I'm putting together a presentation on what we mean by excellence in CSR for a conference in Budapest in a couple of weeks.
Here's what I wrote down so far.
Excellence in CSR is:
* Understanding that the role of business in society has changed in the last fifteen years
* Realising that expectations of business are increasing by civil society
* Grasping that governments are not able to deal with all the important issues in society on their own
* Collaborating with partners, such as NGOs, Governments and other companies to help tackle the issues
* Engagement with critics and stakeholders, and not being too proud to understand the point of view of others
* Using that engagement to plan strategy, and innovate in action, products, services and reporting
* Creating a solid, realistic action plan, and getting senior level buy in in your company
* Rolling out that plan, and getting employees to buy in and innovate within your CSR framework
* Driving results, being ambitious and putting the same rigour, measurement and creativity into CSR as you put into other areas of your business
* Spreading the responsibility across the company: In human resources, procurement, supply chains, facilities and sales and marketing
* Admitting you don't have all the answers, and being willing to say so in public
* Understanding complexity. That improving impact can sometimes involve difficult trade-offs
* Using resources and convening power to raise awareness and catalyse action
* Being transparent about progress and challenging with targets
I'll be refining this and adding to it over the next couple of weeks.
What might I have missed?
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Distribution of CO2 permits in U.S. Senate bill
I hope Reuters won't mind me reproducing their short piece a few days ago on where CO2 permits will perhaps become law quite soon. (If they do I'll take it down!)
It provides an interesting breakdown of how they will likely be allocated.
Worth a read.
"(Reuters) - The climate bill introduced by Democrats in the U.S. Senate would initially give away the majority of permits to emit greenhouse gases to entities like electricity distributors and big energy users, such as steel and cement plants, in a cap-and-trade program.
The distribution of the permits in the Senate bill, announced late on Friday, was similar to that of the bill that was narrowly passed in the House of Representatives in June.
There were some changes. Oil refiners, for example, made out slightly better, getting 2.25 percent of the permits instead of 2 percent. The Senate bill would also auction more of the permits than the House bill.
To avoid windfall profits for big polluters, an aim of the bill would be to give the permits, worth billions of dollars, to power and natural gas distributors rather than big fossil fuel-burning power plants. The idea is that the distributors, which are regulated by the states, would pass on breaks to consumers through lower bills or investments in energy efficiency.
The legislation can still be amended and it's unlikely the Senate will act this year on climate change amid opposition from many Republicans and some moderate Democrats, as well as Congress' preoccupation with healthcare reform.
Below is a breakdown of how most of the permits would be distributed in the Senate bill.
PERMITS TO BE AUCTIONED: 25 pct
- Fifteen percent with proceeds pushed to low- and moderate-income households to protect them from rising energy costs from cap and trade. Would increase to 18.5 percent of permits auctioned after 2029.
- Ten percent with proceeds going to reducing the deficit from 2012 to 2029, increasing to 22 of permits in 2030.
THE REST OF PERMITS TO BE GIVEN AWAY INITIALLY TO:
LOCAL ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES 30 pct
- Distributors, which are regulated by the states, must use the allocations to protect consumers from electricity price increases.
- Allocations to phase out from 2026 to 2030.
MERCHANT COAL, LONG TERM POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENTS 5 pct
HEAVY INDUSTRIES LIKE CEMENT AND STEEL 4 to 15 pct
- Allocations would start at 4 percent in 2012 and 2013, then move to 15 percent through 2015. They would start to decrease after that.
STATES 4 to 10 pct
- For investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. Would start at 10 percent then slip to about 4 percent in 2022.
LOCAL NATURAL GAS DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES 9 pct
- Also regulated by the states, must be used to protect consumers from rises in natural gas prices
- Phases out from 2026 to 2030
NUCLEAR
- Training for workers 0.5 pct
TROPICAL DEFORESTATION OFFSETS 5 pct
ADVANCED AUTO TECHNOLOGY 3 pct
OIL REFINERS 2.25 pct
CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE 1.75 to 5 pct"
It provides an interesting breakdown of how they will likely be allocated.
Worth a read.
"(Reuters) - The climate bill introduced by Democrats in the U.S. Senate would initially give away the majority of permits to emit greenhouse gases to entities like electricity distributors and big energy users, such as steel and cement plants, in a cap-and-trade program.
The distribution of the permits in the Senate bill, announced late on Friday, was similar to that of the bill that was narrowly passed in the House of Representatives in June.
There were some changes. Oil refiners, for example, made out slightly better, getting 2.25 percent of the permits instead of 2 percent. The Senate bill would also auction more of the permits than the House bill.
To avoid windfall profits for big polluters, an aim of the bill would be to give the permits, worth billions of dollars, to power and natural gas distributors rather than big fossil fuel-burning power plants. The idea is that the distributors, which are regulated by the states, would pass on breaks to consumers through lower bills or investments in energy efficiency.
The legislation can still be amended and it's unlikely the Senate will act this year on climate change amid opposition from many Republicans and some moderate Democrats, as well as Congress' preoccupation with healthcare reform.
Below is a breakdown of how most of the permits would be distributed in the Senate bill.
PERMITS TO BE AUCTIONED: 25 pct
- Fifteen percent with proceeds pushed to low- and moderate-income households to protect them from rising energy costs from cap and trade. Would increase to 18.5 percent of permits auctioned after 2029.
- Ten percent with proceeds going to reducing the deficit from 2012 to 2029, increasing to 22 of permits in 2030.
THE REST OF PERMITS TO BE GIVEN AWAY INITIALLY TO:
LOCAL ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES 30 pct
- Distributors, which are regulated by the states, must use the allocations to protect consumers from electricity price increases.
- Allocations to phase out from 2026 to 2030.
MERCHANT COAL, LONG TERM POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENTS 5 pct
HEAVY INDUSTRIES LIKE CEMENT AND STEEL 4 to 15 pct
- Allocations would start at 4 percent in 2012 and 2013, then move to 15 percent through 2015. They would start to decrease after that.
STATES 4 to 10 pct
- For investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. Would start at 10 percent then slip to about 4 percent in 2022.
LOCAL NATURAL GAS DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES 9 pct
- Also regulated by the states, must be used to protect consumers from rises in natural gas prices
- Phases out from 2026 to 2030
NUCLEAR
- Training for workers 0.5 pct
TROPICAL DEFORESTATION OFFSETS 5 pct
ADVANCED AUTO TECHNOLOGY 3 pct
OIL REFINERS 2.25 pct
CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE 1.75 to 5 pct"
US out of recession, what might it mean for corporate responsibility?
The US economy expanded by more than 1% in the three months to October. So says the BBC today.
Great news, particularly given the negativity around Copenhagen at the moment.
What will it mean for corporate responsibility budgets?
Clearly this news comes at a good time. Budgets are being re-done right now for 2010 in many large companies.
I don't imagine CFO's will want to lift travel restrictions until they absolutely have to, but we should now see much more impetus behind innovation in corporate responsibility in the US.
With France and China also doing quite well, and Germany not that far behind, we may see a loosening of the corporate purse strings within the next year so.
I wouldn't imagine it happening that quickly, but the shift is upwards, which is very good news.
Consultancies I know in the field haven't suffered too badly in the recession, and whilst non-essential areas such as conferences and sponsorships have been cut, we're seeing them come back if the idea behind the event or proposal is a good one.
The number of conference invitations I've received has shot up in the last two months.
And companies, such as Mars, Cadbury and Starbucks have made announcements in the difficult recent times that show how responsible business is becoming mainstream in their purchasing practices.
Nestle just announced that will only source sustainable palm oil by 2015.
