External Advisory and Monitoring Committees:
Background Research on Best Practice

FROM REPORT PREPARED FOR THE PLACER DOME INC.
EVALUATION WORKING GROUP

July 4, 2000

INTRODUCTION

 

Placer Dome Inc. (PDI) is exploring the feasibility of establishing an external stakeholder monitoring and advisory committee reporting to the Executive Council. PDI anticipates that engaging external community and special interest groups or civil society organizations (CSOs) will build trust and credibility, drive change within the company and help to establish Placer Dome as a leader in sustainability world-wide.

Placer Dome Inc. has asked The Centre for Innovation in Management at Simon Fraser University to conduct background research to identify:

1.      models and case examples of stakeholder advisory/monitoring committees world-wide,

2.      critical success factors, and

3.      key implementation issues.

The research involved a web and library search for relevant articles, monographs, and reports. In addition, more than 25 academics, consultants and institutional researchers who have expertise and experience in this form of stakeholder engagement were contacted to identify case examples and success factors. Finally, telephone interviews were conducted with corporate managers/executives to obtain details about the most relevant cases. The research was conducted in May and June 2000.

TRENDS IN STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

Pressure for Boards to Be More Knowledgeable and Engaged

In the past several years, the performance of Boards of Directors has been scrutinised both in terms of governance practises and the capacity of board members to respond to emerging social and environmental as well as financial issues.  Sir Adrian Cadbury, the author of the renowned Cadbury report on corporate governance said recently, “There can be no doubt that the issues which boards are expected to take into account in coming to decisions, and on which they are expected to report, are broadening.” [1]

Companies are using a variety of mechanisms to raise awareness and understanding of sustainability issues at the Board and senior executive levels from increasing stakeholder representation on Boards to creating committees tasked with identifying and addressing non-financial issues. Though rare, a small number of companies have also formed stakeholder advisory committees reporting to Boards of Directors or senior management.

Move to More Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement

Leadership companies are moving towards more collaborative forms of stakeholder engagement despite concerns about confidentiality of shared information, significant demands on time and other resources, and the difficulties some companies experience in addressing broader issues raised by groups concerned with sustainability.

Why are companies moving away from one-way communication or two-way consultation to deeper forms of engagement? According to recent articles [2] , reasons for the move towards more collaborative corporate-stakeholder relationships include:

¨      credibility of non-governmental and civic society organisations with the public,

¨      the desire to head off conflict and negative media coverage,

¨      the infusion of new information and ideas,

¨      greater efficiency in resource allocation,

¨      potential to develop new or expanded markets.

 

Stakeholder Organisations Setting Standards for Corporate Behaviour

 

As governments downsize and connectivity between people around the globe continues to grow, civil society and special interest organisations are playing an increasingly important role in setting standards for corporate behaviour, particularly around environmental and human rights issues.

 

Referred to as ‘civil regulation,’ [3] companies that are seen to be meeting these standards experience benefits such as enhanced motivation and morale of staff and a positive reputation. Companies who don’t meet the stakeholder imposed standards risk media attacks, campaigns, and boycotts – all of which may negatively impact access to markets and stock prices.

 

Stakeholder Concerns about Engaging with Corporations

 

As civil society and special interest organisations engage with companies in dialogue around policy issues and more intense forms of partnership, concerns have arisen about the impact of these partnerships [4] .

 

Some of the concerns expressed by stakeholders around engagement include:

¨      the risk of co-optation;

¨      lack of time to involve members in dialogue on issues;

¨      scepticism and criticism of colleagues,

¨      reduction in media attention as non-governmental organisations move from campaigning on 'obvious' platforms to negotiating with corporate decision-makers on complex issues,

¨      potential reduction in the success of fundraising campaigns, and

¨      increased potential for conflicts with the membership base.

 

While many stakeholder organisations are cautious about collaborating with companies, a growing number of organisations believe that by working with ‘best of sector’ leading companies, they will raise standards and force lagging companies to also improve their practises.

 

Few Examples of High Level Stakeholder Advisory Committees

 

Based on the research conducted for this study, it appears that very few companies world-wide have established external stakeholder advisory committees reporting to senior management or Boards of Directors. While government agencies have a long history of working with stakeholder advisory committees, this has not been common practise in the private sector.

 

This observation is supported by Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) [5] . In its research with member companies and others, BSR has identified few high level advisory committees made up of external stakeholders.

