Register for my 3 hour strategy immersion session. You will develop sustainability strategy to:

1. create products and services that do not harm the environment

2. develop businesses with a social purpose 

3. achieve profitable 

We will begin your journey by understanding how your can reduce your exposure to the risks posed by global megaforces using our 10MF toolkit. 

I will demonstrate how you can use the Sustainable Strategic Growth Model to Learn, Develop, Implement, Optimise and Sustain to transform your organisation. The model has been adopted by managers and business leaders at major international organisations such as Tarmac, Ferrovial Agroman, Asanko Gold and the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society.

Included in the 3 hour immersion session we will provide you with our sustainability megaforces 10MF flashcards . 

Your personal copy of our strategy books Sustainability Footprints in SMEs - Strategy and Case Studies for Entrepreneurs and Small Business.

Start your journey by registering for our one to one sustainability strategy immersion session by clicking the link below. I look forward to our conversation

https://bit.ly/2LPvVjY

10 Sustainability Megaforces (10MF) Guides

Celebrate European Sustainable Development Week by future proofing your business using the SMART actions outlined in each 10MF guide.

The 10MF toolbox can be used as posters in your sustainability or CSR awareness campaign posters, on social media posts or as flashcards team building strategy sessions.

Download your toolbox by clicking the link below:

https://bit.ly/2LDmILA

#sustainability #csr #quality #ESDW #environment #sustainabilitystrategy

Management Systems and Performance Frameworks for Sustainability

My second book Management Systems and Performance Frameworks for Sustainability: A Road Map for Sustainably Managed Enterprises is now available! A through an in-depth exploration of quality management theory, this book proposes a "Sustainability Management Framework" as a structure for a balanced approach to developing operations strategy for corporate social sustainability (CSR). #SustainableStrategy This book is a development in sustainable theory showing you a road map of how to put it into practice. #FutureProof Receive your complimentary copy as part of your ©Diploma in Sustainability Strategy comment below to know more. http://ow.ly/icHT30jN5RK

Takata recall - Quality more than just an airbag of hot air

We often take it for granted in the 21^st century that if a product is presented in a “new box” or a service at “new location” quality is inherent or explicit. The case of Takata airbag recall refutes this premise.

Takata supplies automotive safety systems controlling 22% of the global automotive airbag market. The company’s mission statement emphasises their commitment to quality which is to “Develop innovative products and provide superlative quality and services to achieve total customer satisfaction”.

 

This emphasis on quality is reinforced by an organisational approach the “Takata Way” that supports open effective communication openly and effectively and an adherence to Sangen-shugi the exploration of three “realities” which is comprised of Gen-ba or going to the location of the activity/problem e.g. the factory floor, Gen-butsu looking at problem first hand and Gen-jitsu gathering the facts to make a decision - realitybased decision making.

Despite this organisational philosophy Takata finds itself asleep at the wheel. Its flagship automotive airbag has allegedly been linked with the deaths of at least five motorists and over 139 injuries. The problem being a product defect that is only realised during the deployment of the airbag resulting in the rupturing of the inflator, sending metal fragments that have fatally injured unsuspecting users it was intended to protect. Potential causes for the airbag defects range from poor product handling, incorrect gas specifications, humid conditions, faulty welding to malfunctioning manufacturing equipment. 

The company was fully aware of the potential for the airbag to rupture during deployment 10 years prior to the recall but opted not to face the “reality” subsequently requesting the destruction of in-house test results and disposal of any evidence in essence creating a climate of fear amongst employees. Top management rather than implementing corrective action chose a default strategy of “do nothing” focusing on the bottom line not the triple bottom-line.

This strategic decision has resulted in the recall of over 14 million airbags from 11 different automakers and the allocation of over $655 million for quality costs. The reputational damage suffered by Takata is contributing to investor unease arising from reduced profit outlook and customer dissatisfaction with market share set to decline to 11% by 2020. Fortunately Takata has decided to “wake up to reality” taking steps to refocus the organisation efforts on quality by constituting an expert panel to examine the quality and safety issues. Quality not perception is reality.

To learn more visit our website www.sustainabilitycsr.com 

Download a free chapter from my new book Sustainability Footprints in SMEs

To celebrate the upcoming launch of my new book Sustainability Footprints in SMEs in January.