Multi-national companies, who have perhaps suffered least in the downturn, seem well placed to make more such shifts in 2010.
The great benefit of the recession was to cut out a lot of the dross and fluff around corporate responsibility. It certainly made my firm leaner and more efficient.
Now with at least some momentum behind whatever does come out of Copenhagen in December, I'm hopeful of a really interesting year in 2010.
Great news, particularly given the negativity around Copenhagen at the moment.
What will it mean for corporate responsibility budgets?
Clearly this news comes at a good time. Budgets are being re-done right now for 2010 in many large companies.
I don't imagine CFO's will want to lift travel restrictions until they absolutely have to, but we should now see much more impetus behind innovation in corporate responsibility in the US.
With France and China also doing quite well, and Germany not that far behind, we may see a loosening of the corporate purse strings within the next year so.
I wouldn't imagine it happening that quickly, but the shift is upwards, which is very good news.
Consultancies I know in the field haven't suffered too badly in the recession, and whilst non-essential areas such as conferences and sponsorships have been cut, we're seeing them come back if the idea behind the event or proposal is a good one.
The number of conference invitations I've received has shot up in the last two months.
And companies, such as Mars, Cadbury and Starbucks have made announcements in the difficult recent times that show how responsible business is becoming mainstream in their purchasing practices.
Nestle just announced that will only source sustainable palm oil by 2015.
Multi-national companies, who have perhaps suffered least in the downturn, seem well placed to make more such shifts in 2010.
The great benefit of the recession was to cut out a lot of the dross and fluff around corporate responsibility. It certainly made my firm leaner and more efficient.
Now with at least some momentum behind whatever does come out of Copenhagen in December, I'm hopeful of a really interesting year in 2010.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
More stats on brands and social marketing
Thanks for this email from Arabella at Edelman after my previous post,
I thought readers might find these new stats useful:
"I read with interest your blogpost today, Brands and CSR: Some Examples and Numbers.
In addition to Edelman's Trust Barometer, I thought you might be interested in new research we launched last week - the 3rd annual goodpurpose study which surveys consumer attitudes to social purpose and brands in 10 countries.
This year's findings show that consumers are putting pressure on themselves but also on brands and companies when it comes to social commitments:
* 55% are looking to brands to make it easier for them to make a difference
* 58% think business decisions should place equal weight on the interests of society and business
* 77% are willing to change their consumption habits if it makes the world a better place
* 83% would prefer a brand that supports the livelihood of local producers over a designer brand (17%)
* 63% would prefer to drive a hybrid car over a luxury car (38%)
* As consumer values evolve, so do business opportunities: 58% would switch brands if another brand of similar quality supported a good cause; and 50% would recommend a brand that supports a good cause.
These are just some of the key UK findings. The more comprehensive global results can be found here: http://www.goodpurposecommunity.com"
I thought readers might find these new stats useful:
"I read with interest your blogpost today, Brands and CSR: Some Examples and Numbers.
In addition to Edelman's Trust Barometer, I thought you might be interested in new research we launched last week - the 3rd annual goodpurpose study which surveys consumer attitudes to social purpose and brands in 10 countries.
This year's findings show that consumers are putting pressure on themselves but also on brands and companies when it comes to social commitments:
* 55% are looking to brands to make it easier for them to make a difference
* 58% think business decisions should place equal weight on the interests of society and business
* 77% are willing to change their consumption habits if it makes the world a better place
* 83% would prefer a brand that supports the livelihood of local producers over a designer brand (17%)
* 63% would prefer to drive a hybrid car over a luxury car (38%)
* As consumer values evolve, so do business opportunities: 58% would switch brands if another brand of similar quality supported a good cause; and 50% would recommend a brand that supports a good cause.
These are just some of the key UK findings. The more comprehensive global results can be found here: http://www.goodpurposecommunity.com"
Monday, October 26, 2009
The science of happiness
I was building up the feeds on my iGoogle page tonight (in an attempt to reduce the amount of email newsletters I read) when I stumbled across the blog of Evan Davis, the BBC business journalist.
Whilst the blog's not been updated for a while (to be fair he's a busy chap), he has a fascinating link to this article on LiveScience, published a while ago.
The headline is "Key to Happiness: Give Away Money".
Here's an interesting quote from the latter part of the article, which helps make a personal case for philanthropy and corporate responsibility work.
"A person apparently doesn't need to drop thousands of dollars on others to reap a gleeful reward.
In another experiment, the researchers gave college students a $5 or $20 bill, asking them to spend the money by that evening. Half the participants were instructed to spend the money on themselves, and the remaining students to spend on others.
Participants who spent the windfall on others — which included toys for siblings and meals eaten with friends — reported feeling happier at the end of the day than those who spent the money on themselves.
If as little as $5 spent on others could produce a surge in happiness on a given day, why don't people make these changes? In another study of more than 100 college students, the researchers found that most thought personal spending would make them happier than prosocial spending.
"Often people, at some implicit level, have this idea that 'buying these things is going to make me happier,'" Ahuvia said. "It does make them momentarily happy," he added, but the warm feelings are short-lived."
Of course I'm not saying here that corporate responsibility is about just about giving money away. But it is about doing things for others, alongside self interest.
So it's good to know that working in the area means you have a better chance of being happy than say, investment banking.
Whilst the blog's not been updated for a while (to be fair he's a busy chap), he has a fascinating link to this article on LiveScience, published a while ago.
The headline is "Key to Happiness: Give Away Money".
Here's an interesting quote from the latter part of the article, which helps make a personal case for philanthropy and corporate responsibility work.
"A person apparently doesn't need to drop thousands of dollars on others to reap a gleeful reward.
In another experiment, the researchers gave college students a $5 or $20 bill, asking them to spend the money by that evening. Half the participants were instructed to spend the money on themselves, and the remaining students to spend on others.
Participants who spent the windfall on others — which included toys for siblings and meals eaten with friends — reported feeling happier at the end of the day than those who spent the money on themselves.
If as little as $5 spent on others could produce a surge in happiness on a given day, why don't people make these changes? In another study of more than 100 college students, the researchers found that most thought personal spending would make them happier than prosocial spending.
"Often people, at some implicit level, have this idea that 'buying these things is going to make me happier,'" Ahuvia said. "It does make them momentarily happy," he added, but the warm feelings are short-lived."
Of course I'm not saying here that corporate responsibility is about just about giving money away. But it is about doing things for others, alongside self interest.
So it's good to know that working in the area means you have a better chance of being happy than say, investment banking.
Brands and CSR, some examples and numbers
I've been preparing some notes for a talk I am giving tomorrow on brands and CSR.
I was surprised at how little is around when you search using Google on the topic.
Lots of material out there is pretty old. I've been digging out some more recent examples and stats from reports I've come across in the last few days and that contacts have sent me.
Here's what I've put together. I've tried to boil it down to the important stuff. I'd be interested in reader comments on the below.
Bear in mind I wrote this for a non CR-audience!
Brands and corporate responsibility
What do we mean by corporate responsibility today?
It's about how a large company interacts with lots of emerging and existing important issues.
These include areas from climate change to water, waste to labour standards in developing countries.
It also includes more traditional areas such as how companies treat their customers, their staff, and health and safety.
One major emerging area of CSR is employee and customer well being.
For example, we see companies such as Alliance Boots how they are both working with their staff to introduce flexible working systems and using the power of their brand to promote medical car and customer well being in their stores. It’s part of their business model today. I’ll come to other examples a little later.
Why CR? Where has it come from?
It’s come from transparency and changing expectations. 30 years ago companies were simply expected to obey English law.
Then from the environmental and apartheid movements in the 1960s, 70s and 80s arose great expectations on business relating to impacts on society.
