Sustainability assurance is the latest in 'hot' topics in the sustainability accounting area. Recently, I was invited to contribute to a roundtable held by the IAASB, AASB and CPA Canada on the newly proposed ISSA 5000 Sustainability Assurance Standard. The session was held October 25th, 2023. There, we discussed the nuances of the proposed standard and many different participants, including myself, gave feedback. I subsequently contributed my thoughts to the ISSA's feedback survey and have included that feedback here matching the form they provided. If you are working in the assurance space, I encourage you to have a look at the standard, at minimum the associated Memorandum (an easier read;)). You'll see below that my thoughts mainly surround the expertise that will be needed to properly conduct these audits, the communication of exactly what is assured in the reports (you may already know that typically it is not the entire report that is assured but just select metrics), and over recommendations to (hopefully!) help mitigate greenwashing.
Feel free to share your thoughts!
1. Do you agree that it is important for ED-5000 to be capable of being applied for each of the items listed above to provide a global baseline for sustainability assurance engagements?
Undecided.
All sustainability topics
I love that double materiality has been included here; this is so important in this space. Generally, I think the standards are appropriate for all sustainability topics, but this may need to be modified as new topics emerge.
All mechanisms for reporting
Again, generally, I think the standards are appropriate for current approaches to sustainability reporting which include stand-alone reports, integrated reports, etc.
Any suitable criteria
Generally, I think the standards can apply to sustainability frameworks or other criteria.
All intended users
Generally, I think the standards can apply to all intended users.
Limited and reasonable assurance engagements
Generally, I think the standards can apply to both limited and reasonable assurance engagements.
Use by all assurance practitioners
Yes, broadly but I have some concerns. One of the big challenges here is going to be sustainability competence throughout all practitioners. We’re already seeing competency washing and it’s not clear what kind or what level of sustainability competence will be needed to implement this standard. How will this expertise/competency be verified? What we don't want are non-experts leading non-experts and currently, there are a lot of people who don’t know what they don’t know. My recommendation to address this is to add clarity around how expertise/competency will be determined and to add disclosure requirements on this. Specifically, how expertise/competency is determined by the leader, what processes were followed, how the expertise/competency is verified before an engagement and how individuals are selected to the team.
2. In your view, is the concept of “at least as demanding” clear?
Overall view: Yes.
This part makes sense to me; ethics is important; independence and disclosure of this is important.
3. Do you agree with the terminology for sustainability matters, sustainability information and disclosures in ED-5000?
Overall view: Yes.
4. Do you agree with the way in which ED-5000 addresses the entity’s “materiality process”?
Overall view: Undecided.
The challenge here is sometimes what is not said (e.g., the NHL did not discuss of player health/concussions in their first report). I think the practitioners need to actively consider what they know of the business, what they would expect to be discussed, and then identify what the firm has identified as material. At this stage, pointed questions need to be asked about missing stakeholders/issues/impacts/etc.
Overall, the other criteria listed are fair.
5. Do you agree that ED-5000 appropriately addresses the notion of “double materiality” in a framework-neutral way?
Overall view: Yes.
6. Do you agree that ED-5000 appropriately addresses the topic of fraud (including “greenwashing”) by focusing on the susceptibility of the sustainability information to material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error?
Overall view: No.
No, I think more clarity is needed to clearly identify up front what metrics/ measures/ information is actually being assured because many people assume assuring a sustainability report is like assuring a set of financial statements when it is not. Generally speaking, sustainability reports only have select metrics assured and not typically the entire report (unlike financial statements).
I recommend bolding the metrics up front (at the beginning of the assurance report) and/or identifying and stating the metrics/ information in a summary table (again in a visible, up front location). I believe that something additional is needed to make the actual assured information stand out because right now it is not clear. The examples provided in the standard are good but what is needed are real examples of partial assurance on reports (which is the norm currently).
Additionally, I'll echo my comments made elsewhere in this submission. Specifically, that the competency/expertise of the sustainability assurance providers be verified and disclosed and that assurance providers not only ask questions about the information that is provided but also about what is not provided and why (e.g., companies will often only disclose the 'good' stuff, we need to also ask about the 'bad' stuff to get a fair picture of what is happening).
7. Do you support the high-level requirement in ED-5000 regarding communication with management, those charged with governance and others, with the related application material on matters that may be appropriate to communicate?
Overall view: Undecided.
I recommend that any areas of weakness, issues that are likely to be material/ important to some stakeholders that were perhaps not included in the engagement, be reported to those charged with governance, management and others.
8. Do you agree that the requirements in ED-5000 will drive reporting on sustainability assurance engagements that meets the information needs of intended users?
As above, I think the identification of the specific information that is assured should be stated up front so there is clarity as well as identifying and disclosing which stakeholder groups the assurance providers considered in their work.
9. Do you agree with not addressing “key sustainability assurance matters” in ED-5000, and instead having the IAASB consider this in a future ISSA?
Overall view: No view.
10. Are there any other matters for which you wish to provide comments, or that the IAASB should consider in finalizing ED-5000? If so, please be specific about the matter(s) and whether you agree with the approach taken in ED-5000 and why. If you disagree with the approach taken, please indicate why and provide suggestions for how to improve or clarify the approach.
No.
The rise of sustainability accounting around the world has called greater attention to what we are doing to address this in Canada. The Independent Review Committee on Standard Setting in Canada recently issued a consultation paper calling for the establishment of a Canadian Sustainability Standards Board as well as other changes to the standard setting process in Canada. Here is my response to that consultation paper.
March 31st, 2022
Edward J. Waitzer
Chair, Independent Review Committee on Standard Setting in Canada
c/o 277 Wellington Street West
Toronto ON M5V 3H2
Dear Mr. Waitzer,
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the consultation paper recently issued by the Independent Review Committee. I am an Assistant Professor, Accounting at the Sprott School of Business at Carleton University and have studied the field of social and environmental (sustainability) accounting for the last decade. I made a deliberate decision to pursue this field in my doctoral studies as I am passionate about its use and potential. I have had the opportunity to have my related work published in Sustainability Accounting, Policy and Management Journal (SAMPJ), Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management and the British Journal of Management. I am also on the editorial advisory board at SAMPJ. While I am writing today on my university’s letterhead, I am responding to the consultation paper as an individual academic as I did not engage with the wider university to solicit their views; my views are my own.
