Innovation, technology, sustainability & society Jürgen Dormann Aventis Chad Holliday Dupont!"""""$"""& &#'&("&"#%$""#$ &*""&"#'&""#$ (&!""&#& (&"&""#$&"&#'(&#%(&#&. &"#&.#.##"$"""&""(01"/!"/"$$%&'()$%*$%+,$)%/2*/"2! 2+&"2 &""3%+4*"#&'$$%+&"5"."&5""!""+6%"#&&((&""5(""&&"((7""2%("2""89#&""#&(#!#"2$ &""%$"("5"2!""""#&"#%&! &#$"3%+4#%+&"#%&("&(($) $.#)$$/0$$ ($$(($(-($)) $$. 1$())2$) $ ($()$)))$ ($) $. 3(!($$$. 3((($/)$())$$)))$$/3$-)$. 2$ ($$4()($)))$/($$$) 5/#)5 ($$!/:/"#&"#&("(&"#$. 8 9*")$.((& &"#.$&#%(#%&"#"&, "*"&#%"$$$/((&#$"((&#&*#>Natural forces Business's roles Innovation Leadership Social responsibility Eco-efficiency Partnerships Customer choice Human activity Ecological health Social health Economic health#16#708#16:;?&(@"A(-)&!((-"#&#"!#"#A&#%BCCB""#98:16(;.-3-(<$$ ($ $(()$$(.//-$$ ($(.$(--$$"&#$#%"&#!###$#/"2"""2 DC $$&"&#""&"&".#$#A &"#/DD%(&#E&, "#&")"2, ((&""(&"#$(""& &"("$idea Product or service Commercialization Research Demonstration Development New inputs? New practices?####"DB("#&")($"""5+((&("#$ D$"89*"&"#&-"#$"&"&")#$"89"")& (8"&9 &#E")(89.#!#"#&"#%3"((43(("4#E"""$,(01=1>'=2:.(/$/:/$$-<($()(3#"#4#@(F"!#"#'&(#!(#"&"&"#;"#Idea Realizable External interested parties concept Working concept Produc t or service 661a'#166,8 6!:DG'.'&"5/2/"2! 2&"2."H&#$#&#'& DI,-$)"#$""#$(((&"(#&(""&j A$"""$.*"E(#?#"&"")3(("&"((Idea Competence Leadership Worldview Creativity/:/8:#'6'0=#?=#@7#1,#7'#A@71:7'#A#?#661a'#16 &: 7'#A@71::@@B! $b$bb@(($b0b! $$$!(-($=-)$)( $! $$$c#D! $(; ($(:;D6#-#$) 2)# E2#F)/#$((;-/$$$) $$/#(/#-$) $/#-$())$$$) $)) $/(#$-$$/5ff#&#"'6()>$/6(!-$$$$$/(($) $/%GGH(->64><>6(-4$) $)) $-($ $;/#/#6(-)$$) $(-($()-5ff##"F#0)@ E01@F $$8) 6i, 0:/#0)@ $)(-5) $$$/0! $) $; 0)@)$(-)$) $01@/#$$))-CD$$; $01@$-))E//($) F/5ff#&-"#FF#:;#"&2/""&2"(892%89&")2 22 &, #"#&"(& &((#&(((2.#D7!"!""#&"(&""#&"&"""2 6#:#C1) $(((J$$$$$$) 4*&*&4(($())D 5ff##F"F#0@C3k$/64$(($()(D 5ff##FFFF""F!##C, L&1$)) $$-/1(()$$')'M@)$ $='2 6'/D 5ff##F#@C@(($) $/#$$j ($$()$-()$:!:/D 5ff##FF F"FK"#:"#C): -)$.)($/#)7m:>>$)((D5ff B##FF'&*2==C2-)(2==$$$(/3$))($)))$$$(/D 5ff#B#FF#:;#-$) D=$"16:7 7$b 6mb: -B b $b'E-(#NFB=B: $$1$m: $$b 3b=5b 7$b)) B; M7-B b 0b! B>$b:@@$b#6: $ B=1 $: B#7:@@$:;//"#A=1@2 6#@71::.$""#2 &2"2/"2"!(""#$""!""#$ &"(#$"#$"#$!"!"""$"5""#&!##$""#$".(L,#D>Vision Interface BP Guidelines: Dupont Life cycle design teams: 3m Design for environment: P&g, SCJ, Visteon Staged gate process Dow Partnered eco-efficiency analysis: BASF Market research Sony Supplier evaluation General motors Community advisory panels: chemical industry Product stewardship guidance: SCJ External advisory board: Dow Technology review bodies Dupont Novartis Novo Nordisk Idea Realizable concept Working concept Product or ser vice""#89&#""5 M m) M m@&m"!"""M m M!(M A (8n"9"("N2'6'>2 6#2$$$-(CD$$)) $/#$$$$-))$$$) $) $)< $$/#$<$cd()$)< $<$$/:/$ ($)- $)< $5(/:/-$): ) 12"!:"BC 0, 5>7 6=:#=#-$()$: $())$(/#$>$-()$/>$$$!($) $)( $$/7 ($) $)/#$$$$(:$$/#)$$$)))$((;$) $/#(/#$(/)7)' $0()782e782f/#$-$"&o)( $/6(((8/:///@E@'F$$c@0#,D/#@$$$e@F$e0f5! E#F)(/0#(($)()$ ($(:C (PQ) $d/:;/21 3m's LIFE CYCLE Management Teams 3m's sustainable development goals revolve around improving environmental performance of their products and processes while better meeting customer needs. To ensure product responsibility, 3m takes a life cycle approach to sustainability. Through a Life cycle Matrix and Life cycle Management (LCM) teams, 3m ensures that its business units take a holistic approach to addressing environment, health, safety, and energy (EHS&E) issues pertaining to its products. LCM teams are formed typically to guide the development of research ideas from the very early stages. The team includes not only research and business interests but also EHS&E representation thereby ensuring early attention to issues that can be more difficult to resolve later in development. Through this methodology, 3m identifies both risks and opportunities for improvement at all stages in the innovation process. This approach can also identify smaller improvements that lead to more sustainable products during the course