 

Most external stakeholder advisory committees that have been established provide input on narrowly defined areas of corporate activity such as community investment and philanthropic spending; or specific projects and local community issues.

 

Internal Committees to Address Sustainability Issues

 

In an effort to deal proactively with social and environmental issues, some companies have added responsibility for stakeholder issues to board committees (e.g. Time Warner) or created a dedicated committee of the board to review corporate social responsibility and sustainability policies (e.g. 3M, General Mills [6] ).

 

In some cases, entire Boards are playing a more active role in shaping company policies and practises on social issues. At Pfizer, for example, the Board periodically reviews related corporate policies. In addition, senior managers from the Corporate Affairs and Governance divisions of the company regularly make presentations to the board on current and emerging social issues.

 

Emphasis on On-Going Dialogue with Stakeholders

 

Rather than establishing formal advisory committees, many of the leading companies are engaging in less formal and less structured forms of dialogue and problem solving. The dialogue takes many forms from annual stakeholder forums to intensive ‘working groups’ formed to address specific policy or operational concerns. Generally, the participants change as the issues change and the process is adaptive rather than prescribed ahead of time.

CASE EXAMPLES

Stakeholder Advisory Panels and Committees

 Dow Chemical Company

In 1991, Dow formed a Corporate Environmental Advisory Council to provide the company with advice on environmental, health and safety issues. The Council was the first of its kind in the global chemical industry.

 

Dow’s Council includes 10 external policy and opinion leaders. Current and past council members include: the CEO of the Global Environment and Technology Foundation; a pediatrician and epidemiologist from Johns Hopkins University, the Director of the Centre for Social and Environmental Accounting Research; the Executive Director of Leadership for Environment and Development, President of the World Resources Institute and the Assistant Administrator of the UN Development Program. Recently Dow has extended representation on the Council to include experts in the social aspects of sustainability.

 

The VP of Environment, Health and Safety and Public Affairs chairs the Council. It meets two or three times a year and the Council members agree to serve for a minimum two to three year term. Many of the members remain on the Council for longer terms. According to Dow, this is beneficial because the members need at least two years to understand the business and issues and as a result are better equipped to contribute valuable insights. Despite the long tenure of members, Dow feels they are getting useful, independent,  “outside the box” advice.

 

The Council does not report to the board, partly because the issues discussed by the Council are not directly relevant to Board decision-making. Occasionally, the Council will be invited to make a presentation to the Board on a specific issue. One or two senior level company executives attend each meeting to provide input and listen to the group’s views. Meetings are conducted with the assistance of an independent facilitator. With input from the Council, Dow generally sets the agenda for Council meetings. Council members are provided an honorarium of $2000 for each meeting day and an additional amount of $2000 if travelling abroad to participate, plus expenses.

 

Dow has also established 26 Community Advisory Panels (CAPs) around individual facilities. The panels, which report to operational and public affairs managers, meet monthly to deal with local and operational concerns. Usually an external facilitator facilitates the panel meetings and Dow prepares the agenda with input from the Panel. In the Sarnia area, the Panel includes 16 members and there is no limitation on participation or tenure.

 

Shell Chemicals Canada

 

In 1998, Shell Chemicals Canada established a Sustainability Advisory Panel to examine the impacts of chemical products on the environment, health and safety, natural resources, society and the economy. The twelve-member panel of social and environmental stakeholder advisors is convened on an “as needed” basis to assess new products. The panel also developed a scoring system to judge the sustainability of Shell’s products.

 

Shell Canada

 

Shell Canada has recently formed a Climate Change Advisory Panel of community leaders and environmental experts to review plans and test options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Shell’s base businesses as well as in the new Athabasca Oil Sands Project. The Panel will also regularly examine Shell’s commitments on climate change and assess progress against those commitments [7] .

 

The first meeting of the panel is scheduled for July, 2000. Shell Canada’s President and CEO will chair the Panel. A senior executive with Shell International will also sit on the Panel.

 

The Climate Change Advisory Panel members are:

·        Steve Bass, Director of Programs, International Institute for Environment and Development, London, England

·        Jim Boucher, President, Athabasca Tribal Council and Chief, Fort McKay First Nation, Fort McKay, Alberta

·        Elizabeth Cook, Director, Management Institute for Environment and Business, World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.

·        Tim Faithfull, President and CEO, Shell Canada Limited, Calgary, Alberta

·        Robert Hornung, Climate Change Program Director, Pembina Institute, Ottawa, Ontario

·        Aidan Murphy, Global Climate Change Advisor, Shell International Limited, London, England

·        David Runnalls, President, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Manitoba

·        Sarah Wade, Economist, Global and Regional Atmosphere Program, Environmental Defense, Washington, D.C.