As a sustainability accounting scholar, my comments will primarily focus on the issues related to my area of expertise. The review committee poses a series of what I see as connected ideas: the public interest (Q2), the integration of Canada’s diverse populations including the unique rights of and responsibilities to, Indigenous Peoples (Q3, Q10, Q11) and the creation of a potential Canadian Sustainability Standards Board (CSSB) (Q4, Q11, Q15). To establish a sustainability standard-setting process that effectively addresses the evolving public interest, equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) and Indigenous rights and perspectives, I see room for a more broad and inclusive approach to standard-setting for sustainability in Canada. To address these areas, I am entirely supportive of a process to set sustainability standards that includes CSSB representation and consultation from these diverse groups and representation in the standards themselves. The sustainability standards will likely best address these issues directly from both a financial materiality and an impact perspective (so called double materiality). In doing so, a wider perspective of public interest will naturally be addressed by broadening the underlying definition of who’s interests are served. In this way, we can ensure that an established CSSB is simultaneously considering evolving definitions of the public interest and is inclusive of more diverse views.
The specific standards to meet these objectives would of course be established by the CSSB itself, but the people around the table, the consultation processes undertaken and the objectives it seeks to achieve, will be important guides to choosing these standards. It is unlikely that the ISSB, or any other individual sustainability standard-setter will, at the current time, be able to provide standards to meet all of these objectives. However, the CSSB can contribute to the international standard-setting process by leading the way on the creation of made-in-Canada approaches. By engaging with the ISSB, GRI and other international efforts on sustainability standard setting (e.g., European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG)), the Canadian perspective can inform and contribute to the international sustainability standard-setting processes around such critical areas as the public interest, EDI, and Indigenous perspectives.
Prior to addressing the above-noted questions individually, I recommend that the committee continue to engage with academics in this space in particular. The evolving work in sustainability standard-setting can leverage more than 50 years of social and environmental accounting research; engaging with academics who have years, if not decades, working in this space would help to ensure that mistakes of the past are not repeated. The committee should also engage with other standard-setting groups around the world to learn from their processes; for example, EFRAG has explicitly stated they are willing to co-create/share learnings, etc. to facilitate sustainability reporting around the world. Recommendations going forward should leverage qualified expertise to ensure the best possible outcomes for Canadians.
I will address the three themes I identified above along with the review committee’s question on funding (Q8). To facilitate ease of comparison in your review process, I will address these in the order they appear in the review document.
Q2 - Defining the public interest
I commend the committee for opening the discussion on the public interest as this can serve as a re-imagining, and a realignment, of the public interest for today and tomorrow; this will better serve society and the profession as a whole if it is more inclusive in its re-definition. The reason the public interest is so important is that it provides a beacon, a goalpost to shape decision-making. When choices must inevitably be made, a clear and well-defined goal of serving the public interest will help shape and anchor those decisions. The issue of the public interest is one that, in my opinion, underpins the future of accounting. However, there is currently a misalignment. If we were to ask members of the general public what they thought the public interest was, or who it was to serve, I doubt we would hear solely investors/bankers but this seems to be precisely how it has been defined in the past.
The committee references a ‘common public interest framework’ but it is unclear what this implies. Thought should be given to whether this means that one definition of public interest would apply to all areas of reporting and auditing or whether different aspects are meant to serve different ‘publics’. I am of the opinion that the public interest cannot be defined so narrowly as in the past and as it has applied to financial reporting when accounting is evolving to include a much broader range than considered in these narrow definitions. The definitions referenced in the consultation paper (e.g., AASOC, The Monitoring Group, IFRS) are predominantly financial focused serving financial markets. One has to ask – is this the public interest society feels should be served by sustainability reporting?
The current definitions reflect a very narrow definition of who the public is and what their interests are. Given the growing lack of trust in business and loss of social license to operate, I do not believe we are serving the public interest by focusing solely/exclusively/predominantly on financial markets. Taking a step back, it is advisable to understand ongoing trends and interest in sustainability. Why are people so interested? One reason is likely to hold organizations to account. Urgent, pressing, existential crises are unfolding before our eyes and society wants/needs to hold organizations to account. From the climate crisis to rising inequality, people are concerned, society is concerned, I am concerned. People are looking for ways they can act to change the world we are living in. We’ve seen a dramatic rise in Sustainable Responsible Investing (SRI) growing from $8.72 trillion in 2016 (The Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment (USSIF), 2017) to $17.2 trillion at the end of 2019 (USSIF, 2020). It is likely that these investments are, at least in part, due to people attempting to align their values with their investments. Marc Carney’s recent success in putting together a coalition of $130 trillion in partners (Reuters, 2021) shows the level of interest in sustainable finance. To mobilize the immense amount of funds towards positive societal impact, it will take solid sustainability accounting information and specifically, information that is impact (double materiality) focused.
The committee should also consider Canadian legal requirements (e.g., CBCA) and recent court rulings (e.g., BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders, 2008) and how this affects the information that is needed for firms. What role do accounting standards have to play in helping firms meet their legal obligations (e.g., consideration of a variety of stakeholders like the environment as per the CBCA)? I would argue that as firms’ obligations have evolved, so too must the accounting information that serves its stakeholders; this is further evidence (in law) of the broadening of the public interest.
The committee should consider its definitions for who the public is, consider wide consultations to gain a broad understanding on who comprises this public, and determine what their interests are in the Canadian context. Getting this definition right is critical as any structure or standards that proceed will flow from how the public interest is defined. This is interconnected with who is represented in the standards as well as how sustainability is defined (and who it serves).
Q3 - Diversity, equity and inclusion and Indigenous rights & Q10 – inclusion of Indigenous voices
This is an important consideration that intersects with the first issue outlined regarding the definition of the public interest. Diverse and Indigenous perspectives are not generally represented in the standards currently. Serious consultation that includes Indigenous world views and perspectives should form an active role in any standards that impact Indigenous people. We would all benefit from co-creating sustainability standards that include Indigenous voices and perspectives in Canada. This could include for example, seven-generation thinking (e.g., Indigenous Corporate Training, 2020) to help shift the focus of sustainability standards to the long-term. To ensure room for this type of thinking, we must go beyond financial materiality.
The committee asks a series of questions around EDI with a particular focus, in the Canadian context, on how best to reflect the unique rights of, and responsibilities to, Indigenous Peoples. In considering these important factors in the context of standard-setting in Canada, it will be critical to ensure the sought-after diversity is fully reflected in both the composition of a potential CSSB, its consultation processes and in the standards that are set.