of development, again facilitating their incorporation in the final product. For example, customers using 3m's Surface Saver tape for making ophthalmic lenses requested recyclable release liners for the tape. 3m put together an LCM team to solve the problem. The outcome was a liner-less tape dispensed from doublesized rolls resulting in a 40%solid waste reduction for customers, reduced shipping costs for the double-sized rolls, and a virtual elimination of solvent use in the production of the tape. By taking a holistic approach to problemsolving, 3m is able to find more effective solutions and create better products. Rather than solving one problem at a time, the LCM teams are able to simultaneously deal with production issues, make better materials choices; more effectively meet customer needs, and reduce the post-use waste created by their products. Partnered ECO-EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS at BASF Two key questions for industry are How can economy and ecology be reconciled in corporate decision-making? and What will the products of tomorrow look like? To answer these questions, BASF has developed a tool to analyze eco-efficiency in its products and business processes. The eco-efficiency analysis studies the life cycle of a product from cradle to grave, beginning with extraction of raw materials and finishing with post-use. Besides environmental effects of raw materials and production, the analysis includes customer usage behavior as well as recycling and disposal possibilities. Unlike most other analyses, however, BASF's eco-efficiency analysis also includes economic factors. The analysis is carried out on two dimensions, environmental and economic. On the environment axis, the product's ecological fingerprint is measured according to criteria in five categories: consumption of raw materials, consumption of energy, emissions into air, water, and soil, toxic potential of substances, and potential for misuse or hazard. Each of these categories is subdivided into specific criteria, each of which is weighted on the basis of relevance factors. On the economy axis, the product is compared with alternative products in terms of overall costs, including material and energy flows. These two values are plotted then on a graph, and the product's eco-efficiency is determined by its location relative to a diagonal axis on the graph. This method of measuring eco-efficiency allows BASF to easily pinpoint exactly which aspects of a product or process are need in of improvement. To date over 130 eco-efficiency analyses have been carried out, about half in collaboration with BASF customers. One such study, commissioned by the parliamentary faction of the German Green party, compared the eco-efficiency of new and old refrigerators. Using data from Germany, BASF factored together energy costs and consumption, purchasing costs, and other environmental and economic factors to develop guidelines on when to replace a standard 140-liter refrigerator. The results were as follows: a refrigerator using less than 260 kwh per year should not be replaced, as the environmental benefits of replacing it are compared insignificant with the cost of replacement; if the refrigerator uses more than 330 kwh per year, however, it should be replaced with a new refrigerator with a class A energy-efficiency rating to reduce pollution and energy costs. Four key aspects of sustainability in innovation BB!##7'#A'6 A=1@2 6#@71:::Market value 0+-Creativity Development Introduction New s teady state Time Company Markets Produc t/Technology 2'7i#7: I'60 7 8! $&&"!#"#+&"&h &#$((!&!( (&#&!#!#--&#""&"(#"#$",#$"5 A#:#122##,17:2==7:'73))($$$$; 6>1$;/#-/#$$6'$*&&*/@$):()(,E#FR! $ ($ (6/#)$; $))/$) $$$$)()$/#($) $))($(((-/BM""M m 0(("&"&(!##O""&#8"F 9#!#5 M 89!""&m M &(")&""(5m &")(3"4 M N (&, M m $ (&a,++I?::8:!3')$ ($;($))()-)$)(($ ($$$))/3-$$</#$())$/#$)( $$$-)$$$$$)()$';('-$$!)()(($()$$-/,$)( $(((K$':@'@/M,"&!"(""&#""&"""$ $ 8 &"&9(,%$ &""&#"(&"H(!(#$,##&#/#1m $&89!"("&"#M"(#$"(!"#M $&#$(#@&,-$) BG((($"(& &#0$$m &"(&"#%&""&"#M"&"!