That combined with the rise of international campaign groups, opening of markets, globalization of business, communications and technology to provide all of us with more information on the impacts of business and brands on society.
Why CR matters
CR matters because it can enable brands to connect with customers by building up trust.
With good communication on real issues, brands can demonstrate that they can play a positive role in their communities, supply chains and with customers by encouraging progressive behaviour
According to Globescan’s 2008 survey “Global Public Opinion on the Expectations of Companies” expectations of companies with regard to responsibility has risen dramatically in recent years.
In big developing countries it is still rising fast, and not declining in markets such as the UK.
In general GlobeScan says Consumers tend to look favourably on brands who have partnered with NGOs to deliver positive messages.
But Edelman’s 2009 Trust Barometer says that in the US, only 38% of “informed public” trust business today.
And this is the most business-friendly country on earth!
In the UK it’s a little higher, but still only 45%, according Edelman.
Two thirds of 25-64 year olds surveyed by Edelman said business should be partnering with governments and other third parties to address important global issues.
Healthcare is definitely one of these big issues. Companies are beginning to think about how they can help here.
Brands and CSR
Academics and commentators, from Stewart Hart to branding legend Wally Olins, have said that CR is “the biggest business opportunity on the planet” and “the last great differentiator”. But there's a long way to go:
A 2009 PWC study study of FTSE 350 companies predicts investors will respond by demanding evidence of green thinking in the future.
PwC found only 31% of the FTSE 350 align sustainability measures with their key performance indicators, and many are reticent to provide about their “key dependencies”.
Jeff Swartz, CEO of Timberland told Ethical Corporation earlier this year: “Consumers are starting to value brands as social institutions,”
Examples: Unilever and Dove, and others
In 2004 Unilever began using Dove’s powerful position as a trusted, widely used brand to tackle the issue of self-esteem among women.
Market research that showed that 90% of women were unhappy with the way they looked. Dove used powerful advertising campaigns to challenge narrow perceptions of beauty.
The company launched the Dove Self-Esteem Fund to provide educational materials for young women and tied the campaigns to product ranges such as Pro-Age and Firming, which used real women, with normal body shapes, in their advertising, in place of models.
The campaign, and its impact on the brand’s reputation, was hugely successful. Sales of Dove products increased by about 600% in the first two months, with an overall sales increase across the entire brand of 20% in the year after the campaign began.
In 2008 B&Q launched 2,000 products in its One Planet Home range designed to save customers money and reduce their environmental impact. A customer who buys products across all six categories in the range could reduce their ecological footprint by 10%, B&Q says.
Innocent Drinks is a great example of an ethical company that is both authentic, healthy and successful. So much so it has sold a 10-20% stake to Coca-Cola for £30 million pounds recently. It's a brand that has come from nothing in just ten years, and is now moving into fresh food.
Marks and Spencer has their 100 point Plan A strategy. Around 20% achieved so far. Much consumer advertising. M&S's "Look Behind the Label" campaign had the best response to a marketing campaign ever, according to the company.
Starbucks has just become more than 90% Fairtrade, and is marketing the fact hard in stores and UK papers now. This is a significant shift in brand alignment and communiations
There's also a big Environmental opportunity for manufacturers. According to the UK government, the percentage of environmental impacts of energy-using products like home appliances account for is around 35-40 per cent.
Other consumer opinions tested by Mintel in a July 2009 survey show that:
49% stated clothing retailers should make it clear whether garments have
been produced to a high ethical standard.
45% stated the big retailers are motivated by profits and only take action
if there is a cost saving.
39% said they would consider boycotting a brand or retailer if they source goods made under conditions of hardship for workers.
27% said they would consider boycotting a brand or retailer if they do not reduce their impact on the environment.
20% said they are trying to save on food bills but are still buying organic foods.
19% said hey are not in a financial position to think about ethical or environmental issues.
12% said they have cut back on spending on organic foods due to the recession.
The report makes clear that advertisers need to give shoppers more reasons to buy 'green.
Where is the CSR agenda heading next for brands?
More transparency: Driven by both communications, and tracking and tracing technology
A more complex debate: Not just about plastic bags, but about the trade-offs around plastic bags. For example: What about the carbon in bags/bottles if they biodegrade? What about efficient use of resources? Choices as to what is best are complicated.
Better and more honest consumer communications: This is very hard to do. The simple messages of marketing do not always translate the complex trade offs of corporate responsibility well! On some issues, this will continue to be true. But on clearer areas, such as certification: Wood, fish, coffee, tea, chocolate, palm oil, we will see much faster progress as brands understand that third party endorsement is key.
More public engagement in the issues: The great positive power of brands is their convening ability. Companies can help create the debate that recognizes trade offs and complexity.
They can support positive campaigns and they can promote energy efficiency, well-being and lower carbon and healthier lifestyles with products, services, and by supporting programmes like those of the NHS.
More sustainable products and services will also be vital to help brand maintain market share, innovate and change, and demonstrate to customers that they can be trusted to do the right thing by them.
I was surprised at how little is around when you search using Google on the topic.
Lots of material out there is pretty old. I've been digging out some more recent examples and stats from reports I've come across in the last few days and that contacts have sent me.
Here's what I've put together. I've tried to boil it down to the important stuff. I'd be interested in reader comments on the below.
Bear in mind I wrote this for a non CR-audience!
Brands and corporate responsibility
What do we mean by corporate responsibility today?
It's about how a large company interacts with lots of emerging and existing important issues.
These include areas from climate change to water, waste to labour standards in developing countries.
It also includes more traditional areas such as how companies treat their customers, their staff, and health and safety.
One major emerging area of CSR is employee and customer well being.
For example, we see companies such as Alliance Boots how they are both working with their staff to introduce flexible working systems and using the power of their brand to promote medical car and customer well being in their stores. It’s part of their business model today. I’ll come to other examples a little later.
Why CR? Where has it come from?
It’s come from transparency and changing expectations. 30 years ago companies were simply expected to obey English law.
Then from the environmental and apartheid movements in the 1960s, 70s and 80s arose great expectations on business relating to impacts on society.
That combined with the rise of international campaign groups, opening of markets, globalization of business, communications and technology to provide all of us with more information on the impacts of business and brands on society.
Why CR matters
CR matters because it can enable brands to connect with customers by building up trust.
With good communication on real issues, brands can demonstrate that they can play a positive role in their communities, supply chains and with customers by encouraging progressive behaviour
According to Globescan’s 2008 survey “Global Public Opinion on the Expectations of Companies” expectations of companies with regard to responsibility has risen dramatically in recent years.
In big developing countries it is still rising fast, and not declining in markets such as the UK.
In general GlobeScan says Consumers tend to look favourably on brands who have partnered with NGOs to deliver positive messages.
But Edelman’s 2009 Trust Barometer says that in the US, only 38% of “informed public” trust business today.
And this is the most business-friendly country on earth!
In the UK it’s a little higher, but still only 45%, according Edelman.
Two thirds of 25-64 year olds surveyed by Edelman said business should be partnering with governments and other third parties to address important global issues.
Healthcare is definitely one of these big issues. Companies are beginning to think about how they can help here.
Brands and CSR
Academics and commentators, from Stewart Hart to branding legend Wally Olins, have said that CR is “the biggest business opportunity on the planet” and “the last great differentiator”. But there's a long way to go:
A 2009 PWC study study of FTSE 350 companies predicts investors will respond by demanding evidence of green thinking in the future.
PwC found only 31% of the FTSE 350 align sustainability measures with their key performance indicators, and many are reticent to provide about their “key dependencies”.