Q4 - Canadian Sustainability Standards Board & Q11 - CSSB structure, composition and specific competencies needed
I wholeheartedly agree that the Canadian perspective is necessary to adopt, create or adapt international standards for the Canadian context. The consultation paper seems to take the position that the ISSB is the ‘standard’ but this is not a position that many in my field agree with. I am pleased to see the recent announcement (GRI, 2022) that the ISSB and the GRI will work together to achieve a more holistic approach to sustainability reporting internationally. I would encourage the review committee to embrace these, and other developments, in the creation of the CSSB to ensure that Canadians get sustainability reporting that is meaningful to them.
Whether a separate board is needed should be investigated. What other options exist? What has been considered? The EFRAG – two pillar approach? Eventual harmonization? Closely work together with the financial standard-setter? Or one standard-setting board with sub-committees for various focuses? The implementation of a CSSB should be considered alongside our current accounting standard-setting processes and care should be taken to ensure alignment and collaboration so it is not perceived as a ‘tack-on’.
There is conflation in the document of the terms ‘sustainability’ and ‘ESG’ but there is growing agreement that these are not the same. Sustainability is arguably a planetary concept while ESG generally refers to firm level risks and corresponding effects on the financial value of the firm. The ISSB is clearly focused on enterprise value (so called single materiality). A Canadian perspective may wish to include double materiality as Europe is doing. The recent announcement of an MOU between the ISSB and the GRI to work together is another hopeful indicator in this (double materiality) direction. Investors themselves are increasingly investing in impact funds looking to make a difference in the world – information that reflects only the risks a firm faces in relation to its financial performance will not serve even this investor market.
In terms of the structure and composition of a potential CSSB, this also ties to the previous questions about diversity. Care should be taken to ensure that the CSSB has diverse representation that reflects Canada including Indigenous, LGBTQ2S+, gender diversity, representation from a variety of geographies, etc. Academics also have an important role to play on a potential CSSB. Scholars can connect a wealth of history in social and environmental accounting as well as current research ongoing in this area to inform sustainability standard setting and should be included on the board as well.
Q8 - Funding changes & Q15 – fostering timeliness with robust stakeholder involvement in sustainability standard setting
Advantages and disadvantages to any funding changes should be clearly laid out. With changes in funding come different issues. Reliance on government funding for example may be subject to change should future governments not ‘like’ the standard-setting direction. As we’ve seen with recent events in the U.S., new leaders may not ‘believe’ in sustainability issues and work to reduce funding leaving a CSSB at risk. Any changes should clearly evaluate the influence on the standard-setting process (real or perceived).
One of the most efficient ways to foster timeliness is to provide more resources. As above, more resources need to come from somewhere and therefore, funding, timeliness and influence are interconnected. Any funding changes must balance providing the necessary (stable) resources to increase timeliness while protecting against real or perceived influence over the standard-setting process.
Q20. Are there any other matters the Committee should consider as part of its review?
One of the areas not clearly addressed in the consultation paper is on the role of data in standard-setting. One of the priorities EFRAG has addressed is employing a data-first approach. Canada should actively consider how data plays a role in sustainability accounting and not treat this as an afterthought. With many technological evolutions happening (artificial intelligence, blockchain, etc.), Canada’s standard-setting approaches should include consideration of these changes and how they will affect the creation and application of standards in Canada.
Conclusion
To summarize my comments, it is my firm belief that the establishment of a sustainability accounting standard-setter in Canada is a necessity. I also believe that any CSSB should employ a double-materiality perspective to meet the needs of a variety of stakeholders. This perspective is the only way, in my opinion, to achieve the inclusion of diverse voices, including Indigenous perspectives, that the review committee states is its intention. It is also imperative that the creation of sustainability standards in Canada leverage the significant academic research in social and environmental accounting and engage with the academics who have a wealth of knowledge in this space. Any funding changes should consider the long-term stability of the source as well as any (real or perceived) influence new funding sources would have. Finally, and to bring the letter back to my first point, how the public interest is defined will form the foundation of these efforts going forward. Broadening this definition will guide the work of the CSSB and tie together the stated concerns of the review committee around EDI and Indigenous perspectives.
I thank the committee for all their hard work to date and their work to come synthesizing and making recommendations on the future of standard-setting in Canada.
Respectfully,
Leanne Keddie (she/her), MBA, CPA, CMA, Ph.D Assistant Professor, Accounting
Sprott School of Business at Carleton University
Director, Alterna Social Ventures Institute
Appendix – References
BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders. (2008). Supreme Court of Canada 69. Retrieved from https://www.lexisnexis.ca/documents/2008scc69.pdf
GRI. (March 24th, 2022). ‘IFRS Foundation and GRI to align capital market and multi-stakeholder standards’. Retrieved from https://www.globalreporting.org/about-gri/news-center/ifrs-foundation-and-gri-to-align-capital-market-and-multi-stakeholder-standards/.
Indigenous Corporate Training. (2020). ‘What is the Seventh Generation Principle?’ Retrieved from https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/seventh-generation-principle.
Reuters. (Nov. 3, 2021). ‘COP26 coalition worth $130 trillion vows to put climate at heart of finance’. https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/wrapup-politicians-exit-cop26-130tn-worth-financiers-take-stage-2021-11-03/.
The Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment (USSIF). (2017). Sustainable and Impact
Investing in the United States Overview. [Web page]. Retrieved from
http://www.ussif.org/files/Infographics/Overview%20Infographic.pdf.
USSIF, 2020. Sustainable and Impact Investing Overview. [Web page]. Retrieved from
https://www.ussif.org//Files/Trends/2020%20Trends%20Report%20Info%20Graphic%20-%20Overview.pdf.
On Friday March 15, 2019, my two oldest kids and I headed out to the climate strike spearheaded by Greta Thunberg. This was my first protest as well as my kids. It was an inspiring experience. Over 150,000 people here in Montreal alone protested and there were well over 1.6 million people around the world. I was so inspired in fact, that I have decided to change. On March 18, 2019, after thinking about what I could do to take action and after listening to Greta's TedX talk and COP24 speeches, I had made my mind up. My family and I were going to reduce our carbon emissions to net-zero within six years.
