the original title of each section. This insistence by CERES is aimed at achieving some sought of standardization in environmental reporting. Progress of the initial pilot program by GRI GRI stands for Global reporting initiative. This is a non-profit institution which is concerned with promoting economic, social and environmental sustainability. Towards this end, this organization provides all the institutions and companies with a comprehensive sustainability reporting framework which has experienced increased worldwide utility (Global reporting initiative website, 2012). This is usually accomplished through developing, continued enhancement and capacity building around the use of GRI’s sustainability reporting framework (Sustainability Report, 2006). In terms of the progress of the initial pilot program, it is worth noting that GRI has made some significant steps in its implementation. This includes but not limited to supporting of the first time reporters, initiation of successful campaigns like the report or explain forum, facilitation of trainings and workshops, and currently promotion of sustainable development. In this latter initiative, GRI was working closely at the 2012 UN Conference for Sustainable Development (commonly referred to as Rio+20). This was aimed at fortifying sustainability reporting through a global policy framework (Global reporting initiative website, 2012). The initial pilot program has encountered some significant success. This is best epitomized by the successful formulation of the report or explain forum. This can be perceived as a convening space for everyone who aspires to use sustainability disclosure as a tool for mainstream management and accountability (Global reporting initiative, 2012). Secondly, Brown et. al (2007) determined that initial pilot program soon after its launch saw the release of the first official edition of the GRI guidelines in June 2000 and the commencement of the work to develop the nest one thereafter. Through the mobilization of GRI, a group of 31 companies engaged in heavy investments towards the pilot testing of these guidelines. According to Global reporting initiative website (2012), this organization is currently engaged in the development of G4. This is the fourth generation of sustainability reporting guidelines by GRI. Thus, this is a progressive effort whereby GRI has been continuously committed towards the process of developing its guidelines which has been characterized by significant success. Another milestone in the success of the GRI has been in the development of integrated reporting which is a new concept under development. In this regard, GRI co-founded the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC). This is founded on the fact that the future of corporate reporting is based on the integration of the sustainability and financial strategy as well as results (Global reporting initiative, 2012). There are several areas that need additional improvement or refinement before the GRI is ready to be launched. Some of these areas are explored in the following analysis. Firstly, greater efforts ought to be directed towards increasing the membership in this organization. This is whereby companies from areas which have recorded limited membership, mostly in the developing countries ought to be reached. This will be key in ensuring that this organization will not only have a robust financial base as a result of financial investment from these companies but will also ensure extension of the sustainability development efforts to these latter regions. In addition, GRI ought to make more efforts to harmonize its corporate interventions across all the regions, both old and new ones. Conclusion From the preceding discourse, it is apparent that environmental reporting by diverse companies plays a central role in facilitating environmental conservation around the world. This is through organizations like CERES which was established after the Exxon Valdez wreck in 1989. It has been rationalized even if the Exxon Valdez crisis did not occur, CERES would still have been established based on diverse dynamics analyzed in the preceding sections. On the other hand, the value of CERES in the business environment has been explored. In addition, the commonality and differences between 10 CERES principles and the seven steps to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations were explored as well as the comparison and contrast of the two formats for the CERES Report. Lastly, the progress of the initial pilot program by GRI was reviewed coupled with success that has been recorded. Several areas that need additional improvement or refinement before the GRI is ready to be launched have also been explored in the latter section of this paper. References Brown H.S., et. al (2007). The Rise of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) as a case of Institutional Entrepreneurship. Retrieved January 11th, 2013 from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/CSRI/publications/workingpaper_36_brown.pdf CERES (Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies). 1992. CERES Report: 1991 environmental performance report. Boston, Massachusettes: CERES. CERES Website (2010). Retrieved January 11th, 2013 from http://www.ceres.org. Emtairah, T., (2002). Corporate Environmental Reporting:Review of Policy Action in Europe. IIIEE Report, Lund: Lund University. FerrellO.C., et. al, (1998). The Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations: A Framework for Ethical Compliance. Journal of Business Ethics, 17: 353-363. Global reporting initiative website (2012). Retrieved January 11th, 2013 from http://www.globalreporting.org Oregon green permits program guide (2000). Attachment c: Sources on environmental reporting and performance measures. Retrieved January 11th, 2013 fromhttp://www.deq.state.or.us/programs/sustainability/GreenPermits/Resources/AttchmtC-ReportingReferences.pdf Peiyuan, G., (2005). Corporate Environmental Reporting and Disclosure in China. CRS Asia report, Beijing: Tsinghua University Sustainability Report (2006). Global Reporting Initiative Framework: Bank of America. Retrieved January 11th, 2013 fromhttp://webmedia.bankofamerica.com/environment/pdf/Global_Reporting_Initiative_Report.pdf Walling P.D., & Batterman, S.A., (1997). Environmental Reporting by the Fortune 50 Firms. Environmental Management, 21 (6): 865–875. Read More