#"#-M"""&#""$$m"#/M?""""5"&"#"M m &"!#"#17@17'#6a7162 6#'=$'E'F (6*&&%($$(!!$) E: F(! ($%GGG/C# 'D(@12-@-C(()D/#$=3$$: 7@')$;@(@37) $/#'$ ($ ($$$/1)))$)( $:**&&l/#%GGL) C6dj</($$) $$g&o$<L&o(/(L+&o)% &$/0*&&%()HLO$!;$/#'$$$((:$>@$: $1$@/0!($-$(-$)( $/,5 ($(-$$$$$$$$-)$/;/25 What processes are most likely to LEVERAGE THE VALUE OF OUR INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL? In a number of areas today, technology is emerging more rapidly than societal systems can comprehend and encompass it. The delay between a new technology and the development of social and ethical decisions about its use or application can increase market risk for the developers of the technology. This problem can be seen readily in the area of biotechnology but may also be anticipated in other health-related fields as well as nanotechnology, communications and electronics, entertainment, and software. Current developments in stemcell research represent one area in which the rules are quickly being made by governments in an attempt to keep up with the science. In such cases with an absence of definitive rules to guide them, companies need help in steering the course of innovation. Because of the rate of innovation, what is possible may not end up being acceptable to society. The technologies being developed today have the potential to affect human society in ways far surpassing our imagination. Companies working in these areas of research and development should find ways to explore societal reactions to these technologies even before they reach the market. For example, can a company gain value from a patent on human genetic sequencing if society does not allow its application in proprietary products? Fairly early in the development process, after some likelihood of success is indicated, decisions are made about protecting the knowledge that is being created. Most companies view their intellectual property as an asset a way to derive current value from the business as well as a platform for future Thepatent SYSTEM The patent is one side of a deal that the inventor makes with society. The quid pro quo is that in return for exclusive rights to the invention for a specific time, the inventor makes a prompt disclosure of the invention. Through this disclosure, society is given the basis for further improvement and further societal benefit hence squaring the deal. Furthermore, the invention must pass three review criteria to be patentable: Is it novel? Is it nonobvious to one skilled in the art? And is it useful? There is also a requirement that it not be contrary to public order, morality, or legality. Caution! CULTURE CLASH Ahead Intellectual property protection has been utilized through patents for many years as a way to foster innovation and to provide the basis for new business formation. And even before patent systems became established inventors and creative people developed means of protecting their inventions. At the same time, some societies have developed in which inventions are regarded as community assets rather than individual accomplishments. When these two cultural viewpoints meet, conflict is quite possible, and special approaches must be found to meet both practical and cultural expectations. developments. How to protect intellectual property is a significant business question. Products of the innovation process have traditionally been protected through one of three basic schemes:(1) patents and copyrights,(2) secrecy, and (3) publication in the public domain. Companies dealing with protection of emerging technologies, however, are finding patents either not necessary or, in some cases, a very fragile deal with society. New models for capitalizing on intellectual capital are being developed, the objective being to create both societal value and business value. One example is the open architecture of computer operating systems in the software industry. Businesses within the pharmaceutical industry are looking to different models for addressing human needs in developed as well as developing countries. They are discovering that patents while properly