I had recently learned about net-zero homes that generate as much power as they use. Usually this is through things like solar panels and wind turbines, etc. It's connected to the electrical grid and draws on the grid when needed, supplying the energy it generates back to the grid when produced. A tally is taken (e.g. 100 KWH of energy generated) and compared to how much you used (e.g. 99 KWH of energy consumed). 100-99=+1, net positive. The aim is at least "net zero" (e.g. you generate at least what you consume) (hence the name).
This frames my newest goal. I’m aiming to reduce the carbon emissions my lifestyle generates and offset these with other initiatives so that the overall effect of my lifestyle nets out to zero impact from a carbon emissions perspective. Like a net-zero home but applied to my life.
But here's the thing, I have four kids. Yes, four kids. And one of the first pieces of scientific information I received upon announcing my lofty goal, was that the number one way to reduce your carbon footprint was to have one less child. The thing is, I love my kids and they are here to stay so I need to find a way to make all of our lifestyles net-zero. I believe this is possible. I don't think it's the number of kids you have but the lifestyle you live that makes the difference.
Greta talks about the rapid change that is necessary to avoid the most severe of consequences. Those of us in industrialized nations must make these changes faster so that those in poorer nations have a better chance. I research sustainability accounting and incentive plans so I believe that sustainability is important and I know that setting hard targets is one of the best ways to achieve good performance. So, six years, net-zero.
This is a work in progress. The first step is to analyze where we are at, figure out what the current emissions are for our family. It's not going to be easy. It's not like the labels on the food we buy tell us this information. There are some calculators that will help but this step is going to take a little time. I'm aiming to first get a handle on our everyday lifestyle to understand what we are generating, like a carbon budget income statement if you will (forgive me, remember, I am an accountant!) Once we know where we are at, we can start targeting areas for reduction and find out how we can offset any remaining carbon emissions. Do you have some tools that you use? Tips from those of you who have done this before? Do you want to join me in reducing our carbon emissions together?
I can't promise this will be an easy journey, but I do think it will be worthwhile. My children will learn about budgeting in a different way, other than just dollars and cents, and we will all learn to live more sustainably on the only planet we have. Remember, there is no Planet B.
You’re not getting paid enough, or are you? Why is your paycheque what it is? How did that amount get determined? Who decided what your work is worth?
Sustainability is about people, profit and the planet. We often default to thinking about the environment when we hear the term sustainability but it’s also about people. It’s about fairness and equality and social justice. Companies are made up of people, people who come together in a system, make decisions, carry out actions and, who can be influenced. A firm is not some inanimate box. There are those in business who will only look out for themselves and we have created systems that allow this (there is some fascinating research about the level of psychopathy in executives being double that of the general population, but I digress…). We as a society have allowed these systems to perpetuate and we as a society can change these systems to make them more fair.
People always ask me why I love numbers so much but it’s not the numbers I love, it’s the stories the numbers tell. With all the talk lately about the gender pay gap and controversies about executive compensation I’m fascinated by how pay gets determined. This tells us a lot about the society we live in and what we value. What does it say when the pay we provide someone who works forty hours a week isn’t enough for food, rent and other necessities? What does it say when we pay someone to prioritize a company’s profit over its’ people and the world we live in?
There are a variety of things that determine what you get paid including what the job is as well as who you are. We know for example that pay gaps exist even amongst two people where the job is the same and the person is equally qualified. What does this tell us? Research tells us we ‘value’ men and women differently as we do minorities or anyone who is different from the majority. What we pay people tells us a lot about who we are.
There are different arguments put forth justifying levels of pay. When pay is high, it is often argued that the individual provides a rare skill set, perhaps a unique athletic talent; it could be that the person went to school for many years acquiring knowledge that is difficult to find or works more hours than most. It is also argued that an individual may have an ability to create economic value or profit for a company that is far greater than the amount paid to them and this justifies the pay level. Or perhaps the work is particularly difficult or undesirable and therefore requires higher levels of pay. Some argue that if two parties have agreed to a pay level it is of no-one else’s concern. But what if it is not just between those two parties? What if it is indicative of larger issues in society?
Executives of large companies are among the highest paid in our society. Many questions continue to be asked about why this is the case. Typically, the justification from the firm for executive pay goes something like this: we pay for performance. But, what is performance? You might think this is straight-forward but the discussions around this are actually quite lengthy. If a company loses money should the executives get a bonus? You might say no but they frequently do receive bonuses even when they lose money. There is often discussion of needing to retain the executives or the extenuating circumstances that support providing a bonus in these cases. What if the company made money but paid its workers less than they need to live on or did so by polluting the environment? Does this qualify as ‘performance’? And where is the limit? Much has been written about the rise in executive compensation over the last 50 years. A CEO in the 70’s received about 30 times the average worker’s salary; today, it has risen to about 300 times. The share of income going to the top earners has risen dramatically in this time. What justifies this shift? How much is too much? Where is the limit?
If you think of the amount of money in society as being a fixed amount, how it gets distributed is important. Compensation decisions affect our quality of life. The amount of money we make affects how much money we have to live on, to spend on discretionary items, to give to others, to raise our children and provide them with opportunities. Effort and skill should be rewarded, and this does lead to unequal distribution but, in fact, people prefer to live in societies that are unequal but not in societies that are unfair. As a society we need to clearly think about the upper and lower limits we are willing to accept and understand what this says about what we value.
If you are in a position where you determine what others make, consider what factors affect how much you are paying your employees. If you are an employee, consider the same. Research shows us that by thinking about these issues we can reduce our unconscious bias. You can also be a conscious shopper. Support businesses that provide living wages. Costco is one example of a place that provides good wages and good prices.
What we earn determines so much of our life. It affects our health, our happiness, the choices we make and the path our children follow. As an individual you have the right to understand what justifies your pay and the responsibility to justify pay you provide to others. Pay needn’t be a taboo topic. If we commit to asking questions and shining a brighter light on the subject, understanding the legitimate factors that support what we get paid and identifying the factors that are not legitimate, perhaps we can change the way people are paid. If we pay attention to these issues, we can and will create a more fair world. #justifiedpay
This is my last blog post for the Public Scholars program. If you’ve enjoyed reading my blog posts I will continue them at www.leannekeddie.ca.
Imagine a surgeon decades ago showing up to operate on his many patients who arrive to have tumours from their lungs removed. This doctor is having a positive, practical impact on these individuals’ lives by performing surgery and removing these tumours. But let’s say this doctor, after years of performing the same surgeries, becomes frustrated. It seems that no matter how many surgeries he performs, there are always more waiting. He wonders: why are all these people getting these tumours in the first place?