Jeff Swartz, CEO of Timberland told Ethical Corporation earlier this year: “Consumers are starting to value brands as social institutions,”
Examples: Unilever and Dove, and others
In 2004 Unilever began using Dove’s powerful position as a trusted, widely used brand to tackle the issue of self-esteem among women.
Market research that showed that 90% of women were unhappy with the way they looked. Dove used powerful advertising campaigns to challenge narrow perceptions of beauty.
The company launched the Dove Self-Esteem Fund to provide educational materials for young women and tied the campaigns to product ranges such as Pro-Age and Firming, which used real women, with normal body shapes, in their advertising, in place of models.
The campaign, and its impact on the brand’s reputation, was hugely successful. Sales of Dove products increased by about 600% in the first two months, with an overall sales increase across the entire brand of 20% in the year after the campaign began.
In 2008 B&Q launched 2,000 products in its One Planet Home range designed to save customers money and reduce their environmental impact. A customer who buys products across all six categories in the range could reduce their ecological footprint by 10%, B&Q says.
Innocent Drinks is a great example of an ethical company that is both authentic, healthy and successful. So much so it has sold a 10-20% stake to Coca-Cola for £30 million pounds recently. It's a brand that has come from nothing in just ten years, and is now moving into fresh food.
Marks and Spencer has their 100 point Plan A strategy. Around 20% achieved so far. Much consumer advertising. M&S's "Look Behind the Label" campaign had the best response to a marketing campaign ever, according to the company.
Starbucks has just become more than 90% Fairtrade, and is marketing the fact hard in stores and UK papers now. This is a significant shift in brand alignment and communiations
There's also a big Environmental opportunity for manufacturers. According to the UK government, the percentage of environmental impacts of energy-using products like home appliances account for is around 35-40 per cent.
Other consumer opinions tested by Mintel in a July 2009 survey show that:
49% stated clothing retailers should make it clear whether garments have
been produced to a high ethical standard.
45% stated the big retailers are motivated by profits and only take action
if there is a cost saving.
39% said they would consider boycotting a brand or retailer if they source goods made under conditions of hardship for workers.
27% said they would consider boycotting a brand or retailer if they do not reduce their impact on the environment.
20% said they are trying to save on food bills but are still buying organic foods.
19% said hey are not in a financial position to think about ethical or environmental issues.
12% said they have cut back on spending on organic foods due to the recession.
The report makes clear that advertisers need to give shoppers more reasons to buy 'green.
Where is the CSR agenda heading next for brands?
More transparency: Driven by both communications, and tracking and tracing technology
A more complex debate: Not just about plastic bags, but about the trade-offs around plastic bags. For example: What about the carbon in bags/bottles if they biodegrade? What about efficient use of resources? Choices as to what is best are complicated.
Better and more honest consumer communications: This is very hard to do. The simple messages of marketing do not always translate the complex trade offs of corporate responsibility well! On some issues, this will continue to be true. But on clearer areas, such as certification: Wood, fish, coffee, tea, chocolate, palm oil, we will see much faster progress as brands understand that third party endorsement is key.
More public engagement in the issues: The great positive power of brands is their convening ability. Companies can help create the debate that recognizes trade offs and complexity.
They can support positive campaigns and they can promote energy efficiency, well-being and lower carbon and healthier lifestyles with products, services, and by supporting programmes like those of the NHS.
More sustainable products and services will also be vital to help brand maintain market share, innovate and change, and demonstrate to customers that they can be trusted to do the right thing by them.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Lessons from our embedding corporate responsibility report
We published a report a few weeks ago on how companies are embedding CSR.
It's about 100 pages, packed with exclusive case studies from some of the best companies out there on CR.
The author, Ian Welsh, and Pam, our head of research, taped a podcast on some lessons from the report here.
Full details on the report are here.
It's about 100 pages, packed with exclusive case studies from some of the best companies out there on CR.
The author, Ian Welsh, and Pam, our head of research, taped a podcast on some lessons from the report here.
Full details on the report are here.
Social innovation in Nigeria? Hmm
I hope you can read this article from FT.com.
It's about a new plan, called "revolutionary" by Nigeria's president. The idea is to get around corrupt local governments, fiefdoms and general political favour-giving and give local people in the Delta money to spend as they see fit.
Here's an excerpt from the FT piece:
"It would give delta inhabitants direct ownership in the industry by transferring to oil communities the profits after taxes and costs from 10 per cent of the state’s majority holdings in joint ventures with the multinationals.
Mr Egbogah stresses that the dividends would circumvent leaky state and local governments and flow directly to the people. In turn this might provide an incentive for communities to rein in militant and criminal networks that are hampering oil production and profiting from stolen crude.
As one Nigerian oil veteran puts it: “The devil will be in the detail.”"
It sounds like a fascinating idea. But I do wonder if anyone has considered how the government plans to keep an eye on where the money is going, and to whom.
Yahoo hosts further coverage from AFP here. Worth keeping an eye on if the plan takes off for those of you interested in the Niger Delta.
It's about a new plan, called "revolutionary" by Nigeria's president. The idea is to get around corrupt local governments, fiefdoms and general political favour-giving and give local people in the Delta money to spend as they see fit.
Here's an excerpt from the FT piece:
"It would give delta inhabitants direct ownership in the industry by transferring to oil communities the profits after taxes and costs from 10 per cent of the state’s majority holdings in joint ventures with the multinationals.
Mr Egbogah stresses that the dividends would circumvent leaky state and local governments and flow directly to the people. In turn this might provide an incentive for communities to rein in militant and criminal networks that are hampering oil production and profiting from stolen crude.
As one Nigerian oil veteran puts it: “The devil will be in the detail.”"
It sounds like a fascinating idea. But I do wonder if anyone has considered how the government plans to keep an eye on where the money is going, and to whom.
Yahoo hosts further coverage from AFP here. Worth keeping an eye on if the plan takes off for those of you interested in the Niger Delta.
Are you ready for Google Sidewiki?
According to this post, Google's new Sidewiki tool could be a major communications headache for companies.
If you haven't heard of it, it's worth checking out. It allows anyone to post comments next to a website once they install it via Google Toolbar.
I'm testing it on this blog. Check out Sidewiki here.
If it becomes widely used, and it will be by activists, companies are going to have to get pro-active about their communications.
If you can't control the debate (and you can't!) then you'd better get involved in taking part.
If you haven't heard of it, it's worth checking out. It allows anyone to post comments next to a website once they install it via Google Toolbar.
I'm testing it on this blog. Check out Sidewiki here.
If it becomes widely used, and it will be by activists, companies are going to have to get pro-active about their communications.
If you can't control the debate (and you can't!) then you'd better get involved in taking part.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Microsoft: Possibly the worst advertising campaign of all time
Microsoft has decided to launch Windows Seven with possibly the most ill-thought through ad campaign of all time. Watch it, here, and then the wag's take here. The most amusing part is the patronising Microsoft ad that appears automatically after the YouTube video if you keep watching! Fantastic...
Here's Seth Godin on the topic of good advertising. If Microsoft had any real competition, this would be much more relevant.
Here's Seth Godin on the topic of good advertising. If Microsoft had any real competition, this would be much more relevant.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Another year – Another round of dodgy awards in Beijing
A guest post from our China Editor, Paul French. Paul writes:
"The British Business Awards, presented annually in Beijing by the British Chamber of Commerce in China, now traditionally throws up some grotesque howlers.
This year looks to be no exception. The basic format will be familiar to you – a bunch of very pleased with themselves corporate suits get together in their, er, suits to self congratulate and back slap each other over a dinner and hand out some awards without asking too many questions.
Indeed one might say that this year they’ve positively excelled themselves in asking absolutely no questions.
The awards are run by the British Chamber of Commerce of China with the support from UK Trade & Investment (UKTI), British Council, China-Britain Business Council (CBBC) and the Confederation of British Industry (CBI).