granted under strict interpretation of patent criteria, may still be a grant not acceptable to society. Exclusive license in products with extremely high societal value may be viewed as monopolistic or contrary to public interests. This doesn't necessarily mean that a proprietary interest cannot be created or protected, but it does mean that the benefit-sharing deal with society may need to be recast. Furthermore, the definition of novelty may also need to be reconsidered. Even though the product of inventive discovery, not obvious to others skilled in the art, and of great use, the exact structure of a human gene sequencefour key aspects of sustainability in innovation B6 &"$$e@7f#$$ & IC(-3an(("4((A((!%+"3!"#"#4"""BCCB#%$"#"$",#&&-"@BCCD(--BCCB#(%&""BCCB#""A""($%+($"(.$""!"""5 M m M &">$$""+3p4#%(34&(""$p")8"9#$"&((#$.""$"""&#!#&""#$"""&"5 M m+",M m%"&-""B7'(-$-""8"9"#$""!"""$"&((!""$"P#'& &""(&*""&"("&"(#&(((5.(($"&-&#A(""5 $#'"&""#89""#&"#%$)"(B=#%$"#/& 5!"(""5+<(&(/<N8! 95!""$)( B>$&"."""#L&"""&"#(8@"92/5 M%"38"94#M 34#""M%""38 &"&924#%(&"#%M &38""94#& (&"#"H#M!##L8! 9#M"(&"#L"(!"&#%(30 Project timeline 1998 September Stakeholder Dialogue: Innovation Brussels (STM) 1999 March-September Regional Dialogues Taiwan, Philippines, Taiwan, Brazil, Argentina (STM) March-November Biotechnology Scenario Project August Innovation and Sustainable Development: A Corporate Survey published September Innovation and Sustainable Business workshop November Innovation and Technology Project launched at WBCSD Council Meeting Berlin December Stakeholder Dialogue: Making Company-Led Innovation Fit for Sustainable Development London and Washington, D c. 2000 March-February Scoping Meeting for ITSS project Geneva May Scoping Meeting and Workshop with Assurance Team London Building a Better Future published July Assurance Team meeting on creating a robust dialogue process Zurich September Workshop on overall project Boston November Meeting on Information technology Implications Stuttgart 2001 February Meeting on Information technology Geneva March Working group meeting Montreux May Stakeholder Dialogue: Intellectual Property rights Montreux July Assurance Team Meeting Geneva July 2001-February 2002 Electronic Stakeholder Dialogue: Intellectual Property rights September Working group Meeting Kuala lumpur November Assurance Team Meeting Jongny sur Vevey Switzerland 2002 February Stakeholder Dialogue Meeting on Intellectual Property rights London Working group and Assurance Team Meeting London March EIRMA Roundtable: Sustainable Development and the Innovation Process Paris April Working group Meeting Stockholm This report represents a continuation of work by the WBCSD in the areas of sustainability, innovation, and new technologies. The interested reader is directed to Building a Better Future Innovation, Technology, and Sustainable Development, a progress report published in June 2000, led by Andrew Dearing, then of Shell International. This report examined company management of innovation and technology as well as stakeholder views of these practices. In addition, the scenarios developed by the WBCSD for global development, and for the evolution of biotechnologies were important starting points for our work. Appendices 31 IPR stakeholder dialogue UNDERLYING QUESTIONS What are the proper rules of access to genetic resources when used in the development and commercialization of products protected under IPRS? How should the line be drawn between proprietary knowledge, which may be reserved legitimately for private commercial use, and knowledge that must be placed in the public domain for free use by everyone? Will IPRS in modern biotechnology impose undue restrictions on the freedom of research? Will IPRS limit innovation or reduce the availability of useful new products? will extended IPRS, if worldwide, put developing countries at a disadvantage by effectively barring them from access to protected knowledge and products, for instance, new medicines? Selected cases were discussed that illustrated the above IPR topics in a paradigmatic way: Access to