This is where theory comes in. Could it be that the tumours are all caused from chemicals in their environments? Or from a particular gene they all share? Or could it be caused by the cigarettes and cigars they smoke? In posing these questions, the doctor is trying to get at the root of the problem and theory can help him do this. Having a theory puts forth an idea about how or why something happens. Why might cigarettes and cigars cause tumours? Perhaps the chemicals in the cigarettes damage the cells causing tumours to form? How can we test this?
Now for the research. The doctor could study two groups of people, one that smokes cigarettes and one that doesn’t to see if there are differences in who gets cancer. He’ll need to be careful to rule out other possible explanations and make sure the two groups are similar. For example, if the group who smokes is from an area with a high level of pollution and is older than the other group then we may not be sure that cigarettes are causing the tumours, it could be the pollution or their age. But by having two identical groups in identical circumstances with the only difference being that one group smokes and the other does not we can begin to research our question: does smoking cause tumours?
Now we can make some predictions based on our theory. If the theory is correct, that chemicals in the cigarettes damage the cells, then we should see that the group that smokes should have higher levels of cancer than the group that doesn’t smoke. This research can be repeated until we see that the results are the same again and again: cigarettes cause cancer. While this research was conducted years ago, we now accept its results as commonplace: cigarettes cause cancer. But without theory and research we would still be wondering why these people were getting tumours in their lungs.
First, I think it’s important to understand what accounting is. Most people think it’s tracking money for businesses to figure out how much profit they made last year, but in fact, it’s so much more. If you think about it, accounting is to provide an account of something, communicating what happened or what will happen. Typically, this is thought of in terms of where money went, how it was spent, how much was earned or in terms of where money might go in the future. But really, at its basis, accounting is telling the story of something. While this has traditionally applied to money, today it also applies to other aspects of business. What impact is the business having? How does it handle the resources it uses to make it products or provide its services?
Think about two companies that appear similar financially: Company A & Company B. They both have profits of $100 million per year. Are they the same? Which one should you invest in? Which one should your pension invest in? What if I told you that more information was available? Sustainability accounting involves the communication of additional information beyond just the financial. This requires that accountants and other members of the organization track, measure and communicate non-financial information about the operations of the company. Does this sound valuable?
What if I told you that Company A made its profits paying a living wage (one that provides a normal standard of living), treated the communities where it operates well and respected the environment through recycling initiatives and energy reduction programs? Does this matter to you? What if Company B did provide the information and you found out that it provided the legally required minimum for wages to its workers and complied with the relevant environmental regulations? It is following the law but doing nothing beyond what is required. Do you find this information useful? Would you invest in Company A or Company B? These are just a few examples of how sustainability accounting communicates information about how companies operate.
During the course of my studies, I read a lot about how companies are implementing new initiatives to become more sustainable. It turns out that about 40% of the largest firms in the U.S. (on the S&P 500) give bonuses to its executives using various sustainability goals (I refer to these as sustainability incentives). For example, a company might say to the CEO that it will give her a bonus if the company reduces its greenhouse gas emissions or increases the diversity of the management team to include more women or minorities. I was curious as to why this was happening. Could it be greedy executives who negotiate to get bigger bonuses by making it look like they are doing good things for the environment and society while really just making more money for themselves? Or could it be that pension funds and other investors want companies to behave better and are pushing for better sustainability performance and the companies are putting these goals in place as a result? There are theories that predict either could be correct so I’ve designed a study to address these questions. I am also studying what effect these sustainability incentives have on the sustainability performance of the firm and how companies can do a better job in providing them.
I believe this will have practical implications for all of us. By understanding sustainability incentives, we will be able to better understand these companies, which ones are ‘good’ and which ones we’d like to avoid. This can help you spend your money with companies that match your values. This knowledge can also help make better investing decisions. In fact, we know that companies that have better social and environmental performance tend to do better financially than those that ignore these issues. Finally, those companies that want to do better can use this research to improve their use of sustainability incentives. How these companies behave can improve our communities or hurt them; help the environment or hurt it. Their decisions affect our lives.
We are living in an age where theory, research and science in general are being questioned for their value. Facts matter. Theory matters. Research matters. Doing good quality research is hard but finding truth in the chaos is important and affects our day-to-day lives in many ways. For those of us committed to sorting through the noise, we need to continue to communicate the value of what we do and why thoughtful, impactful, evidence-based research is important.
This blog post is a little different than my previous ones but the topic is one I am most asked about: being a student and parent at the same time. I am currently expecting my fourth baby…yes, my fourth! When I first applied to the program I had no children, when I started I had one child, and in the time that has passed since then (five years) I’ve had two more. Now, in my sixth year here in Montreal, I am expecting my fourth child.
Most people respond with shock or awe to my situation. On the one hand, some assume I must not be thinking straight to attempt to have a family and pursue a PhD simultaneously. On the other hand, some assume I have super powers that make this all happen. The truth is that neither perspective is correct and, to some extent, both perspectives are harmful if they hold the person back from pursuing their own passions because of false beliefs. I have thought rationally about my choices and I am not super human. Having a family and pursuing higher education is not only absolutely possible but, in my opinion, can be mutually beneficial. It does require support, planning, discipline, flexibility and forgiveness, but as with any other job, finding a balance that works well for you is incredibly satisfying.
Some people may be holding themselves back from their dreams because they don’t think it is possible. I wanted to address here some of the practical ways I’ve found to help me find this balance in the hopes that some of it may help other student parents or working parents in general.
For me, having children has given me greater focus on what I feel is important in this world and my kids are a huge source of motivation for me. I strive to create work that will make a difference in this world for them and consequently my research investigates sustainability accounting, that is accounting by organizations that track and report its effects on society and the environment. By focusing on something that I feel has meaning for my life and theirs, this has also improved my focus. I aim to ensure that every minute I am away from my children is a productive one.
I talk to my kids all the time about my work and why I feel it’s important. Even though they are young (all age six and under) they understand that Mommy is working to try to help businesses be better so that they have a better world to grow up in. This means helping businesses treat people well and respect the environment. These are values that are important to my family and my work, as such, there really is no line between the two. When I'm done, I'll be working in a career I love and contributing to improving the world around me through my research, teaching and service.