I am offering a free chapter to all my friends: https://lnkd.in/bxrgZbc

Help us spread the word by sharing on social media!

French Railway System - a case of going nowhere fast

As a quality professional I champion the value of customer satisfaction and listening to the voice of the customer… but is the customer always right?

Earlier in my career as a lab technician in the manufacturing sector I was trained to adopt the concept of the “Next operation as customer” (NOAC) principle that highlighted external customer satisfaction as being unachievable unless internal customers are engaged in the decision making and operational processes of productive activity.

The unfortunate scenario that emerged this year in France where the rail infrastructure company RFF provided the rail operator SNCF with incorrect specifications for the purchase of 2000 trains at a cost of $20 billion (£12.1 billion). The specifications were derived from measurements taken from train platforms built within the last 30 years. The result being the new trains are too wide to fit train platforms that were built 50 years earlier requiring  the unnecessary refit of over 1000 of the 8700 platforms mostly located in regional areas of which initial early repairs were reported to cost $40 million.

SNCF has accused the French government of not investing in its conventional rail network which is finally being upgraded after years of neglect. The strategic focus being rather on the development of a high speed network despite a 50% rise in passenger numbers within Paris and a 40% increase in regional travel within the past decade.

This separation of the network company from the rail operators, a management structure that is instantly recognisable to British readers is a contributing factor to the mistake – business critical decisions being made by social actors not directly affected or intimately concerned with the consequences or outcomes of the activity, as evident by the company statement "It's a bit like buying a Ferrari that you want to fit into your garage, but then realizing your garage isn't quite Ferrari-sized, because up until now you didn't own a Ferrari," an ill-fitting analogy that suggests quality and corporate social responsibility are for Renault owners, ordinary taxpayers and commuters.

In a nutshell decisions were not made as close to the source. Project schedules and cost may have been given priority over quality. Therefore the risk i.e. the likelihood or consequence of the train not being able to fit each platform was unaccounted or became unconsciously acceptable to senior management.  

The consequences of poor quality, an astronomical engineering refit cost which is estimated at $110 billion, 2000 trains going nowhere fast and reputational damage to one of Europe’s fastest train networks.
“The customer is always right”… 66 million Frenchmen can't be wrong - one size does not fit all even though your garage can fit a Ferrari.

To learn more about quality, safety and environmental management view our website www.sustainabilitycsr.com 

Eurocopter - When Puma's fly

The tragic loss of life arising from the recent crash of a Eurocopter Super Puma AS332 L2 on the 23 August 2013 brings into sharp focus the dangers of North Sea Oil and Gas. This tragedy is personally poignant to me as I served in a Royal Navy search and rescue (SAR) unit based in Scotland that was resourced with ageing but superbly maintained Sea King helicopters.

Herein lies the case for quality – Ageing Design: the original design of the Super Puma came into production in 1981 with a series of product extensions in areas such as avionics, engine and gearbox power to meet the demands of the expanding commercial market. A focus on incremental improvement not continual improvement, to compete Eurocopter must invest an estimated €500m into research and development of a helicopter for civilian transport and search and rescue operations. This ageing theme extends to the Eurocopter helicopter product portfolio with new versions stymied by delays and cost overruns for potential replacements for the Super Puma in the form of the NH90 and Tiger military version helicopters.

Design issues aside the Eurocopter Super Puma and its variants have been involved in five accidents in the North Sea since 2009.

Specifically the Eurocopter Super Puma AS332 L2 has accounted for 20 fatalities in the North Sea over the past five years the worst being an accident occurring in waters off the coast of Peterhead, Scotland in April 2009 resulting in 16 fatalities. The investigation into the accident conducted by the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) concluded gearbox failure that may have been diagnosed if the “metallic particle discovered on the epicyclic chip detector during maintenance on 25 March 2009, some 36 flying hours as an indication of second stage planet gear” failure.

As a result the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) recommended that “Eurocopter, with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), develop and implement an inspection of the internal components of the main rotor gearbox epicyclic module for all AS332 L2 and EC225LP helicopters as a matter of urgency to ensure the continued airworthiness of the main rotor gearbox”.

