to the matrix of indicators and the current version (4.1) has five different categories
and five stakeholder groups for whom principles are formulated. The categories are
human dignity, solidarity, ecological sustainability, social justice, and democratic
co-decision-making and transparency. The stakeholder groups are suppliers, creditors, employees including co-owners, customers/partners/service providers and the
societal environment. Each matrix field has a short description of the type of
conduct that is expected and also gives a point score that expresses the weighting of
this principle in the overall set.
The rather unusual final row in the matrix is one with negative criteria, for which
points have to be subtracted. These are primarily about violations of standards and
principles that have been agreed by the international community, for example, in
OECD, International Labour Organization (ILO) or UN guidelines. These include
human rights, worker protection, environmental standards, tax avoidance,
non-disclosure on subsidiaries, non-disclosure of payments to lobbyists, the prohibition of work councils and dumping prices. They also contain strong normative
judgments about what are considered to be inhumane products such as land mines,
genetically modified organisms, nuclear weapons and nuclear waste, plus unequal
pay for men and women, equity yield rates over 10 %, excessive income inequality
within a business or blocking patents and hostile takeovers.
The negative points that companies can ‘earn’ in this category are much higher
than the positive ones that can be gained through common good activities. This
sends a strong signal that the violation of agreements and the intentional undermining of standard practices are worse for cohesion, trust and relationships than not
actively pushing up the benchmarks (Economy for the Common Good 2010b).
While the matrix calculates a final number that can be compared with others, the
entire concept of it lies much more in stimulating a structured conversation and
process within the business about its shortcomings and any room for possible
improvements. Peer learning lies at the center of the concept and businesses decide
themselves if they want to hire one of the growing network of balance sheet
consultants. It is also up to them to add an external audit or not. The mid-term
political goal, however, is to make CGBS reporting mandatory and, in a first step, to
guarantee tax breaks or public procurement advantages for those participating or
faring really well.
The initiative also encourages the surrounding community, as well as the local
government, to support these businesses with customer loyalty, public acknowledgement or even to undertake their own evaluation. These are called ‘Common
Good Regions’ and 45 of them have been launched in Austria, Germany,
Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Great Britain, the United States and
recently also in South America.
In northern Italy and Austria in particular, mayors and communes are now coming
together to develop visions for more regionalized, value-based, participatory and
sustainable supply chains and to see how these could be institutionally supported.
Some of them are considering the introduction of regional currencies to facilitate the
strengthening of ties and trust and to develop local wealth indicators. The goal is to
4.1 Pioneering Businesses: Common Good Matrix and Balance Sheets
125
and five stakeholder groups for whom principles are formulated. The categories are
human dignity, solidarity, ecological sustainability, social justice, and democratic
co-decision-making and transparency. The stakeholder groups are suppliers, creditors, employees including co-owners, customers/partners/service providers and the
societal environment. Each matrix field has a short description of the type of
conduct that is expected and also gives a point score that expresses the weighting of
this principle in the overall set.
The rather unusual final row in the matrix is one with negative criteria, for which
points have to be subtracted. These are primarily about violations of standards and
principles that have been agreed by the international community, for example, in
OECD, International Labour Organization (ILO) or UN guidelines. These include
human rights, worker protection, environmental standards, tax avoidance,
non-disclosure on subsidiaries, non-disclosure of payments to lobbyists, the prohibition of work councils and dumping prices. They also contain strong normative
judgments about what are considered to be inhumane products such as land mines,
genetically modified organisms, nuclear weapons and nuclear waste, plus unequal
pay for men and women, equity yield rates over 10 %, excessive income inequality
within a business or blocking patents and hostile takeovers.
The negative points that companies can ‘earn’ in this category are much higher
than the positive ones that can be gained through common good activities. This
sends a strong signal that the violation of agreements and the intentional undermining of standard practices are worse for cohesion, trust and relationships than not
actively pushing up the benchmarks (Economy for the Common Good 2010b).
While the matrix calculates a final number that can be compared with others, the
entire concept of it lies much more in stimulating a structured conversation and
process within the business about its shortcomings and any room for possible
improvements. Peer learning lies at the center of the concept and businesses decide
themselves if they want to hire one of the growing network of balance sheet
consultants. It is also up to them to add an external audit or not. The mid-term
political goal, however, is to make CGBS reporting mandatory and, in a first step, to
guarantee tax breaks or public procurement advantages for those participating or
faring really well.
The initiative also encourages the surrounding community, as well as the local
government, to support these businesses with customer loyalty, public acknowledgement or even to undertake their own evaluation. These are called ‘Common
Good Regions’ and 45 of them have been launched in Austria, Germany,
Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Great Britain, the United States and
recently also in South America.
In northern Italy and Austria in particular, mayors and communes are now coming
together to develop visions for more regionalized, value-based, participatory and
sustainable supply chains and to see how these could be institutionally supported.
Some of them are considering the introduction of regional currencies to facilitate the
strengthening of ties and trust and to develop local wealth indicators. The goal is to
4.1 Pioneering Businesses: Common Good Matrix and Balance Sheets
125