One of the additional benefits for my children is that they see me engaged in work that I find meaningful and that I am passionate about. As a key role model in their life, I believe this gives them an example to follow, to drum up the courage and confidence to pursue their own passions in life and strive to make a difference in the world. Additionally, they see that both moms and dads can work and share household chores which I hope will translate into fewer gender biases in them as they grow.
One cannot embark on such a journey without support. This has been absolutely critical to my success. I have a husband who supports my work, encourages me and we both pitch in wherever possible to get through each day. We also have access to excellent daycare and schooling for our children. This enhances our childrens' lives on a daily basis exposing them to French as a second language, new friends, and amazing new experiences. As such, I can focus on my work daily knowing that I have a partner to share in their care and a wonderful team of early educators working to ensure my children are safe, well-educated, socialized and are having fun at the same time.
The planning portion is the part that takes the most effort by far, but is possible and, I don’t believe, is any more challenging for a PhD than having a traditional job. Lunches must be made, clothing and homes cleaned and arrangements made to transport the kids to daycare, school and extra-curricular activities. I utilize two main calendars to keep me on track.
One is our family calendar that I update weekly. It remains on the wall on a chalkboard and lays out exactly who needs to be where every week and who is in charge of what task. It does not take a lot of time to create but keeps us well organized. I probably spend about 30 minutes a week putting the calendar together but that 30 minutes has saved us many more and reduces the stress and thought that goes into each week by organizing us in advance so that we just need to execute when the time comes.
For my work, I’ve begun utilizing a Focus Matrix. There are a number of products on the market but essentially what this allows me to do is organize my tasks into those that are 'Urgent and Important', 'Urgent but Not Important', 'Not-Urgent but Important' and 'Not-Urgent and Not Important'. For me, anything that relates to my thesis is Important and anything not related to my thesis is Not Important. This doesn’t mean other tasks are not important but it’s a method of organizing my tasks to stay focused and disciplined during the work day on those things I should be focused on. It’s easy to look around at the dishes or baskets of laundry or any other of 100 tasks that need to be done but I promise you, if you don’t focus on your work, it won’t get done.
In our house, there’s always more laundry to be done and always something that could be cleaned so I try to stay focused on my work during working time and family stuff during family time. I usually focus on the Urgent Important tasks first thing in the morning (those with a clear upcoming deadline usually within the month) and then take on any Urgent Not Important tasks later in the day. This keeps my work progressing and helps me control my natural inclination to deal with every other little task that may come up. My program also includes a timer so that you focus for 25 minutes and then take a five-minute break. I’ve found it to be a very productive method.
I set tangible goals that are small enough to be achievable but that keep me on track. The thought of completing an entire thesis can seem overwhelming at times, but collecting data for 25 companies is something I can achieve because it’s smaller. Over time, I look back at all these little goals and realize how far I’ve come. This helps me to persevere even when the end doesn’t seem like it’s near. Some days I move forward an inch, and some days it’s more. Over time though, those little movements forward add up.
One advantage to being a student is the flexibility I have in my own schedule. But, as with any benefit comes responsibility. I try to work ahead so that I am ready for the inevitable stomach bug that will come for one or more of my children. This helps me to reduce the stress level when something happens because I build a buffer in my timeline.
Sometimes, like many of us, I work in the evenings or on the weekend to catch up or get ahead to meet my deadlines but this allows me to create a schedule that works for my family and I while continuing to do work that I love. I’ve also found that building in extra time to get places reduces the pressure I put on myself and my kids. When I know I have extra time, I’m not as stressed. This does mean sacrificing other things. You simply cannot fit as many things into your day when you need to build in these buffers but it becomes a choice of what is important enough to make the cut.
Forgiveness is really important. I always attempt to adopt an attitude of forgiveness. I don’t always move things forward and I don’t always achieve what I want. Most of the time there is laundry in baskets waiting to either be washed, folded or put away. My home does not look like Martha Stewart’s home. Most importantly though, I forgive myself for not being able to do it all and when I don't live up to my own expectations. No-one can do it all and feeling down about it is definitely not productive. Forgive yourself, address the situation and move on. We order prepared meals sometimes to give ourselves a break. We also pay for housekeeping services when the budget will allow for it. I know these are luxuries on a student budget but, like everything in life, we make other choices to allow these to happen.
Speaking of choices. As an accountant, I had a pretty good income before I gave it up to become a student again. That means we’ve made sacrifices to make this happen. We have two older vehicles and don’t buy new clothes very often. We find as many free activities to do as possible (playing outside, going for a walk or to the park, free activities offered by the city) and we try to stretch every dollar we have. I use money saving apps for all our purchases and I monitor our budget every day.
I’m lucky, I have received scholarships that help greatly and I am forever thankful for this support. Our family income fluctuates due to contract income and the timing of scholarship payments but we work diligently to stretch every dollar we can. We meal plan to avoid wasting both food and money and generally cook for ourselves as opposed to buying more expensive pre-packaged food or going to restaurants. If we do go out to a restaurant, we order water (beverages are so overpriced!). We don’t take lavish vacations and we try to direct our money where it will have value for us and our lives (less takeout means we can hire housekeepers occasionally!) We try to be conscious about where we spend our money so that it adds value to our lives.
Executing all of this can certainly be difficult at times, but when you love something you find a way to make it work. Follow your passion, it's worth it.
This blog post first appeared on Concordia's Public Scholars website at https://www.concordia.ca/cunews/offices/vprgs/sgs/public-scholars/2017/10/31/student-parent-PhD-blog-post.html.
If you went to business school in the last 50 years, you likely left with the impression that corporations exist to serve the shareholder (the people who own the shares of the company). For those of you who didn’t go to business school, you’ve probably heard this for years as well. After all, the shareholder “owns” the company, right? If you own the company, it should do what you want it to do. You’ve probably also been told that the best thing a company can do is make a profit; this is what shareholders want and this is what is best for society.
If this forms a good portion of how you see businesses, you have likely been influenced by a man named Milton Friedman. In 1970, he wrote an influential article in the New York Times entitled, “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits”. In it, he touts the responsibility of management to its “owners” and states unequivocally that the purpose of a business “is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to their basic rules of society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom.”[1, p. 211] Mr. Friedman goes on to explain that shareholders are the owners of the company since they provide the money for the company itself.
This line of argument has underpinned the “trickle-down economics” idea. That is, if companies, and those who run them, focus solely on making money, this will benefit all in society. The better they do, the more that wealth and success will “trickle down” to the rest of us since more jobs will be created and we will all share in improved standards of living. On the surface, this sounds appealing. Those who can run companies efficiently and create more jobs in the economy should just focus on making more money so that this cycle continues and we all win.