 

It is anticipated that the panel will assist in identifying, screening and selecting energy reduction and offset project options. The members in collaboration with Shell Canada will develop final terms of reference for the panel.

 

Freeport McMoRan

 

Several years ago, Freeport McMoRan created a Social Cultural Advisory (SCAC) Committee that reported to the Board of Commissioners for the company’s Indonesia subsidiary. Freeport also created a similar environmental advisory committee.

 

Members of the SCAC included academics and other experts. They met several times a year and the committee is still in existence but less active. David Lowry, VP of Social and Developmental Programs and the human rIghts compliance officer at Freeport notes that the committee was not as successful as they hoped because its members were not closely tied to the local communities. The company is now in the process of establishing a new group consisting primarily of Irian Jaya (Papua) nationals most of whom are leaders of local church organisations or are connected with the university. This committee of “locals” will report to senior management who will then report to the Board of Commissioners.

 

In order to give the Papuan people a greater voice in the governance of the company, PT Freeport asked three additional local area leaders to join the Indonesia Board. The Board of Commissioners now includes five ‘stakeholder’ representatives, including several heads of indigenous groups in Irian Jaya (Papua), one provincial governor and another political representative (the equivalent of a mayor the region).

 

This type of representation has been beneficial from the company’s point of view. The stakeholder representatives have recently spoken publicly in support of Freeport’s contributions to the local community. On the other hand, recognizes that the stakeholder representatives on the Board may be critical of Freeport, and in fact one Board member launched a legal suit against Freeport while sitting on the Board.

 

In November 1999, the company also appointed Judge Gabrielle Kirk McDonald to serve as Special Counsel on Human Rights to the Chairman of FCX. Finally, Freeport holds one-day consultation sessions with national and international stakeholders prior to the Annual General Meeting. These are informal but on the record sessions.

 

TXU Europe

 

TXU Europe is part of a global energy services company with revenues of more than $US16 billion and over 9 million customers. Since 1996 TXU has worked with the Environment Council, an independent charity in the UK that works with companies to find collaborative solutions to sustainability issues. 

 

In 1998 TXU created an External Advisory Body to provide best practise advice and an outside perspective on corporate policies and activities [8] . Members of the council include local authorities, finance, environmental scientists and environmental groups [9] . During its first year, the Council created a vision for an effective, competitive and sustainable company and provided advice on social accountability.

 

Last year, the company also undertook a program of ‘managed dialogues’ with key stakeholder groups including shareholders, suppliers, customers, allies, regulators and academics. The Environment Council, an independent third party organization, facilitated these dialogues. The aims of the dialogue workshops were to identify priority social issues, develop indicators of progress and identify policy principles.

 

Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.

 

Berrett-Koehler (BK) based in San Francisco, publishes books focused on business and global sustainability, leadership and management. In 1999 BK established two stakeholder councils – an Author’s Council and Supply Chain Council. Each Council consists of up to twelve members who serve for a two to three year term. One member of each Council sits on the Board of Directors.

 

The councils meet two to three times per year and the members also participate in several teleconferences. The councils provide input on strategic issues to the Board and senior management; develop projects that benefit the company and the stakeholders and lead/develop stakeholder input ‘dialogue conferences’. Council members are not paid.

 

Severn Trent

 

Severn Trent is a water utility company in Great Britain recognised for its leadership on governance. The company recently established an External Advisory Panel of environmental experts, which reports directly to the Board.

The Chair and members of the panel are academics and opinion leaders.

 

Camelot PLC                       

 

Camelot is a privately held company that operates the National Lottery in Great Britain. In 1998 they created an independent Advisory Panel on Social Responsibility that brings together representatives of all of the company’s major stakeholder groups. The panel oversees Camelot’s social reporting process.

 

Its members volunteer their services and receive no payment. Each member takes responsibility for a stakeholder group (e.g. customers), examines consistency of stakeholder consultation and reviews and recommends acceptance of the social reporting methodology.

 

Panel members include representatives from the National Consumer Council; National Council for Voluntary Organisations, Association of Community Trusts and Foundations, Tomorrow' Company; National Federation of Retail Newsagents, Anglian Water, and BP/Amoco. A paid advisor to the board of Camelot on corporate social responsibility issues chairs the panel.