Among the recently announced finalists was one that will make regular Ethical Corporation readers chuckle – The Green Award, sponsored by BP, could well be won by former Ethical Corporation Greenwasher of the Year, Arup, the smoke and mirrors act behind the now defunct and discredited Dongtan ‘Eco-City’ that has never made it of the drawing board despite forced relocations of local people at Dongtan, the repeated scaling back of the scheme’s once lofty ambitions and repeated assertions by Arup that all was well.
Not that any of that has stopped them mining publicity from the non-project for years – and still it seems at the British Business Awards in China.
We won’t even start on the sponsor of the green award being BP, a company that thinks mining the Canadian tar flats is environmentally OK."
"The British Business Awards, presented annually in Beijing by the British Chamber of Commerce in China, now traditionally throws up some grotesque howlers.
This year looks to be no exception. The basic format will be familiar to you – a bunch of very pleased with themselves corporate suits get together in their, er, suits to self congratulate and back slap each other over a dinner and hand out some awards without asking too many questions.
Indeed one might say that this year they’ve positively excelled themselves in asking absolutely no questions.
The awards are run by the British Chamber of Commerce of China with the support from UK Trade & Investment (UKTI), British Council, China-Britain Business Council (CBBC) and the Confederation of British Industry (CBI).
Among the recently announced finalists was one that will make regular Ethical Corporation readers chuckle – The Green Award, sponsored by BP, could well be won by former Ethical Corporation Greenwasher of the Year, Arup, the smoke and mirrors act behind the now defunct and discredited Dongtan ‘Eco-City’ that has never made it of the drawing board despite forced relocations of local people at Dongtan, the repeated scaling back of the scheme’s once lofty ambitions and repeated assertions by Arup that all was well.
Not that any of that has stopped them mining publicity from the non-project for years – and still it seems at the British Business Awards in China.
We won’t even start on the sponsor of the green award being BP, a company that thinks mining the Canadian tar flats is environmentally OK."
Will forestry be the biggest deal done in Copenhagen?
The other day a friend of mine who advises a major CEO rang me to ask my opinion.
The CEO had suddenly decided he wanted to go to Copenhagen for the climate negotiations.
Surely, he said to my friend, as CEO of a major company, he should be there.
What did I think, my friend wanted to know.
I suggested that the CEO not bother going along. The issues are way bigger than any one CEO, or indeed any 100 CEOs, as we've seen. His voice will be lost in the media and political chaos, I ventured.
My friend concurred. He had already said the same. I think it was a wise move.
Today's headline on the COP 15 website says it all: "No EU consensus on climate aid".
So if expectations are low. What might come out that's positive?
Perhaps forestry. The Economist published a lengthy and fascinating piece on the development of avoided deforestation a couple of weeks ago.
If the mechanism, monitoring, accountability and enforcement can be done right (a big 'if' I know) then it seems avoided deforestation could mean global emissions can be reduced by something like 5-15% per year.
Getting it right is of course very complicated, as the article points out.
But if the will is there and lessons can be learned from the opaqueness of some aspects of the Clean Development Mechanism, then it could just be one of the most important areas of tackling climate change to emerge, post-Copenhagen.
Let's hope so.
UPDATE: I may be wrong about Copenhagen. Take a look here.
The CEO had suddenly decided he wanted to go to Copenhagen for the climate negotiations.
Surely, he said to my friend, as CEO of a major company, he should be there.
What did I think, my friend wanted to know.
I suggested that the CEO not bother going along. The issues are way bigger than any one CEO, or indeed any 100 CEOs, as we've seen. His voice will be lost in the media and political chaos, I ventured.
My friend concurred. He had already said the same. I think it was a wise move.
Today's headline on the COP 15 website says it all: "No EU consensus on climate aid".
So if expectations are low. What might come out that's positive?
Perhaps forestry. The Economist published a lengthy and fascinating piece on the development of avoided deforestation a couple of weeks ago.
If the mechanism, monitoring, accountability and enforcement can be done right (a big 'if' I know) then it seems avoided deforestation could mean global emissions can be reduced by something like 5-15% per year.
Getting it right is of course very complicated, as the article points out.
But if the will is there and lessons can be learned from the opaqueness of some aspects of the Clean Development Mechanism, then it could just be one of the most important areas of tackling climate change to emerge, post-Copenhagen.
Let's hope so.
UPDATE: I may be wrong about Copenhagen. Take a look here.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Yes Men 'punk' the US Chamber of Commerce on climate change
Corporate pranksters the Yes Men, who have fooled reporters who fail to check facts for years over big business and environmental issues, have pulled off another great stunt.
This blog has two videos on it, both worth watching. In the first Fox News reports Reuters reporting on a fake press release, without checking their facts until they are on the air.
Then in the second clip, we see the fake press conference interrupted by a real US Chamber of Commerce representative, with hilarious results.
In this MSNBC clip, some of the dodgy behaviour of the US Chamber in recent times is revealed by a Mother Jones magazine reporter.
All worth taking five minutes to watch. Enjoy. I certainly did!
This blog has two videos on it, both worth watching. In the first Fox News reports Reuters reporting on a fake press release, without checking their facts until they are on the air.
Then in the second clip, we see the fake press conference interrupted by a real US Chamber of Commerce representative, with hilarious results.
In this MSNBC clip, some of the dodgy behaviour of the US Chamber in recent times is revealed by a Mother Jones magazine reporter.
All worth taking five minutes to watch. Enjoy. I certainly did!
Monday, October 19, 2009
Corruption risk on the rise
Here's an interesting fact about FCPA anti-corruption enforcement, from Newsweek.
They say the Obama administation has hired "scores of legal experts--some 87 new lawyers at the Department of Justice alone--to give the measure sharper teeth, and already charged a former U.S. congressman with violating FCPA rules while in Nigeria".
As previously posted, anti-corruption risk is growing for US companies, and slowly but surely, for European ones too.
Announcement:
Ethical Corporation report now available: "How to embed corporate responsibility across different parts of your company". Blog readers save 200 Euros. Quote discount code ‘REFLECTIONS’ at http://www.ethicalcorp.com/csr
They say the Obama administation has hired "scores of legal experts--some 87 new lawyers at the Department of Justice alone--to give the measure sharper teeth, and already charged a former U.S. congressman with violating FCPA rules while in Nigeria".
As previously posted, anti-corruption risk is growing for US companies, and slowly but surely, for European ones too.
Announcement:
Ethical Corporation report now available: "How to embed corporate responsibility across different parts of your company". Blog readers save 200 Euros. Quote discount code ‘REFLECTIONS’ at http://www.ethicalcorp.com/csr
The best management advice I've ever had
The best advice I've ever heard relating to business, management and indeed life, is three very simple words:
"Don't think, know".
How does this apply to corporate responsibility?
Look at it this way:
Don't assume that the way you did stakeholder engagement last year is going to be the best way this year. Find out what else you might do, how you might improve the process and tailor it to your audiences.
Don't think that your corporate responsibility website works well, just because a few people said it was OK. Test it. Work out what links are responded to. Find out what text works by tracking entry and exit pages from your website
Don't assume that people like me read your CR/sustainability reporting. We don't, unless we have a reason to, or unless you engage us in an interesting way. I'm amazed by the emails I get from companies who blithely assume I have spend my evenings, lunchtimes or working day reading their dull, badly written report. Find out who reads it, and ask them what they liked. Do a focus group, for example. Incentivise people to read it (good lunch, charitable donation) and ask for tough criticism.
I could go on. But you get my point.
I find myself assuming things every day that I don't actually know.