Unfortunately, simplistic arguments often fall flat in reality. Another key idea that goes along with this line of thinking is agency theory. Agency theory outlines that management in a corporation are actually agents working for the owners and, because people are selfish and will just do what is in their own self-interest (i.e. make more money for themselves), they must be monitored closely. Ironically, trickle-down economics fails to recognize that those in the decision-making position, those who create the jobs and run the companies, will also do what is in their own self-interest: take more money for themselves. The key flaw with “trickle-down economics” is assuming that those at the top will allow the money to trickle-down at all.
In fact, what we’ve seen since these ideas have taken hold is the opposite. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Instead of all of us being better off, this has had the unfortunate effect of making inequality worse.
Robert Reich, a professor at the University of California, Berkley, is an expert on inequality and has authored numerous books and articles on the subject. In his book Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few[2], he makes a number of excellent points. One of the most important is that power influences the distribution of wealth and income. An oft cited statistic is that 50 years ago CEOs made 20-30 times that of the average worker. Do you know what they make now? More than 300 times the average worker. Has their worth gone up over time in comparison to everyone else’s?
Reich also provides some interesting graphs to back up his claims. If wages are provided based on “worth” or some combination of skills and productivity, why did wages keep pace with productivity in the first part of the century and then suddenly stop? That’s right, wages increased in line with company productivity increases until about the 1970’s…just around the time that idea put forth by Milton Friedman started to take hold. Then, we see that wages got stuck despite continuing productivity increases. Where did the profit from the productivity increases go? Remember I said CEOs used to make 20 times the average worker and now make 300 times the average worker? That’s right, it went to the top.
But, you might argue, shareholders are happy. They own the company so if they want to pay their CEOs 300 times what you or I make, they have the right to do that. Don’t they?
Dr. Lynn Stout is a professor of law at Cornell University, has also written extensively and is recognized as an expert in corporate law. In her book The Shareholder Value Myth, she debunks the idea that shareholders own the corporation. Shocking, right? After all, isn’t this what we’ve been taught for years? Two points she makes really stand out: 1) corporations are not required by law to maximize shareholder value (i.e. the value of the shares) and 2) shareholders do not own the company, they own rights that are attached to the shares.
Dr. Stout’s book is based in the U.S. so you might be tempted to think that what she is saying does not apply here. Wrong! The Supreme Court of Canada recently reaffirmed that the board of directors, the group of individuals charged with overseeing the company, have a primary responsibility to…wait for it…not the shareholders, but the corporation itself. The ruling went so far as to clearly advise boards that they should be taking other stakeholders into account. Stakeholders refer to any party who is affected by or affects the corporation and includes such groups as employees, communities, etc. Who knew?
Corporations are not owned by shareholders, “corporations are independent legal entities that own themselves”[3, p. 37]. What do shareholders own then? According to Dr. Stout, the answer is right in the title: shareholders own shares. What are shares then? Shares have limited rights as a result of a contract between the shareholder and the corporation itself.
This is no different than a bondholder who has a contract with the corporation that gives it limited rights or an employee who has a contract with a corporation and so on. The corporation exists independently of these parties and no individual party owns the corporation.
By the way, have you ever thought about who shareholders are anyways? If you think about it, they are you and me, your parents, your neighbours, your friends. Do you own investments? A mutual fund perhaps? Then you are a shareholder. What do you want from companies? Certainly, you want your investment to increase in value, but at what cost? Do you want a greater return in exchange for your friends and family making less money? What if you could make more money in exchange for more polluted air? Is that a sacrifice you would be willing to make? Does everyone around you feel the same?
If companies aren’t here to maximize share value for the shareholders, what are they here to do? As Dr. Stout notes, if you asked managers this same question 50 years ago, their response likely would have included things like making money, being a good corporate citizen, providing good jobs, etc. In other words, serving a variety of stakeholders…not just shareholders.
Would it surprise you to know that there are many enterprising entrepreneurs who have found ways to create successful businesses that make money while treating people and the environment well?
Patagonia is a great example of a clothing company that is financially successful while also using environmentally friendly materials and providing a good work environment for its employees. Amazing, right? I’m sure you’ve heard of Etsy. It’s a large online marketplace for handcrafted and vintage goods. Patagonia and Etsy are B-Corps.
What are B Corps? These are companies that are publicly committed to social and environmental objectives as part of their very existence and corporate structure. Etsy is publicly traded by the way and doing well, its stock is up roughly 14% year over year. There are many more examples on our doorstep. Thousands of companies are starting every day that show that profit does not have to be sacrificed to treat the environment or people well, it can be done simultaneously.
In fact, Porter and Kramer at Harvard University have outlined how businesses can tap into new opportunities by thinking differently about creating value. In other words, by creating value for society and not just one group within it (shareholders) this can lead to new opportunities that a business would have missed otherwise. This creates a win-win situation for business and society.
What should we do? Banish inequality? No. As it turns out, we prefer inequality.
According to a recent study by researchers at Yale University, people prefer to live in a society where there is incentive to move up, to be rewarded. However, what really bothers people is unfairness within that inequality. For example, if you work hard you would expect to reap some benefits for your hard work as compared to someone else who didn’t work as hard, right? But what if your hard work was not recognized because of someone’s bias against your sex, gender, skin colour, or preferences? What if they simply had more power than you and withheld the benefits? That’s unfair.
If someone works 40 hours a week, perhaps holding down multiple jobs, would it be fair that that person be able to afford food, housing, perhaps even a treat or two once in a while? I would argue yes. And yet, according to those who examine living wages (the amount of money you actually need to live), this is not possible in many places. These are people who are working but cannot afford to actually live. Does that seem fair?
One of the most profound points Robert Reich makes in his book, is that the “free market” is not some naturally occurring phenomenon, it is designed and created and managed by us, by society. We make the rules. You can’t just buy and sell anything and everything. We decide as a society that, for example, the sale of human organs is not something we approve of ethically, therefore we have rules that prevent this.
The structure of our market is changeable. We can make things better, more fair. We provide the money to companies that make them profitable. If you are like me and want to do something to change the way companies behave, now is the time to act.