 

Telstra

 

Telstra, Australia’s largest telecommunications company, has set up a ‘consumer exchange’ advisory committee. The committee provides input to senior management on consumer issues such as strategies for improving access for people with disabilities, and the different needs of rural and urban customers. Telstra pays advisory panel overhead and the expenses of members.

 

British Telecom

 

Since the early 1990’s, BT has maintained a number of ‘liaison panels.’ General panels address any and all issues, and single-issue panels focus on specific topics. Panel members are chosen to represent various stakeholder interests. BT’s environmental panel, for example, includes local residents, BT managers, professional environmentalists, local business owners, researchers and academics, and high school students.

 

The panels were created to “anticipate concerns, identify best practice and avoid stakeholder disaffection in the market place.” According to a company spokesperson the panels stimulate BT to answer questions they might not otherwise ask and provide feedback it needs but may not want to hear.

 

Co-operative Bank

 

The Co-operative Bank in Great Britain is recognised as a leader in stakeholder engagement. In addition to broad consultation with their customers/members on the bank’s ethical policies, they also established a Stakeholder Panel as part of their 1999 social audit process. The National Centre for Business and Ecology facilitated the dialogue with the Panel and gathered comments from panel members, which were included in the bank’s 1999 Partnership Report and on the company’s website.

 

The Body Shop

 

A stakeholder advisory panel has been created for each of the Body Shop’s social audit processes. The audits have been conducted by the New Economics Foundation, a not-for-profit organisation based in Britain. The panels typically include opinion leaders from academia, business and the civic sector. The New Economics Foundation convenes advisory panels to comment on the scope and adequacy of draft social audits/social accounts. Panels may be disbanded after the audit has been completed.

 

Chevron Canada

 

As a member of the Chemical Producers Association and a subscriber to the Responsible Care Program, Chevron Canada like many other chemical companies has created local advisory committees (LAC) around most of their facilities. The LAC members include residents and community leaders. The committees generally advise the company on strategies to mitigate community impacts and also contribute to the development of emergency response plans. The LACs are seen as a way to manage reputation issues with local communities, however the effectiveness of the committees for the company and the community often depends on the skills and commitment of facility managers.

 

Intel

 

Intel has created Community Advisory Panels to provide a link between the company and communities in Ireland, Arizona, New Mexico and Oregon.

Panel members represent a cross-section of business, academic, health and community interests. They provide input on specific projects. For example, two members of the advisory panel formed independent citizens’ steering committee that served as an oversight group to ensure a major expansion study was conducted impartially.

 

Stakeholder Consultation

 

The following are brief descriptions of progressive approaches to stakeholder consultation that don’t involve stakeholder advisory committees. The cases will provide Placer Dome with an indication of the range of approaches being used to establish on-going dialogue with stakeholders.

 

NovoNordisk

 

Novo consults regularly with local and international stakeholders on community and environmental issues using a variety of processes (e.g. annual on-site consultation with environmental groups). Much of the dialogue is not systematic but conducted on an as-needed basis.

 

The consultation is often preceded by an internal assessment. Before engaging with international stakeholders on human rights issues, for example, Novo Nordisk is assessing their own operations as well as the activities of their supply chain. As part of the assessment, the company is conducting one-on-one interviews with suppliers, staff and is also engaging in e-mail dialogues with stakeholder group leaders.

 

Starbucks

 

Starbucks uses stakeholder dialogues to address specific issues, for example strategies for dealing with impacts of coffee growing pesticides on songbirds. The company is working with Conservation International on a number of strategic issues. They have found the engagement with CI has helped them achieve business objectives like finding a new more environmentally sustainable source of beans.

 

BP Amoco

 

BP has long history of stakeholder engagement on environmental and social issues. In the mid-1990s BP began a dialogue with human rights groups in Britain on human rights issues relating to oil exploration in Colombia. They had been accused of abuses and wanted to clear their name and play a positive role in Colombia. Two groups BP consulted were Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

 

According to BP senior managers, the consultation helps to ensure that the company maintains its social license to operate, and also contributes to a better internal understanding of BP's social responsibilities and improved strategies for managing risk.

 

Shell International

 

During 1999 Shell held a series of stakeholder forums in various countries where they have operations to meet stakeholder representatives for intensive discussion and debate. They also actively solicit input from stakeholders via their website 

 

Shell also established an internal Sustainable Development Council several years ago to steer the implementation of the sustainable development Management Framework across the Shell Group. The Council is chaired by Shell’s chairman Mark Moody-Stuart and comprises senior executives from five core businesses and heads of the centre directorates. The council is accountable to the Committee of Managing Directors.

