---
title: "Eight CSO tasks and a self-check for SMEs"
description: "What does a chief sustainability officer do? Eight tasks, a 1-to-7 effort self-check for SME owners, a hypothetical example, and why not to sum scores."
url: "https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/blog/giam-doc-ben-vung-tam-nhiem-vu"
lang: en-GB
author: "Lê Quốc Khôi"
date: 2026-11-03
updated: 2026-11-03
topics: ["Ethics & corporate governance"]
tags: ["Chief sustainability officer", "ESG", "Sustainability for SMEs", "Triple bottom line"]
---

# The eight tasks of a sustainability officer, and a self-check for SMEs

## Key takeaways

- In 2021 more chief sustainability officers (CSOs) were hired than in the previous five years combined, according to the opening of the article by Farri, Cervini and Rosani (2023). They write that because the role is new, its actual responsibilities remain vague (Farri et al., 2023).
- According to the library framework, the role splits into eight tasks in four phases, rated for effort from 1 to 7 to show gaps, then fixed phase by phase rather than all at once. The original article speaks of eight tasks, a visual framework and level of effort (Farri et al., 2023).
- Small firms seldom have a CSO. The self-check in this post is my adaptation of that framework: eight numbers, each with a level of effort needed.
- Do not sum the eight scores. Norman and MacDonald (2004) argue that adding social indicators into a single "bottom line" does not hold up (Norman and MacDonald, 2004).
- The SME description of each task is my interpretation, and I have not read the full text of Farri and colleagues.

Suppose a large customer sends a three-page ESG questionnaire, the bank asks about your environmental policy, and nobody in the company knows whose job it is. In 2021 many companies answered by hiring a chief sustainability officer: more were appointed that year than in the previous five years combined (Farri et al., 2023). Your company has no CSO, but the eight things that role has to cover still exist.

## How new and how vague is the CSO role?

According to the summary of Farri, Cervini and Rosani (2023), the number of companies appointing a CSO has grown significantly in recent years, but because the role is new, its actual responsibilities and tasks are still vague. They also write that executives and boards must ensure the CSO's role is balanced among all three elements of ESG (Farri et al., 2023). The library concept of the [chief sustainability officer](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/glossary#chief-sustainability-officer) records the same idea: a new executive role, with duties and reporting lines often unclear.

For the owner of a small business the vagueness arrives sooner. There is no title to ask, so the question lands on the owner's desk or the chief accountant's.

## What are the eight tasks?

According to the library framework (credited to Farri, Cervini and Rosani, 2023), the eight tasks sit in four phases:

> **Figure:** [The eight tasks of a chief sustainability officer](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/framework/chief-sustainability-officer-eight-tasks) The eight tasks of a chief sustainability officer in four phases, following the library framework.

The right-hand column below is my interpretation for a small company, not the source's words.

| Phase | Task (per the framework) | For an SME, I read it as |
|:--|:--|:--|
| Compliance and reporting | 1. Ensure regulatory compliance | Know which environmental and labour rules apply to you, and have someone check on a schedule |
| | 2. Track and report ESG | A few regular measures (power, water, scrap, accidents) and an answer when a customer asks |
| Delivery | 3. Coordinate the sustainability project portfolio | One list of the work under way, each with an owner, a deadline and a budget |
| Relations and capability | 4. Manage stakeholder relationships | Know when customers, suppliers, workers, neighbours and the bank need to be heard |
| | 5. Build organisational capability | At least one person who can do the work and has been trained |
| Transformation | 6. Drive cultural change | Leaders set the example, and workers have a channel for suggestions |
| | 7. Scout and experiment | Trial new materials or methods at small scale, and watch coming rules |
| | 8. Embed sustainability in processes and decisions | Environmental and social criteria sit in purchasing and investment approvals |

On stakeholders, the post on [shareholders or stakeholders](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/blog/co-dong-hay-ben-lien-quan) explains why any group affected deserves a hearing before a decision is final.

## How do you score the tasks to find gaps?

The library framework rates the effort for each task from 1 to 7: low 1 to 2, medium 3 to 5, high 6 to 7. The aim is to find gaps, then fix them phase by phase rather than all at once. That is the content of the library framework, which I could not check against the original article by Farri and colleagues. I have not read the full article, so I do not know what else the authors advise on scoring.

My use for an SME: give each task two columns. Column one is the current level of effort. Column two is the level needed, judged by real pressure such as a customer's demand, the law or a loan. The difference between the two is the gap. Have two people score separately, because self-scoring tends to flatter the work already done.