This recommendation contributed to the introduction of safety Directives by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and new pertinent maintenance guidance by Eurocopter. Surprisingly AAIB investigators highlighted parallels with an earlier accident in 1980 involving a SA330J Puma helicopter indicating a clear absence of a factual approach to decision making – an organisational failure to learn from past events that unfortunately led to deadly consequences. Subsequent two forced landings of albeit variants of the Super Puma led to a UK ban on sea flights which was only lifted in July 2013

Eurocopter the world’s largest commercial helicopter manufacturer saddled with excess inventory, poor cash position and under pressure from agile competitors such as Bell Helicopters, Augusta Westland who are keen to acquire a piece of its market share as energy operators opt for transport firms that use alternative helicopter supplier, may yet face Darwinian extinction if it does not evolve and focus on quality.

BP's Deepwater Horizon - A Quality issue or a Safety issue?

Its been more that two years since the tragedy of the Deepwater Horizon incident costing the lives of some of its crew,  damage to the environment besides the strain on the lives and livelihoods of individuals living in US states along the Gulf coast.
There appears to be a return to business as usual oil production has improved in the Gulf of Mexico. BP the defendants in this case have moved from "beyond petroleum" to above suspicion recently rewarded by the financial markets with a share price increase for negotiating £4.9 million in damages with victims. Policymakers and the industry have opted for more compliance focused on safety and environmental dimensions of performance which will necessitate the need for more audits and auditors. An uneasy hush has fallen as the incident slowly fades from the headlines and the collective memory of the public. A scenario that seems oddly familiar....

Background

Dr. Tony Hayward was appointed CEO of BP after the less than savory departure of Lord Browne his mentor and predecessor. As CEO he promised to focus on safety "like a laser" knowing full well as a BP insider the spate of safety incidents that occurred prior to his appointment at their Texas city refinery in 2004 - 2005, the near sinking of the Thunder-horse platform in the Gulf of Mexico, oil spill in Alaska in 2006 and US Labor Department  fines for safety violations at its Toledo refinery in 2006.
Tony Hayward a geologist by profession also adopted a strategy of doing more with less by immediately cutting over 5000 jobs  early in his now fateful tenure. This decision to cut jobs may have made an accident like Deepwater Horizon predestined. To his credit he instituted risk management training for executives at BP's "Operations Academy" at MIT and established the company's Operations Management System (OMS) which although innovative now seem painful inadequate.


Quality Failure

The Chartered Quality Institute defines quality management as "an organisation-wide approach to understanding precisely what customers need and consistently delivering accurate solutions within budget, on time and with the minimum loss to society". This inclusive understanding of quality especially minimizing loss to society was not understood by Tony Hayward and BP's senior management. The company cautioned employees against having  uncovered cups of hot beverages but no procedure for the "negative pressure test" critical in terminating drilling operations.
The question may be asked... was the Deepwater Horizon fit for purpose?
 As a drilling platform the Deepwater Horizon was state of the art; built by Hyundai at a cost of $365 million, it was a unique combination of ship and drilling package. Operated by a crew of 160 it was kept relatively motionless when at sea by four metal pontoon legs and GPS positioning systems. At the time of construction its 28000 tonne drilling package set a world record for the heaviest object ever lifted.

Despite state of the art equipment the Deepwater Horizon as with other platforms had an Achilles heel it was the absence of a quality culture within the oil and gas sector which traditionally has been dominated by a risk taking attitude necessary for oil  and gas exploration.

This absence of a quality culture gave rise to the following quality failures leading to the explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon:

1. Incorrect parts - centralizers key equipment used in drilling operations were received from supplier not to specification
2. Breach of existing well design - to little centralizers used in operations 6 instead of 21 -  a casualty of the misdirected focus on reducing cost not reducing the cost of quality
3. No Product verification -  incoming inspection tests were not conducted on the cement foam upon receipt from the supplier Haliburton
4. Poor Supplier Management - cement supplied by Haliburton failed in-house tests. The need to develop mutually beneficial supplier relationships is a corner stone of total quality management and quality management standards such as the ISO 9001. BP's relationship with their supply chain Transocean and Haliburton as events has revealed can be described as combative at best.
5. Poor Process Management - "Negative Pressure Test" was not on the platforms work plan. There was no procedure for conducting the "Negative Pressure Test"
6. No Management of Change Procedure - Negative Pressure Test added to the work plan at the "eleventh hour". This confusion led to the acceptance of one positive test result despite three failed negative pressure tests a decision that sealed the fate of the crew of the Deepwater Horizon.