human genetic resources Access to essential medicines, and Protection of traditional knowledge Specific points of debate emerged as part of the dialogue on these three cases. Access to human genetic resources These questions comprise the access to human genes, the status of the data bases built up in functional genomics, and the scope of patent claims on human genes: How can access to human genetic resources (health data, family histories, blood samples, etc. legitimately be obtained? is informed consent of the donors required? Should state bureaucracies offer access to collections of materials they have within their jurisdiction? Should companies use such offers? Should companies provide for some kind of benefit sharing with the donors of genetic material? Shall HGR be collected by private companies and stored in private data bases? Is it legitimate to reserve exclusive access to data bases for just one company? Frequently, private companies collect genetic materials by appealing to altruism, conveying the message that the good will of the donor contributes to the public good. What would be a proper licensing practice in such a case? With respect to gene sequence data, there is a growing consensus that these data be disclosed and made freely available to all scientists. Are there reasons to apply that policy to data bases in functional genomics? Can one learn from the model case of the SNP (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms) consortium? What is the proper scope for patent claims on genetic information? Should genes for which one function has been disclosed be protected like chemicals? Will the public interest be guaranteed in order to contain the monopolistic effects of IPRS and safeguard competition and the dynamics of innovations? Access to essential medicines Discussions in the project took into account the legal debates going on over necessary or suitable modifications of IPR regimes in order to allow for greater access to essential drugs. The participants considered the space to maneuver allotted to national governments under international treaties such as the TRIPS Agreement, in order to devise favorable access policies. The main focus was on elaborating whether the private sector could pursue innovative or alternative approaches to ensure access to essential drugs. Related questions discussed: What exceptions to intellectual property rights (e g.,, early working provisions, compulsory licensing, etc. should be provided for by national legislation, in order to permit the timely supply of reliable, affordable drugs but, at the same time, not stifle R&d for further development? What strategies can companies pursue, in order to facilitate access to essential drugs on reasonable terms, beyond meeting those obligations arising from stipulations laid down under international intellectual property rights treaties? Are drug donations a viable strategy to address access to essential medicines? What are the comparative merits (compatibility with business objectives) of instruments like differential pricing, voluntary licenses, cooperation with generic drug manufacturers, or donations? How can the needs of the global health agenda be reconciled with the provisions of international trade policies when access to essential drugs is concerned? Appendices 32 Name Organization/Company Argumedo, Alejandro Indigenous People's Biodiversity Network Arnason, Einar Mannvernd, Iceland Aumonier, Alain Aventis Biber-Klemm , Susette University of Basel Burkert, Frank Bayer AG Leverkusen Chavunduka, Gordon Zimbabwe National Traditional Healers Association Correa, Carlos University of Buenos aires Cottier , Thomas University of Berne Cueni, Thomas La Roche Daele, Wolfgang van den Science Center Berlin Döbert, Rainer Science Center Berlin Dutfield, Graham Oxford university Eeckhaute, Jean Charles van EU Commission Ekpere, Johnson Organization of African Unity Flaherty, Margaret WBCSD Geffen, Nathan Treatment Action Campaign Geursen, Robert Aventis Gros, Florent Novartis Gupta, Anil Indian Institute of Management Harry