 

British Telecom

 

Stakeholder Forums

BT sponsors one-day events to bring a mix of community leaders together to discuss issues such as privacy, corporate integrity or legislation dealing with employee issues. Besides stimulating open discussion, the forums also foster collaborative action between the participants.  Topics for the forums come from external groups, the liaison panels or from within BT.

 

The forums have been set up to demonstrate BT’s concern about social issues and also to help the company develop stronger relationships with community stakeholders. They also provide an opportunity for BT to get involved in collaborative ventures with other stakeholders to address issues that affect BT in the long run but are not directly related to their operations.

 

Issues Exchanges

BT sponsors working groups to address trends and complex issues with national or global implications. The conclusions reached by the working groups are brought to the attention of government policy makers. The issue exchanges give BT an opportunity to build positive relationships with scientists and other experts as well as government regulators.

Input to Senior Management and the Board

Input from these different processes is collected, analysed and presented via BT’s Chief Executive to the Board Executive Committee every six months.  Issues requiring action are debated and resolved by the Issues Steering Group that is chaired by the Director of Corporate Relations with members from major divisions. In this way, BT ensures that the feedback from stakeholders is used and thus they will participate in future initiatives.

FACTORS INFLUENCING THE SUCCESS OF ADVISORY BODIES

The following information is drawn from several recent studies dealing with the factors that affect the success of stakeholder engagement processes in general and advisory committees in particular. [10]

 

Industry Context

The existing level of conflict between stakeholders and an industry will affect a company’s ability to recruit a diverse group of members who can work effectively together. Also, the host company’s reputation and past relationships with stakeholders will play a significant role in shaping the development and impact of an advisory group.

Advisory groups will be more effective if there is a high level of understanding and knowledge about key issues within the stakeholder community and a variety of well established interest groups with a history of engagement and the skills and competencies required for successful engagement (e.g. communication, conflict resolution etc.). In addition, willingness to collaborate often depends on both the company and its stakeholders perceiving a high level of interdependence and high stakes (i.e. neither can resolve the issue nor reach their goals without the other [11] ).

 

Composition of Advisory/Monitoring Committee

The composition of the committee will affect both the quality of the dialogue and the credibility of the group with other stakeholders and the public. The most successful committees are diverse in terms of the stakeholder groups represented and the viewpoints of individual members.

Resource companies are faced with a particular challenge of finding ways to create forums whereby the global concerns of international stakeholder and civil society organisations can be considered without loosing sight of the local concerns of communities affected by the company’s operations.

Depending on the circumstances, forming separate advisory/monitoring groups may not be successful. Generally, diversity seems to be the best antidote against a committee becoming polarised into critical and defensive factions.

 

Purpose, Goals and Commitment to Consensus

Beginning with a clear and agreed upon statement of purpose and goals is one of the most important contributors to success. Often getting to this level of understanding requires several meetings as participants learn about each other’s differing mindsets, language and assumptions.

 

 Most research on the effectiveness of advisory groups also highlights the importance of beginning with a commitment to reach consensus on as many issues as possible. Consensus advice, which reflects agreement among diverse individuals and organisations, will be more useful to proponents such as Placer Dome and more acceptable to others in the community. Thus the advice will provide a firm basis for developing policies that are technically sound and will be supported.

 

Recruitment

Successful advisory groups are balanced in terms of the viewpoints of members. To ensure balance, representation may be by:

1)     individual viewpoint - members selected from identified stakeholder groups and are asked to represent their personal viewpoint. This is like the Dow Advisory Council or the Berrett-Koehler Councils.

2)     category viewpoint - members are selected to represent the views of people in the stakeholder group. In this approach, members take responsibility for informing themselves about views of others in the stakeholder group from which they are drawn. This is like the Camelot's Advisory Panel or the BT environmental panels.

3)     organisational interest viewpoint – individuals represent the views of particular organisations. This is like most government advisory committees.

 

No matter what approach is taken, the host company should get to know the strengths and weaknesses of individuals and their organisations that may be invited to participate before the recruitment process begins.