Spend your money with responsible companies. Invest in those behaving the way you would like them to behave. Become an activist. If you don’t like the way a company is acting, take a page out of the activist investing handbook: get together with others, buy stock, make your voice heard to force change on the company. Many investors are taking this approach.
If you are an entrepreneur, examine your business practices, make changes to the way you do business, fight for change. Contact your MP, fight for living wages. Change is possible and it is in our hands.
I argue that the consideration of society and the environment is good for business in the long run. Businesses cannot survive without making money first and foremost. They must be profitable to live another day. But did you ever stop to think about how they make money? Companies use society’s resources to do this.
You and I, we work for corporations, we provide labour and time to help produce its products and services. Our environment’s resources, (water, trees, minerals, etc.) are used to make these products and services as well. Doesn’t it make sense for a company to take these societal and environmental resources into account when making decisions? After all, if the business really wants to be around for a while, it needs to take care of these resources if it wants to continue making money. Focusing on short-term strategies that generate additional profit and drive up stock prices at the expense of social and environmental resources harms not only the business itself, but the rest of us too and is not sustainable for the company long-term.
I’ve discussed that trickle-down economics doesn’t actually trickle down because those at the top have more power and, as we should expect, will keep more of the profits for themselves. I’ve also outlined that companies in Canada and the U.S. are not required by law to maximize shareholder value and that shareholders do not actually own the company.
We all have a stake in how companies perform and behave. We need to make our voices heard to ensure that all stakeholders are being considered in corporate decision-making so that we can all benefit from its success.
1. Friedman. (1970, September 13). The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits. The New York Times.
2. Reich. (2015). Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
3. Stout. (2012). The shareholder value myth. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
This blog post first appeared on Concordia's Public Scholars website at https://www.concordia.ca/cunews/offices/vprgs/sgs/public-scholars/2017/08/29/Are-businesses-harming-you-or-helping-you.html
Imagine, you go to turn on your car and there’s no more gas, not just in your tank but anywhere, what would you do? Do you live close enough to a grocery store to walk over to get your food? No? Me either. I could do it, but it would probably take me all day to walk over, do some shopping, take it home and repeat until I got all my shopping done. The truth is, we haven’t really set up our current society to be very sustainable. We commute great distances to our jobs, we build our homes away from the amenities we need and our homes often require a great amount of energy to run. Many of the products and services we use, while convenient, harm the planet or ourselves in the long-run.
What do they mean when they talk about sustainability? The simplest explanation refers to the three P’s: people, planet and profit. While many people (and companies) think of sustainability only in terms of the environment (the planet portion), we also need to consider the social aspect too. A company that does well for the planet but treats its people unfairly is not practicing sustainability.
So why should you care about sustainability too? Well, for starters, it’s logical. We generate too much garbage the way we currently live. Imagine for a moment if you shrunk down the world to include just you and your neighbours to your left, right and behind you. Say this results in six homes in total. Now, think about the garbage you generate. Where are you going to put it? Do you want it in your yard? Should you throw it in your neighbour’s yard? Which one? The one furthest away from you? The reality is that the world is not that large and we’re not all that far apart. The garbage we are generating today with the way we live will eventually catch up to us.
By the way, did you know that when garbage breaks down in the landfill, it emits methane? We now know this is way more potent than carbon when it comes to climate change effects.
Have you ever thought about why we live in a throwaway culture? We buy stuff that took years to make, use it briefly and then throw it away. From there, it sits for decades or longer in a landfill. It really doesn’t make a lot of logical sense, does it?
Now I know, you are not going to want to give up the conveniences that make your life easier. I don’t either. So, what if we didn’t have to? My vision for a sustainable world is idealistic. I dream big, envisioning a modern world with modern conveniences that is sustainable. Some might say this is impossible but I believe in our own human potential. We invented the telephone, the airplane, the Internet, modern medicine to treat diseases that not that long ago would have killed us. I believe we can do the same to live in a sustainable world. We’re already on our way really. Have you seen how beautiful those Tesla’s are?
On the subject of cars, there is a lot of talk about the oil industry today and its effects on the planet. People often make the point that if you shut down oil, and reduce what people purchase it will throw thousands of people out of work, therefore it’s bad for the economy. Did you know that current estimates are that the renewable energy sector now employs more people than the oil sector? Changing the way we live doesn’t have to mean less jobs but it might mean different jobs and, so far, “green” jobs are growing.
Not everyone can transfer their skills to a new sector however, although many can. Remember when I said sustainability refers to people too? We must find ways to support those who are not able to transition to this new economy. We must be creative in helping them move to new jobs to ensure we are successful in promoting sustainability for all and not just for some. We can’t resist sustainable living simply because there will be change. Change happens every day regardless.
So, what should we do? To start with, I think we need to brainstorm. We need to share ideas and tips with each other to help us all live more sustainably. If we all start small, we can make a difference. What do you do to live more sustainably? Here are a few things my family and I have incorporated into our life as we slowly transition to living more sustainably:
We meal plan. I am on a student budget which means every penny counts. So, this one is great financially as well. We have found that one of the main advantages is that a little time invested saves us not only time but money as well and we minimize our food waste.
We use reusable bags or bins at the grocery store. Now that they are charging for those bags, this also saves us money. I have to admit though, we still sometimes forget them at home, but, we’re getting there.
We try to spend our money with companies that match our values. As one example, Costco pays a good wage to its people (which it finds reduces turnover by the way) and I appreciate their efforts in this regard. Not only can I buy some items in bulk to reduce our family’s packaging waste but the prices are good for the most part and they are paying their people a decent wage (remember the social side of sustainability?)
I’m pretty busy, but I do try to do a little research to buy products that have fewer harmful chemicals for my family and I and, additionally, products that won’t harm the environment. One change I love that we have made is using vinegar and water with a couple of drops of lemon or orange essential oil (my husband doesn’t like the smell of vinegar). This mixture works like a charm for cleaning everything from the floors to the walls to the table. As added benefits, it’s inexpensive, works well, it’s non-toxic for the kids and pets and it’s easy to make.
I would love to hear from you with your tips to living more sustainably in a modern world without sacrificing modern conveniences. You can reach me on Twitter @leannekeddie. It’s not always easy to live more sustainably in a world that is not set up for it, but if we all brainstorm together, I know we can make it happen..
This blog post first appeared on Concordia's Public Scholars website at https://www.concordia.ca/cunews/offices/vprgs/sgs/public-scholars/2017/06/13/leanne-keddie-sustainability-blog.html.