Debra Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism Henkel, Thomas Bayer AG Hubbard, Tim Sanger Centre Wellcome Trust Hvid, Nina La Roche Iwu , Maurice Bioresources Development & Conservation Program Jacobi, Markus Aventis Karol, Robin Dupont King, Stephen Shaman Pharmaceuticals Kuesters, Gabriele Aventis La Viña , Antonio World Resources Institute Leskien, Dan European parliament Lindpaintner, Klaus F. Hoffmann-la roche Love, James Consumer Project on Technology Meienberg, Francois Berne Declaration Moran, Katy The Healing Forest Conservancy Morrissey, Bruce Dupont Nogués, Julio Former Worldbank Executive director Ouma, Chris Action Aid Pacón, Ana Maria Peruvian Tribunal for Intellectual Property Protection Rittenhouse, Dawn Dupont Rulon Michael WBCSD Seiler, Achim Science Center Berlin Solaro, Patricia Aventis Stefansson, Einar Decode genetics Stevens, Ross WBCSD Stott, Michael Glaxo Smithkline plc Teitel, Martin Council for Responsible Genetics Wagner, Jost Science Center Berlin Webber, David IFPMA Weissman, Robert Essential Action Observers Bellmann , Christophe ICTSD Boughen, Sheena Ecos Corporation Frein, Michael Church Development Service Gettkant, Andreas German Agency for Technical Cooperation Kasten, Wolfgang German Agency for Technical Cooperation Mayne, Ruth OXFAM Smith, Andy Earth Ethics Watal, Jayashree WTO Facilitators Lair, Heather Meridian Institute Lesnick, Mike Meridian Institute Protection of traditional knowledge Traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples, embedded in local cultures, can provide valuable resources for the development of useful technology. The focus was on intangible assets, that is, on the use of traditional knowledge, for instance, knowledge about the medicinal properties of a certain plant, and not on the tangible assets to which such knowledge refers, such as collecting the plant or its genes. Related questions discussed: What are proper rules for access to traditional knowledge? is informed prior consent by the local communities imperative? For commercial exploitation only? Or also for the investigation and the disclosure of the knowledge? Under what conditions should traditional knowledge be considered the private (collective) property of the local cultures, or a part of the common heritage of humankind, respectively (e g.,, knowledge already in the public domain? What are proper rules for the exploitation and appropriation of the knowledge? Should there be a sui generis IPR-regime (registration and protection) for traditional knowledge? Do existing criteria adequately describe conditions for the granting of patents based on traditional knowledge? What strategies are appropriate to protect the traditional knowledge of indigenous and other local communities from being misappropriated or becoming unduly patented thereafter? What mechanisms are proper for sharing the benefits derived from the use of traditional knowledge between those who hold such knowledge and any third parties seeking legal access to it? Participants OF THE DIALOGUE 33 Employment/Labor unions Government Regulationsngosacademic institutions Think tanks/Research groups Customerssuppliersreligious groupsindigenous peoplesyouth/Women Media Who needs this innovation Who is directly responsible for decisions in the issues Who will be affected by any decisions around the issue Who will benefit Who will be harmed Who cares Who should care Who is touched not Who is afraid Who is representative Who is asking questions Who is impacted Who is concerned Who has perceived the power Who has the real power Who are the potential competitors of alternative products Who are potential aliens or opponents Who has been involved in the past Who has not been involved in the past Who holds positions of responsibility in SH organizations Who will promote a decision Who will obstruct a decision Who is influential in the area community, organization Who speaks for future generations Who/which group is underrepresented Appendices Identifying stakeholders A GUIDING MATRIX G#86>$eanq#"XXN("#$"(#5ff#"#FF"F#FF#:@#@$$n(#5ff"#"F!