Selection Process

There are at least four methods of selecting members of an advisory/monitoring group. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. Members may be selected by:

1)     the advisory/monitoring committee or planning group (e.g. the PDI Evaluation Group)

2)     a third-party or independent body (e.g. a respected international civil society organisation or university-based group)

3)     organisations through designation of their representatives

4)     the proponent (e.g. Placer Dome)

 

The selection process has implications for the discourse between the members and the relationship between the committee and Placer Dome. If members are selected by organisations, there is often the tendency for members to avoid making commitments before they check with their constituents. If the proponent chooses members, credibility can be lacking.

 

Selection Criteria

 

The sustainability expert, John Elkington has developed a useful categorisation of non-governmental organisations using animals to describe various ‘types’ of organisations [12] . According to his model, successful advisory groups will engage ‘dolphin’ organisations that are intelligent, creative, and friendly to other species.

Individual participants should also be selected at least partly on the basis of their skillset and mindset.  High levels of emotional intelligence amongst participants can go a long ways towards ensuring a successful advisory group. Specific desirable characteristics include:

¨      individuals who are committed to finding solutions

¨      with good communication skills

¨      open minded

¨      knowledgeable

¨      respected

¨      trustworthy (e.g. will honour agreements)

 

Transparent and Productive Process

 

Successful advisory group processes begin with face-to-face meetings to build trust and a sense of ‘team’. Clarifying expectations of participants and setting goals generally takes longer than anticipated, however short circuiting this process often leads to trouble in the longer term.

 

Experience indicates that it is important to begin with a clear but flexible plan and

adequate resources to achieve the group’s goals. Payment of participants is a delicate issue which should be resolved early (ideally before recruitment).

 

Participants should agree on indicators of success  - for example what would convince stakeholder participants that their input had a meaningful effect?

 

Other important design features include:

¨      open and transparent decision-making processes,

¨      team-building processes,

¨      fostering leadership particularly by a skilled chairperson,

¨      providing good facilitation support for meeting planning, execution and for brokering technical and interpersonal issues outside of meetings

Communication

To build trust, care must be taken to communicate consensus positions reached by the advisory group and reasons for those the positions to constituents of the participating organisations and others with an interest in Placer Dome’s activities. PDI can facilitate the communication if necessary by producing templates, newsletters, email summaries of meetings etc.

APPENDIX A: List of Contacts

Rob Abbott                            Abbott Strategies, Vancouver

Jorg Andriof                           Corporate Citizenship Unit, Warwick Business School, UK

Dr. Audrey Armour                President, Centre for Collaborative Action, York University, Toronto

Tim Bancroft                          VP Human Resources and Public Affairs, Shell Canada

Judith Bradbury                     US Department of Environment, Battelle Institute

Valerie Crissey                     Business for Social Responsibility

Mike Diconti                          Business Roundtable (Washington DC)

Debra Elliott                           President, Canadian Business for Social Responsibility

Jean-Marc Fontan                 UQAM, Quebec, Canada

Dr. Simon Gao                      Professor, Napier University Business School, UK

Dr. Mark Glazebrook            Professor, Corporate Citizenship Research Unit, Deakin University, Australia

Claudia Gonella                    KPMG Sustainability Advisory Services, London

                                                formerly with The International Institute for Social and Ethical AccountAbility

Ruth Henry                             Former member of the Chevron Local Advisory Committee (Burnaby)

Dr. Eleonoor Hintzen            Good Company, Amsterdam

Moira Hutchinson                  Consultant

David Levy                             Working Opportunities Fund

David Lowry                           VP of Social and Developmental Programs and Human RIghts Compliance officer, Freeport McMoRan

Dr. Philip Monaghan             Director, National Centre for Business and Ecology, University of Salford, UK

John Musser                          Dow Liaison and Director of Dow’s Public Policy Expertise Center

Steve Piersanti                      CEO, Berrett-Koehler Publishers 

Dr. Steve Rochlin                  Director of Research,  Boston College Centre for Corporate Citizenship

Jan Rowley                            Manager, Public Affairs, Shell Canada

Neil Smith                              Principal, Smith O’Brien, Boston

Tim Smith                               ICCR (Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibiltiy)

Dr. Sandra Waddock           Professor of Management, Boston College, US

Dr. Steve Waddell                 Senior Researcher, Organizational Futures, Boston

Dr. David Wheeler                Professor, Schulich School of Business, York University

Websites:

Ashridge Centre for Business and Society    www.ashridge.com

Business for Social Responsibiltiy    www.bsr.org/resourcecenter

World Resources Institute  www.wri.org

Prince of Wales Business Forum  www.pwblf.org

Business in the Community     www.bitc.org.uk

Oregon’s Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee    www.lcd.or.us