These 6 quality failures resulted in catastrophic loss of life and environmental disaster- the safety consequence - a cost we can only estimate.

The cost to BP for the absence of a quality culture has been a $91 billion loss of market value between April - June 2010, over 350 lawsuits from the general public, damage to its brand image, loss of support from environmental groups with the US Audubon Society "largest uncontrolled science experiment in our country", shareholder dissatisfaction and loss of industry leadership.

Safety is not the issue it is a lack of an understanding of quality and its impact on the triple bottom-line economic, social and environmental. Its time for BP, the oil and gas industry and regulators to adopt an industry-wide approach that embraces continuous improvement that goes "beyond quality"

Sustainable Space Tourism or Pigs in Space -is space tourism sustainable?

Since the first communication signals of Sputnik as it orbited our earth. Humanity's insatiable appetite for knowledge and space exploration has impacted negatively on the environment of the earths orbital atmosphere. Most of us with our feet firmly planted on the ground may find it incredible that to date it is estimated that there are more than 21000 man made objects measuring more than 4 inches in earths orbit with millions of other objects measuring a centimetre or less. These man made objects benignly described as space debris can range from spent booster stages, nuts, batteries, nuclear waste to derilect satellites... all moving faster than 20 times the speed of sound, reaching speeds of up to 18000 miles per hour just to remain in orbit. The management or lack of management of waste extends to the more distasteful issue of human waste matter which in some instances is lauchned into the vastness of space.

Environmental concerns aside the existence of space debris is a hazard that increases the risks inherent with space travel. Companies such as Virgin Galactic who are in the forefront in the race to commercialise space flight and colonise space such hazards are being either ignored or muted in favour of economic or financial expedience.  The risks of these hazards however are so acute that the U.S. Space Surveillance Network  an arm of the U.S. Department of Defense daily tracks all space debris larger than 10 centimetres.

The National Aeronautical Space Agency (NASA) has taken the lead in adopting a more sustainable approach to space flight in the earth's orbit by developing mitigation standards aimed at reducing orbital debris. Similar plans have been developed by other countries such as Japan and instituitions such as the European Space Agency (ESA). Although commendable these efforts fall short of a clean up of the earth's orbital space whose costs may prove prohibitive with the hope of  incentives such as government subsidises to spur entrepreneurial activity in this sector but a pipe dream in an age of government cut backs and financial austerity.  Despite the enormous challenge of removing space debris a joint venture between two Japanese firms are engaged in the development of a spaced debris removal systems.

In the race to commercialise space and colonise future planets we must aim not to repeat humanity's failure to incorporate sustainability principles in our 20th century technological development. The choices are clear our species homo spaiens which in latin means "wise men" must aim for sustainable space tourism or forever live as pigs in space.

To learn more about quality, safety and the environment visit www.sustainabilitycsr.com

Chief Sustainability Officer - Where's the beef Chief...

The 21st century has seen the emergence of a new chief on the block - the Chief Sustainability Officer. A well heeled recruitment consultancy recently produced a report heralding the arrival of the Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO) to the "C suite" along with the emergence of sustainability and corporate social responsibility to the strategic agenda. Sadly the recent spate of high profile resignations US and in UK the imprisonment of former members of parliament for unethical conduct paints a less rosy picture of the importance of social responsibility  amongst the business and political elite.
The concept and use of the prefix "Chief" is a truly American phenomena in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth the term Director is preferred. Therefore depending on the corporate culture of your organisation Chief Executive Officer or it's British equivalent Managing Director is used to describe the same role.
 The tribe of the corporate suite or "C suite" in the last 20 yeras has undergone an extraordinary expansion of "Chiefs" such as Chief Information Officer average salary £76000 responsible for the development and implementation of information technology strategy within the firm but so also does the Chief Technology Officer average salary £86000 and who can forget the Chief Web Officer. The aforementioned chiefs have emerged through the proliferation of the information technology, internet use and dare I say the lack of insight amongst some Chief Executives Officers in the 1990s to envisage the change being created by a then very young Internet.
Information technology concerns aside the "C suite" has seen it's share of exotic "Chiefs" such as Chief Visionary Officer, Chief Customer Officer and Chief Creative Officer. In terms of their value added contribution to strategic growth the question can be asked Where is the beef chief?
There is a danger that the new chief on the block the Chief Sustainability Officer may go the way of some of the other chiefs a mere title consigned to irrelevance. Sustainability is the key opportunity facing corporations in the 21st century and by nature should be the sole domain of the Chief Executive Officer as the firm's principal strategist. The advent of the Chief Sustainability Officer is an attempt to delegate the sustainability agenda and normalise it's role within existing paradigm of the corporate structure. Sustainability by its very mandate to incorporate the survival of future generations into present economic decisions is by nature inherently disruptive. The dynamics of the corporate structures are not designed to adjust to disruptive change. In order for sustainability to take root in organisations we need more sustainability warriors and champions not any more chiefs. As simple as it may seem lets make the philosophy of sustainability chief in the new capitalist model for the 21st century.