####>2e>2f!""5y.""""(5ff"#"6: $e#6: F &(("&#5ff##"5ff##20e20f@,"5ff###N@("5ff#"#7$+E-((5ff##"7$n+%-&""(DBI#5ff#""7'+$$%ANE$%A%?%%%$le+%AN$/O?@@A$+35 Working group leaders Dawn Rittenhouse, Dupont Patricia Solaro, Aventis Working group James Azim, British Standards Institution Peter Baruch, Shell Deanna Coles, BHP Billiton Scott Daunheimer, Dow corning Pogo Davis, Conoco Thomas Epprecht, Swiss re Markus Grauwiller, Cemex Nobu Imajyo, Asahi Glass Scott Johnson, SC Johnson Gary Mayo, Visteon Keith Miller, 3m Heinrich Reitz, BASF Thomas Streiff, Swiss re Martin Tanner, Novartis Mark Wade, Shell Bill Wallace, CH2M HILL Akao Yamanaka, Hitachi Chemicals Regional partners René van Berkel, Curtin University of Technology (WASIG) Liesel Gutierrez, BCSD Gulf of mexico Palgunadi Setyawan, DML Indonesia Assurance team Roger Baud ETH Sheena Boughen, ECOS Corporation Wolfgang van den Daele, Berlin Science Center for Social Research (WZB) Anil K. Gupta, Honeybee Network/Indian Institute of Management Milda Hedblom, World Summit on the Information Society Joyce Miller, Independent Diane Osgood, Independent Achim Seiler, Berlin Science Center for Social Research (WZB) Andy Smith, Earth Ethics Rainer Züst, ETH WBCSD staff Michael Rulon Ross Stevens (Project Director, seconded from Dupont) WBCSD resources Samantha Chadwick Stephanie Hanford Robin Karol (former Project Director, seconded from Dupont) Evi Vanakari-Renken Appendices Participants About the WBCSD The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) is a coalition of 160 international companies united by a shared commitment to sustainable development via the three pillars of economic growth, ecological balance and social progress. Our members are drawn from more than 30 countries and 20 major industrial sectors. We also benefit from a Global network of 38 national and regional business councils and partner organizations involving more than 1, 000 business leaders globally. Our mission To provide business leadership as a catalyst for change toward sustainable development, and to promote the role of eco-efficiency, innovation and corporate social responsibility. Our aims Our objectives and strategic directions, based on this dedication, include: Business leadership to be the leading business advocate on issues connected with sustainable development. Policy development to participate in policy development in order to create a framework that allows business to contribute effectively to sustainable development. Best practice to demonstrate business progress in environmental and resource management and corporate social responsibility and to share leading-edge practices among our members. Global outreach to contribute to a sustainable future for developing nations and nations in transition. Disclaimer This report is released in the name of the WBCSD. Like other WBCSD reports, it is the result of a collaborative effort by members of the secretariat and executives from several member companies. The views expressed do not necessarily represent the views of every WBCSD member. To order reports Earthprint P o box 119 Stevenage, Hertfordshire SG1 4tp England Telephone:(44 1438) 748 111 Fax:(44 1438) 748 844 Email: wbcsd@earthprint. com Web: http://www. earthprint. com/Graphic design: Michael Martin Text: Ross Stevens, Michael Rulon, Dawn Rittenhouse and Patricia Solaro Copyright World Business Council for Sustainable Development, July 2002 ISBN 2-940240-27 -2 Printed by Atar Roto Presse SA, Switzerland In the natural world there is no waste. Detritus from one organism is food for another. In this way nature continues to cycle and recycle organically. Its only input is solar energy. Part of business's innovative power must be directed to the creation of value cycles which more nearly mimic the way nature works. 4, chemin de Conches Tel:(41 22) 839 31 00 Email: info@wbcsd. org CH-1231 Conches-Geneva Fax:(41 22) 839 31 31 Web: www. wbcsd. org Switzerland Supply chains as BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS

< Back - Next >

Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011