I need to constantly remind myself never to assume, always to try and know, before having an opinion, or making a decision. I know it's the same for others.
We need to constantly question our assumptions and keeping asking ourselves, "what is my opinion really based on?"
Easy to say, hard to do. Here's a good book on the topic.
Announcement:
Ethical Corporation report now available: "How to embed corporate responsibility across different parts of your company". Blog readers save 200 Euros. Quote discount code ‘REFLECTIONS’ at http://www.ethicalcorp.com/csr
"Don't think, know".
How does this apply to corporate responsibility?
Look at it this way:
Don't assume that the way you did stakeholder engagement last year is going to be the best way this year. Find out what else you might do, how you might improve the process and tailor it to your audiences.
Don't think that your corporate responsibility website works well, just because a few people said it was OK. Test it. Work out what links are responded to. Find out what text works by tracking entry and exit pages from your website
Don't assume that people like me read your CR/sustainability reporting. We don't, unless we have a reason to, or unless you engage us in an interesting way. I'm amazed by the emails I get from companies who blithely assume I have spend my evenings, lunchtimes or working day reading their dull, badly written report. Find out who reads it, and ask them what they liked. Do a focus group, for example. Incentivise people to read it (good lunch, charitable donation) and ask for tough criticism.
I could go on. But you get my point.
I find myself assuming things every day that I don't actually know.
I need to constantly remind myself never to assume, always to try and know, before having an opinion, or making a decision. I know it's the same for others.
We need to constantly question our assumptions and keeping asking ourselves, "what is my opinion really based on?"
Easy to say, hard to do. Here's a good book on the topic.
Announcement:
Ethical Corporation report now available: "How to embed corporate responsibility across different parts of your company". Blog readers save 200 Euros. Quote discount code ‘REFLECTIONS’ at http://www.ethicalcorp.com/csr
Lessons in censorship from the Trafigura case
The ongoing sage over Trafigura has been all over the news in the last week or so.
It's a sage of toxic waste dumping, legal fights, injunctions, super-injunctions and a media storm that demonstrates that these days, it's hard to hide a big story.
But Twitter and other forms of social media are not a cure-all for legal threats to stop information being published.
In this case newspapers have been forced to remove pages from websites, says WikiLeaks, and gag orders apparently still exist.
The story up until a few days ago is here.
Not only are Trafigura now associated in the public eye with the dumping of toxic waste in Africa, they are now also associated with using media lawyers to censor the press.
When in a hole, it's often best to stop digging.
UPDATE: In the interests of fairness, I just read this piece, which casts doubt on whether the waste dumped in Abijan in 2006, actually killed anyone, or injured many. It's worth a read. However dangerous the waste really was, the company has still handled things badly. Defending yourself robustly is one thing, and requires engaging in the debate. But over-reaction means the company's name is now forever associated with very negative acts.
It's a sage of toxic waste dumping, legal fights, injunctions, super-injunctions and a media storm that demonstrates that these days, it's hard to hide a big story.
But Twitter and other forms of social media are not a cure-all for legal threats to stop information being published.
In this case newspapers have been forced to remove pages from websites, says WikiLeaks, and gag orders apparently still exist.
The story up until a few days ago is here.
Not only are Trafigura now associated in the public eye with the dumping of toxic waste in Africa, they are now also associated with using media lawyers to censor the press.
When in a hole, it's often best to stop digging.
UPDATE: In the interests of fairness, I just read this piece, which casts doubt on whether the waste dumped in Abijan in 2006, actually killed anyone, or injured many. It's worth a read. However dangerous the waste really was, the company has still handled things badly. Defending yourself robustly is one thing, and requires engaging in the debate. But over-reaction means the company's name is now forever associated with very negative acts.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Social media and sustainability, a four part series
We've published a four part series on how social media can be and is being used by companies on the Ethical Corp.com website.
Here's the link to it. Hurry up if you want to read it. Our website will be paid only for much of the content later this week...
Announcement:
Ethical Corporation report now available: "How to embed corporate responsibility across different parts of your company". Blog readers save 200 Euros. Quote discount code ‘REFLECTIONS’ at http://www.ethicalcorp.com/csr
Here's the link to it. Hurry up if you want to read it. Our website will be paid only for much of the content later this week...
Announcement:
Ethical Corporation report now available: "How to embed corporate responsibility across different parts of your company". Blog readers save 200 Euros. Quote discount code ‘REFLECTIONS’ at http://www.ethicalcorp.com/csr
Friday, October 16, 2009
Shifting your strategy from impact to core business
Here's a good posting about Newsweek's recent green rankings.
It makes a simple point:
"The Newsweek list, however, defines "green" largely in terms of a company's efforts to reduce its impact (e.g., buying green power, recycling, building greener facilities, etc.). We believe it's time to move beyond this approach and begin defining "green" by how well a company is aligning sustainability with its core business by solving society's environmental challenges and creating shareholder value while doing so."
Quite so. Corporate responsibility folks in Europe have been saying this for some years now.
I hope that the fact that this is starting to appear in places like Harvard Business online means more executives, particularly in the US, will take notice of this idea.
Announcement:
Ethical Corporation report now available: "How to embed corporate responsibility across different parts of your company". Blog readers save 200 Euros. Quote discount code ‘REFLECTIONS’ at http://www.ethicalcorp.com/csr
It makes a simple point:
"The Newsweek list, however, defines "green" largely in terms of a company's efforts to reduce its impact (e.g., buying green power, recycling, building greener facilities, etc.). We believe it's time to move beyond this approach and begin defining "green" by how well a company is aligning sustainability with its core business by solving society's environmental challenges and creating shareholder value while doing so."
Quite so. Corporate responsibility folks in Europe have been saying this for some years now.
I hope that the fact that this is starting to appear in places like Harvard Business online means more executives, particularly in the US, will take notice of this idea.
Announcement:
Ethical Corporation report now available: "How to embed corporate responsibility across different parts of your company". Blog readers save 200 Euros. Quote discount code ‘REFLECTIONS’ at http://www.ethicalcorp.com/csr
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Great advice from Seth
If you don't read Seth Godin's blog, you should.
I think he's the best blogger on the web. No-one enthuses more than him, to do things differently, and better.
Here's an extract from his latest post, about "Cable news thinking" which I thought was relevant for corporate responsibility folks, or anyone in management:
"Cable news thinking has nothing to do with fires or with politics. Instead, it amplifies the worst elements of emotional reaction:
1. Focus on the urgent instead of the important.
2. Vivid emotions and the visuals that go with them as a selector for what's important.
3. Emphasis on noise over thoughtful analysis.
4. Unwillingness to reverse course and change one's mind.
5. Xenophobic and jingoistic reactions (fear of outsiders).
6. Defense of the status quo encouraged by an audience self-selected to be uniform.
7. Things become important merely because others have decided they are important.
8. Top down messaging encourages an echo chamber (agree with this edict or change the channel).
9. Ill-informed about history and this particular issue.
10. Confusing opinion with the truth.
11. Revising facts to fit a point of view.
12. Unwillingness to review past mistakes in light of history and use those to do better next time.
If I wanted to hobble an organization or even a country, I'd wish these twelve traits on them. I wonder if this sounds like the last board meeting you went to..."
For more from Seth Godin, go here.
Announcement:
Ethical Corporation report now available: "How to embed corporate responsibility across different parts of your company". Blog readers save 200 Euros. Quote discount code ‘REFLECTIONS’ at http://www.ethicalcorp.com/csr
I think he's the best blogger on the web. No-one enthuses more than him, to do things differently, and better.