To learn more about Sustainability/CSR visit www.sustainabilitycsr.com

ISO 26000 Standard - defining good corporate governance

Image via Wikipedia

Public concern over the increasing disparity amongst the rich and poor, gender inequality, human rights, climate change and environmental degradation has elevated sustainability and corporate social responsibility from the realm of public relations to the core of progressive business strategy. The recent BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is testimony to the financial and reputational risk that can befall CEO’s and their organisations that fail to put sustainability at the heart of business decisions.

Historically the International Organisation for Standardisation (known by its French acronym ISO) efforts have been focused on issues surrounding quality, product specification and information technology management. Therefore it was late in understanding the shift in the debate as to the role of business in society from being catalyst of economic growth to also enablers in the development of society as a whole. This concept of the role of business beyond profit making was crystallised in the Brundtland Commission’s definition of Sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. This definition subsequently influenced the development of the “triple bottom line” approach whereby business performance can no longer be viewed exclusively from the lens of economic performance but must also include social and environmental performance criteria as part of any evaluation of its effectiveness (Elkington 1999, Savitz and Weber 2006).

In 2002 sensing the growing need for comprehensive guidance on social responsibility the International Organisation for Standardisation began work on developing the ISO 26000 standard. To ensure that all stakeholders’ views and concerns were included in the developmental stages of the ISO 26000 standard its working group included well known non-governmental organisations such as the Consumers International and the International Organisation for Employers. Support was also enlisted from other sustainability initiatives such as the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the UN Global Compact whose sustainability framework established a decade earlier includes over 8700 participating organisations. Well known NGOs such as Amnesty International and the World Wild Life Fund (WWF) International also contributed to the development of the ISO 26000 standard, however both organisations have since refocused their attention to other initiatives.

The ISO 26000 standard builds on the Brundtland definition of sustainable development by defining social responsibility as the responsibility of an organization for the impacts of its decisions and activities on society and the environment, through transparent and ethical behavior that

• contributes to sustainable development, including health and the welfare of society
• takes into account the expectations of stakeholders
• is in compliance with applicable law and consistent with international norms of behaviour; and is integrated throughout the organization and practised in its relationships

This definition confirms the interconnectedness of social responsibility and sustainability as core operational concepts with the ISO 26000 standard. To incorporate social responsibility and sustainability within its business operations organisations are required to define their priorities in respect of the following core subjects:

• Organisational governance – the systems, structures and processes whether formal or informal by which an organisation makes decisions in regards to social responsibility and sustainability.
• Human rights – are accepted norms regarding the sanctity of life such as civil, political, economic, and social rights which it is implied that an organisation should actively support and respect.
• Labour practices – are policies and procedures regarding the selection, recruitment and retention of labour including subcontractors and their ability solicit the assistance of external bargaining or develop their own bargaining mechanism within the organisation
• The environment – the ISO 26000 standard encourages organisations to review its impact on the environment from a global perspective by improving the its environmental performance using the precautionary approach, sustainable procurement techniques, environmental risk management, climate change adaptation, adoption of clean technology and eco-efficiency programs.
• Fair operating practices – this core subject encompasses the ethical values of the organisation in respect of its dealings with other organisations e.g. competitors, suppliers and government authorities in areas such as anti-corruption and fair competition.
• Consumer issues – are all activities that communicate and reduce risk, improves product performance and longevity, increase sustainable consumption of products and services during all stages of its lifecycle from material extraction, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and recycling or disposal.
• Community involvement and development – are activities in which the organisation participates that strengthens the civic institutions from which the organisation gains its wealth but also builds a bond between the organisations internal stakeholders i.e. owners, shareholders, employees, suppliers, subcontractors and its external stakeholders in the community and the wider society.