## A hypothetical example: a food-packaging company with 45 staff

This company does not exist. I made up the figures for illustration.

| Task | Now | Needed | Gap |
|:--|--:|--:|--:|
| 1. Regulatory compliance | 5 | 6 | 1 |
| 2. Track and report ESG | 2 | 4 | 2 |
| 3. Project portfolio | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| 4. Stakeholder relationships | 3 | 5 | 2 |
| 5. Build capability | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| 6. Cultural change | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| 7. Scout and experiment | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| 8. Embed in processes and decisions | 1 | 4 | 3 |

The largest gap is task 8, but I would not start there. A large customer is asking for data, so the nearest pressure is task 2, in the compliance and reporting phase. The first phase comes first because the later ones rely on its data. Six months on, the company rescores and moves to relations and capability (4 and 5), then to transformation. That is my reading: order by pressure, not by the gap column, and the library framework says only to fix by phase.

Be careful when reporting runs ahead of doing. If task 2 reaches 4 while task 8 stays at 1, the company has handsome numbers and an unchanged reality. The library concept of [greenwashing](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/glossary#greenwashing) names that gap. This caution is my own.

## Why not add the eight scores into one number?

The temptation is real: add up the "now" column, get 18 out of 56, and paste it into a report. Do not. Norman and MacDonald (2004) wrote about the triple bottom line. I think their argument also applies to any sum of unlike indicators; that is my inference, not theirs. They sum it up in a slogan: what is sound about the 3BL idea is not new, and what is new is not sound. The new part is the "Aggregation Claim", the claim that a net "social profit" can be calculated from indicators (Norman and MacDonald, 2004).

They give two reasons. One, most of the figures in their example are percentages, and you cannot add or subtract percentages attached to different quantities. Two, in the social sphere there is no common "currency" (in a monetary or non-monetary sense) in which to express all the good and bad a firm produces (Norman and MacDonald, 2004). The same holds for the eight tasks, and this is my inference: effort spent on compliance does not offset effort spent on culture. A score of 18 out of 56 hides the gaps you need to see. The post on [doing well by doing good](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/blog/lam-tot-co-lai-bon-cau-hoi) uses the same argument to read a claim about ESG.

John Elkington, who says he coined the term, called for a "recall" of it himself in 2018. He argued that 3BL had been reduced to an accounting tool, a way of balancing trade-offs rather than doing things differently (Elkington, 2018). For this post, [3BL](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/framework/triple-bottom-line) is only a prompt for what to count, not a scoring formula.

## What are the limits of this approach?

One, the framework speaks only of effort; in my remark, that means it does not measure results. A company scoring 6 on compliance may still be in breach if it works on the wrong things. Two, there is no evidence that firms using this self-check become more sustainable, and I have no source that measures it. Three, the SME description of each task is mine, so owners should adjust it to their industry.

## Going deeper: what I read

The article by Farri, Cervini and Rosani (2023) sits behind the HBR paywall. I read the summary and the opening paragraph, and saw that the authors say they present eight tasks and a visual framework so each gets the level of effort it needs (Farri et al., 2023). I did not read the rest, including how they define each task and the scale, so the definitions in this post come from the library framework.

For Norman and MacDonald (2004), I read the authors' pre-publication manuscript, which has no reliable page numbers, so I only paraphrase. For Elkington (2018) I read only the public summary, and I did not read his original book, so I do not discuss his original intent.

## Frequently asked questions

### Does a small firm need a chief sustainability officer title?

Not necessarily. The eight-task framework works as a checklist for an owner or a manager who covers the role without the title. That is my use of it, not the source's recommendation, because I have not read the original article and so do not know whether the source discusses small firms.

### What does the 1-to-7 scale measure?

In the library framework it is the level of effort devoted to each task, where low is 1 to 2, medium 3 to 5, high 6 to 7. The framework speaks only of effort, so in my remark it does not measure results or effectiveness. Adding a column for the effort needed, so the gap shows, is my own use.

### Why not add the eight scores into one total?

Because a total hides the gaps, and effort spent on compliance does not offset effort spent on culture. Norman and MacDonald (2004) argue that adding social indicators into a single "bottom line" does not hold up, since there is no common unit and percentages for different things cannot be summed (Norman and MacDonald, 2004). They wrote about the triple bottom line; applying it to this chart is my inference.

### Where do the eight tasks come from?

From the library framework, which credits the article by Farri, Cervini and Rosani (2023) in Harvard Business Review (Farri et al., 2023). That article sits behind a paywall. I read only the summary and the opening paragraph, so the description of each task comes from the framework, not from the article itself.

## References

- Elkington, J. (2018) *25 years ago I coined the phrase ‘triple bottom line’. Here's why it's time to rethink it*. Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2018/06/25-years-ago-i-coined-the-phrase-triple-bottom-line-heres-why-im-giving-up-on-it.
- Farri, E., Cervini, P. and Rosani, G. (2023) *The 8 responsibilities of chief sustainability officers*. Harvard Business Review, 2 March 2023. Available at: https://hbr.org/2023/03/the-8-responsibilities-of-chief-sustainability-officers.
- Norman, W. and MacDonald, C. (2004) ‘Getting to the bottom of "triple bottom line"’, *Business Ethics Quarterly*, 14(2), pp. 243–262. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200414211

---

Canonical HTML version: https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/blog/giam-doc-ben-vung-tam-nhiem-vu