Here's an extract from his latest post, about "Cable news thinking" which I thought was relevant for corporate responsibility folks, or anyone in management:
"Cable news thinking has nothing to do with fires or with politics. Instead, it amplifies the worst elements of emotional reaction:
1. Focus on the urgent instead of the important.
2. Vivid emotions and the visuals that go with them as a selector for what's important.
3. Emphasis on noise over thoughtful analysis.
4. Unwillingness to reverse course and change one's mind.
5. Xenophobic and jingoistic reactions (fear of outsiders).
6. Defense of the status quo encouraged by an audience self-selected to be uniform.
7. Things become important merely because others have decided they are important.
8. Top down messaging encourages an echo chamber (agree with this edict or change the channel).
9. Ill-informed about history and this particular issue.
10. Confusing opinion with the truth.
11. Revising facts to fit a point of view.
12. Unwillingness to review past mistakes in light of history and use those to do better next time.
If I wanted to hobble an organization or even a country, I'd wish these twelve traits on them. I wonder if this sounds like the last board meeting you went to..."
For more from Seth Godin, go here.
Announcement:
Ethical Corporation report now available: "How to embed corporate responsibility across different parts of your company". Blog readers save 200 Euros. Quote discount code ‘REFLECTIONS’ at http://www.ethicalcorp.com/csr
Fred Pearce takes issue with Virgin's climate change ISA
A few weeks ago I posted a piece about Virgin's Climate Change ISA.
Today, Fred Pearce, writing on the Guardian's website, has written a piece based on the blog. Here's a link to it.
Some of the comments underneath Fred's article are fairly wild.
They make interesting reading.
I had one clarification to make from my side: I did read the marketing blurb about the fund before investing. But the real information is really well hidden off the main site.
Commentators can fairly state that I should have dug it out beforehand. But I would ask in response: Which of you reads all the small print relating to everything you buy?
That's my point: 95% of consumers won't dig for the information, so marketing should be more honest than is the case here with Virgin's Climate Change ISA.
Today, Fred Pearce, writing on the Guardian's website, has written a piece based on the blog. Here's a link to it.
Some of the comments underneath Fred's article are fairly wild.
They make interesting reading.
I had one clarification to make from my side: I did read the marketing blurb about the fund before investing. But the real information is really well hidden off the main site.
Commentators can fairly state that I should have dug it out beforehand. But I would ask in response: Which of you reads all the small print relating to everything you buy?
That's my point: 95% of consumers won't dig for the information, so marketing should be more honest than is the case here with Virgin's Climate Change ISA.
Lobbying is not always bad
Corporate lobbying has got itself a pretty bad name in the last 15 years.
Particularly corporate lobbying around sustainability issues. Climate change being the most obvious. I doubt I need to go into detail about that here.
But there can be good lobbying too.
We're seeing it, again on climate change now. Big firms pulling out of recalcitrant membership groups such as the US Chamber of Commerce, for example.
These companies can and are, doing 'good' lobbying to encourage Governments to do progressive things on climate change related rules and incentives for business.
That's a good thing for sure. It's time for companies to reclaim lobbying, by showing on their websites and in their communications how they are pitching for progress, not holding it back.
Particularly corporate lobbying around sustainability issues. Climate change being the most obvious. I doubt I need to go into detail about that here.
But there can be good lobbying too.
We're seeing it, again on climate change now. Big firms pulling out of recalcitrant membership groups such as the US Chamber of Commerce, for example.
These companies can and are, doing 'good' lobbying to encourage Governments to do progressive things on climate change related rules and incentives for business.
That's a good thing for sure. It's time for companies to reclaim lobbying, by showing on their websites and in their communications how they are pitching for progress, not holding it back.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Three types of corporate responsibility manager
I don't know many of you know Malcolm Gladwell's work, but I think he's brilliant.
One of his theories, paraphrased here, is that after doing something for about 10,000 hours, you ought to be pretty good at it. You ought to know how it works.
Gladwell says those with particular talent, who put in those 10,000 hours of hard work, can become great.
He talks about folks as diverse as Mozart and the Beatles to make his point. You could probably add David Beckham to that list too, for his dead ball skills. There are many others.
I can't claim any particular talent, but I do reckon I've done my 10,000 hours in corporate responsibility over the last decade. If nothing else that's due to my mildly obsessive nature.
I've met a lot of corporate responsibility people in that time, and these days I tend to put them, more or less, into three categories: (dangerous to do so, I know, but I'm being a little provocative here, deliberately)
1) The defender. They are the kind of corporate responsibility manager you hire when you don't want to do much. They dash around involving their firm in various low level initiatives and obsess about things like the GRI Index in their social report, at best. Or they simply provide block tackles from their position within public affairs and oversee some community work. But at the end of the day, they are more about defending and maintaining the status quo than making real change. They'll lead some small steps forward, but not much.
2) The frustrated realist. They have some great ideas about what their company could or should do, but can't get the traction internally to deliver on it. They get things done almost un-noticed by senior management. Usually there's someone on, or just below the board, who's really not interested, and who stymies their ambitions. They get most done where regulation or enforcement looms large, such as on climate change or bribery and corruption. They often don't stick around for more than the few years in the firm, understandably.
3) The change-maker. These are the interesting executives. They have senior support, from someone who has the ear of the CEO and turns his or her head, and they are given almost free rein to make a serious impact, as long as they make the business case consistently, and play internal politics with skill and care. If they are lucky, they can begin to make CR a core proposition of their business. These are folks who have done more than their 10,000 Gladwell hours, have talent, and it shows. When I meet them, I can tell they've been around the CR block, often for around 12-15 years.
We need more of number three in business, clearly. And we'll see more of them.
As corporate responsibility matures, we're seeing these change-maker executives lead real and exciting change.
More power to their elbows.
One of his theories, paraphrased here, is that after doing something for about 10,000 hours, you ought to be pretty good at it. You ought to know how it works.
Gladwell says those with particular talent, who put in those 10,000 hours of hard work, can become great.
He talks about folks as diverse as Mozart and the Beatles to make his point. You could probably add David Beckham to that list too, for his dead ball skills. There are many others.
I can't claim any particular talent, but I do reckon I've done my 10,000 hours in corporate responsibility over the last decade. If nothing else that's due to my mildly obsessive nature.
I've met a lot of corporate responsibility people in that time, and these days I tend to put them, more or less, into three categories: (dangerous to do so, I know, but I'm being a little provocative here, deliberately)
1) The defender. They are the kind of corporate responsibility manager you hire when you don't want to do much. They dash around involving their firm in various low level initiatives and obsess about things like the GRI Index in their social report, at best. Or they simply provide block tackles from their position within public affairs and oversee some community work. But at the end of the day, they are more about defending and maintaining the status quo than making real change. They'll lead some small steps forward, but not much.
2) The frustrated realist. They have some great ideas about what their company could or should do, but can't get the traction internally to deliver on it. They get things done almost un-noticed by senior management. Usually there's someone on, or just below the board, who's really not interested, and who stymies their ambitions. They get most done where regulation or enforcement looms large, such as on climate change or bribery and corruption. They often don't stick around for more than the few years in the firm, understandably.
3) The change-maker. These are the interesting executives. They have senior support, from someone who has the ear of the CEO and turns his or her head, and they are given almost free rein to make a serious impact, as long as they make the business case consistently, and play internal politics with skill and care. If they are lucky, they can begin to make CR a core proposition of their business. These are folks who have done more than their 10,000 Gladwell hours, have talent, and it shows. When I meet them, I can tell they've been around the CR block, often for around 12-15 years.
We need more of number three in business, clearly. And we'll see more of them.
As corporate responsibility matures, we're seeing these change-maker executives lead real and exciting change.
More power to their elbows.
Chevron and Trafigura: Extraordinary stories relevant for corporate responsibility
It's all kicking off this week, on both sides of the Atlantic.