The ISO 26000 standard does not provide a prescription for social responsibility by highlights key areas which define corporate social responsibility excellence. Organisations should adapt the standard to suit its size, mission, values, cultural and regulatory environment. This tailored approach ensures that stakeholders are engaged for their opinions using communicative means that are beyond mere consultation on issues regarding the centrality of social responsibility to the organisational strategy but importantly their as stakeholders role in implementing sustainability and social responsibility within the organisation.

The interdependence of each core subject is embodied in the holistic approach to social responsibility and sustainability espoused by the ISO 26000.

The holistic approach to sustainability also implies that any organisation embarking on implementing the core subjects of the ISO 26000 must conduct a gap analysis of its existing performance regarding social responsibility and the requirements of the standard to determine the relevance of the each core subject to the stakeholders within its competitive environment. Therefore also ensuring that the relative emphasis placed by the organisation on each core subject will vary regionally e.g. businesses that operate in Bangladesh and India that are implementing social responsibility may place greater emphasis on issues surrounding Labour practices and Community involvement and development due to the socioeconomic environment that exists on the Indian sub continent.

The organisation having understood which core subjects are relevant to its stakeholders then proceeds to integrate social responsibility into the fabric of the organisation through policy development, the establishment of sustainability targets, sustainability awareness raising campaigns, transparent reporting of the organisational performance in a manner that is timely and balanced.

The use of social responsibility reporting as tool for benchmarking and communicating sustainability performance is another key requirement of the ISO 26000 standard. Recently there has been a proliferation of corporate social responsibility reports by companies in the United Kingdom which has spurred the creation of various reporting schemes such as the Global Reporting Initiative – a voluntary scheme that seeks to measure an organisations sustainability performance facilitating comparisons within and across sectors. The ISO 26000 standard has cross referenced its framework across existing corporate social responsibility initiatives such as the GRI thereby ensuring its applicability to all organisations irrespective of reporting requirements.

Safety and Environmental practitioners are already burdened with the management of ISO 14001 Environmental Management Systems; ISO 9000 Quality Management Systems and OSHAS 18001 Safety Management Systems may view the ISO 26000 standard as an unwelcomed distraction from other technical issues. As with any organisational change initiative senior management commitment and support is paramount as the implementation of social responsibility policies may be in direct competition for resources with other business initiatives at a time where budgets are constrained. Therefore the business case for sustainability and social responsibility must be developed, however despite these challenges using the ISO 26000 standard as a template for implementing sustainability and social responsibility can provide organisations with following benefits:

• No certification costs - the ISO 26000 standard is not yet a certifiable standard
• Easy integration with existing standards e.g. ISO 14001 and OSHAS 18001 using the holistic approach to sustainability social responsibility
• Reduced reputational risk arising from poor labour practices and unethical conduct
• Enhanced brand and product image
• Incorporates the criteria of existing corporate social responsibility schemes such as the GRI and UN Global Compact
• Facilitates good corporate governance ensuring that senior management adopt a long term outlook to decisions making
• Develops and improves stakeholder engagement and building trust with the organisations immediate community
• Improves environmental efficiency and resource use within the organisations supply chain
• Improves organisational safety and builds employee morale
• Facilitates organisational innovation

The parallel concepts of sustainability and social responsibility are evolving areas of management taught and practice, this is reflective in the rather broad approach of the ISO 26000 standard. The ushering of the ISO 26000 on the global stage has not been without its controversy with some nations viewing the new standard as a potential barrier to free trade or a threat to their national sovereignty in terms of its support for human rights. Organisations that do not subscribe to such myopic views will use the framework of the ISO 26000 standard to create new competitive models and produce products and services that not only sustain corporate growth but contribute to the development of society.