Categories: 50 Most Socially Responsible Corporations, Business

Jantzi-Macleans 50 Most Socially Responsible Corporations 2009

Exclusive report: These top companies are making Canada a better place

by macleans.ca on Thursday, June 18, 2009 8:00am - 25 Comments

Cascades Inc.

  • Uses methane captured from landfill, locally sourced wet-lap pulp and hydro power to produce 100 per cent recycled paper with 85 per cent less carbon emissions than the average North American recycled paper.
  • Launched Bioxo, the first line of containers made from 100 per cent oxo-biodegradable polystyrene foam. The containers are designed to degrade into a fine powder within three years in landfill sites, unlike containers made of conventional polystyrene foam, which require hundreds of years.
Tags: , ,

Bookmark and Share
  • Unimpressed

    Not many of the "usual suspects" on this list (Whole Foods, HT Naturals, Lululemon etc). What was the criteria for this list? Seems like only the largest branded corporations are listed here – and none have a very in-depth profile to justify their presence on the list! I read through the methodology but didn't really learn much from it.

    Can't say I agree with many of these assessments – especially since the very business activities of many of these should have left them off the list! In my opinion, you can't call an oil company "socially responsible", even if they stress a good work/life balance for employees and implemented water recycling at the Oil Sands. Hello?! The Oil Sands are the single most environmentally destructive project on the planet!!

    Sorry Jantzi – I'm sure all your hearts are in the right places, but I'm not impressed with this kind of high-profile, media-catching "buzz" list that does little to add to legitimate value to corporate responsibility.

    • Mike T.

      not to be overly cynical, but it isn't uncommon for companies to be required to submit themselves for consideration or even pay a fee to be considered for lists like these, and often the most deserving simply don't bother.

  • S. May (Calgary AB)

    Wonderful information…keep up the great work!

  • Dot

    OK, thanks.

    A few questions while I've gotten your attention.

    1) Why did you pull the link to the complaint letter that Jason Steeghs provided (first commenter)? I was teasing one of the signatories, and then I found the document has vanmoosed.

    2) What percentage of you mag advertising revenue comes from companies in your top 50 list?

    3) The document you provided states:
    "The weightings and full details for the baseline and KPI indicators are available for purchase in the form of Sector-Specific Reports on demand by contacting the Corporate Knights Sales Group at sales@corporateknights.caThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it "

    Sorry, but I ain't paying.

    4) In your O&G sector, you list these factors:

    Oil and Gas
    • GHG intensity
    • Water intensity
    • Renewable energy portfolio
    • Aboriginal relations

    Why does a given O&G company earn a higher score for owning renewable assets if the return they earn on that asset is greater than their cost of capital? In other words, it doesn't cost them anything (unlike say a carbon tax which comes off as an expense), in fact probably earns them a profit ,and in all likelihood, any projects that a company undertakes, would probably be heavily subsidized – and hence could be provided by private companies that specialize in those areas.

  • Joshua Pedersen

    Excuse me Jason, but I actually quite enjoy reading Macleans Magazine as they focus on many various topics and are a lot more involved in sharing and spreading their news through more than one medium. Please explain to me even one other reason we should “shy away” from this publication. Perhaps Corporate Knight did come up with this “top 50″ list first, but for those of us who haven’t even heard of Corporate Knights before, Macleans offers us the insight.

  • Pingback: Come on Macleans… | Ben's Blog

  • Dave Niven

    The listing should exclude companies that engage in Tax Avoidance schemes. Hard to get that info!

  • Karnie

    Its hard to say but this company shold not even be in the top 50 more like top 500

  • http://www.garthsonleadership.ca Jane Garthson

    Duff provides excellent comments. It is far better to report the information that is known (and clarify the source and timing when it differs from the rest of the list) and let people make informed decisions based on the issues that matter to them, than pretend to have enough information to do reliable rankings.

    The media, however, loves to produce ranked lists however misguided in this and many other areas. And readers must like it too since articles with a number in the title get more click-throughs than those without, sigh. Readers – look for real content not top ten lists please!

    Jane Garthson
    President, Garthson Leadership Centre

  • http://joshreynolds999.webs.com starwarssucks

    YESSSSSSSSSS STAR WARS IS THE BEST!

  • SOMETHING

    FALLOUT 3

    • CS:S

      Even better: Counter-Strike

      • THIS IS SPARTA

        EVEN better: Crysis

  • CS:S

    Shut up . We have lives, unlike you.

  • Francis

    I hate doctors, lawyers and cops

    • tobin smith

      yeah they scare me more than clowns and cats

  • CS:S

    Idiot! Fool! Incompetent worm!

  • Francis

    Hold on! I gotta give this zombie the finger!

  • CS:S

    …seriously, what?

    • Roman Bellic

      What the hell Niko?!

  • CS:S

    liar

  • Anti Corp

    Hmm only large corporations are listed… and they are hardly sustainable. Advertising $$$$

  • http://www.financialcrisisnet.org/ recession

    Yeah, definitely this list must have come with some ranking criteria.

  • http://www.dwatch.ca DuffConacher

    As is unfortunately usual with responses to Democracy Watch's criticisms of such corporate responsibility rankings, Jay Shepherd changes the basis of the criticism and then dismisses it by claiming it is unrealistic.

    Democracy Watch does not in any way suggest, or appear to suggest, "that we can't recognize banks or insurance companies who excel" "until they reach a state of perfect enlightenment" as Mr. Shepherd misleadingly claims.

    Democracy Watch's criticism is that no one has the information necessary to rank the banks or insurance companies level of corporate responsibility. The improvements in information flow that Mr. Shepherd claims have not provided details about which companies banks and insurance companies are lending, investing or insuring with more than $1 trillion.

    Lending, investing and insuring (along with customer service, about which few details are also known) are the core activities of these financial institutions. If you don't have the details about a company's core activities, it is impossible to know if they act responsibly, and therefore it is clearly irresponsible to rank its level of responsibility.

    It amounts to whitewash because most people will very likely only look at the top 50 list and assume those doing the ranking had the detailed information needed to do such a ranking.

  • Dot

    Yeah, but if there are two banks, and one buys fair trade coffee…

Previous

Next

From Macleans