I'm in a hurry as I write this post, more later.
But you must read up on all this:
MP to report Carter-Ruck to Law Society over attempt to gag Guardian (Relates to Trafigura case)
And on the other side of the pond, all this:
This first:
http://www.chevron.com/ecuador/
Then this:
Ecuador Oil Pollution Case Only Grows Murkier
And then this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS158223+13-Oct-2009+BW20091013
NB: We recently published a piece on Chevron called: If I were the new CEO of Chevron
I'm in a hurry as I write this post, more later.
But you must read up on all this:
MP to report Carter-Ruck to Law Society over attempt to gag Guardian (Relates to Trafigura case)
And on the other side of the pond, all this:
This first:
http://www.chevron.com/ecuador/
Then this:
Ecuador Oil Pollution Case Only Grows Murkier
And then this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS158223+13-Oct-2009+BW20091013
NB: We recently published a piece on Chevron called: If I were the new CEO of Chevron
Reader views on good books about sustainability
A while back I posted a link about books and asked which ones readers like and would suggest.
Here's the original post.
Here's what the readers said about their favourite books, FYI:
David Coethica said...
David Grayson's Corporate Social Opportunity stands out for me.
Nathan Schock said...
Green to Gold was excellent. I also really liked John Grant's Green Marketing Manifesto.
Toby Webb said...
Supercorp
How Vanguard Companies Create Innovation, Profits, Growth and Socail Good
By Rosabeth Moss Kanter
Jason S said...
- Sustainability by Design by John Ehrenfeld
- Down to Earth by Forest Rhinehardt
Roberta Cardoso said...
The Necessary Revolution (Peter Senge) is wonderful! We’re not going to reach sustainable development trough teeny incremental changes. It's going to take bold ideas!
Helen Seibel said...
The Sustainability Advantage is pretty good. Especially at calculating the cost of NOT doing it. Written by Canadian Bob Willard.
Here's the original post.
Here's what the readers said about their favourite books, FYI:
David Coethica said...
David Grayson's Corporate Social Opportunity stands out for me.
Nathan Schock said...
Green to Gold was excellent. I also really liked John Grant's Green Marketing Manifesto.
Toby Webb said...
Supercorp
How Vanguard Companies Create Innovation, Profits, Growth and Socail Good
By Rosabeth Moss Kanter
Jason S said...
- Sustainability by Design by John Ehrenfeld
- Down to Earth by Forest Rhinehardt
Roberta Cardoso said...
The Necessary Revolution (Peter Senge) is wonderful! We’re not going to reach sustainable development trough teeny incremental changes. It's going to take bold ideas!
Helen Seibel said...
The Sustainability Advantage is pretty good. Especially at calculating the cost of NOT doing it. Written by Canadian Bob Willard.
Good reader response on banks and ethics
A couple of weeks ago I posted something on small banks and ethics: "Are small banks the answer? They seem to think so".
"Greg", a reader, posted an interesting response, so I've pasted it below:
"Quite right. One direction the debate could go is whether all banks – big ones too - should be subject to a structure that makes ethical considerations a mandatory part of their decision making process.
If wholesale financial products such as collateralised debt obligations and credit default swaps had, when they were first invested, been subject to scrutiny by an ethics committee – either in the bank or by an external regulator – perhaps the financial crisis might not have been so bad.
Imagine if new financial products had to be licensed by an ethical body that first studied the real economic and social effects of the product and its ethical implications.
Such a body might have looked at CDOs containing sub-prime elements, which caused much of the balance sheet damage triggering bail-outs, and asked whether their downstream impact in fostering the growth of unhealthy sub-prime lending was ethically acceptable.
It might also have challenged the ratings agencies on their whether re-packaging sub-prime debt as a AAA bond was ethically acceptable to those buying the bonds.
Similarly, an ethical look at the recently created CDS market might have shown that its structure – where banks could sell quantities of insurance against a bond’s default many times in excess of the value of the bond itself - would create powerful incentives for speculative, volatility-enhancing trading behaviour.
Such trading may be profitable but when it is obviously bad for financial stability and encourages rent-seeking behaviour by fund managers at the expense of investors, someone needs to step in and call a halt.
As with environmental concerns, we need a mechanism to force financial decision makers to consider the unintended external consequences of their actions. An ethical element to the future regulatory structure would be a welcome step."
It's an interesting idea Greg. Personally I don't think we can sell the powers that be on an official, outside structure that makes ethical considerations a mandatory part of bank's decision making process. But why shouldn't big banks have an ethics committee that does that job internally? That would be a start. We're a long way from even that point now.
"Greg", a reader, posted an interesting response, so I've pasted it below:
"Quite right. One direction the debate could go is whether all banks – big ones too - should be subject to a structure that makes ethical considerations a mandatory part of their decision making process.
If wholesale financial products such as collateralised debt obligations and credit default swaps had, when they were first invested, been subject to scrutiny by an ethics committee – either in the bank or by an external regulator – perhaps the financial crisis might not have been so bad.
Imagine if new financial products had to be licensed by an ethical body that first studied the real economic and social effects of the product and its ethical implications.
Such a body might have looked at CDOs containing sub-prime elements, which caused much of the balance sheet damage triggering bail-outs, and asked whether their downstream impact in fostering the growth of unhealthy sub-prime lending was ethically acceptable.
It might also have challenged the ratings agencies on their whether re-packaging sub-prime debt as a AAA bond was ethically acceptable to those buying the bonds.
Similarly, an ethical look at the recently created CDS market might have shown that its structure – where banks could sell quantities of insurance against a bond’s default many times in excess of the value of the bond itself - would create powerful incentives for speculative, volatility-enhancing trading behaviour.
Such trading may be profitable but when it is obviously bad for financial stability and encourages rent-seeking behaviour by fund managers at the expense of investors, someone needs to step in and call a halt.
As with environmental concerns, we need a mechanism to force financial decision makers to consider the unintended external consequences of their actions. An ethical element to the future regulatory structure would be a welcome step."
It's an interesting idea Greg. Personally I don't think we can sell the powers that be on an official, outside structure that makes ethical considerations a mandatory part of bank's decision making process. But why shouldn't big banks have an ethics committee that does that job internally? That would be a start. We're a long way from even that point now.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
CR lessons for oil and gas companies
Oil and gas executives are hard-nosed folks.
They have to be, given the industry they work in. It's a tough business.
So hearing how they can learn from failure in the industry when it comes to corporate responsibility ought to be something they can handle.
A new book offers some lessons. It's called "Beyond Corporate Social Responsibility: oil multinationals and social challenges".
Here's an extract from that review:
"Three town halls built in a village to placate three rival local chiefs; donated mosquito nets immediately sold for export; Asian-made condoms too small for the African men to whom they are distributed; a road built by an oil company that runs parallel to another built by a development agency. Everyone who works in corporate responsibility will know of plenty of examples of this kind of failure."
The book is expensive. But oil and gas firms can likely afford it. Some good lessons here.
(By the way, I'm not saying above that there have not been some successes for oil and gas firms relating to corporate responsibility. There have been many. It's just that you learn more from failure than success, usually, that's why I mention the book here)
They have to be, given the industry they work in. It's a tough business.
So hearing how they can learn from failure in the industry when it comes to corporate responsibility ought to be something they can handle.
A new book offers some lessons. It's called "Beyond Corporate Social Responsibility: oil multinationals and social challenges".
Here's an extract from that review:
"Three town halls built in a village to placate three rival local chiefs; donated mosquito nets immediately sold for export; Asian-made condoms too small for the African men to whom they are distributed; a road built by an oil company that runs parallel to another built by a development agency. Everyone who works in corporate responsibility will know of plenty of examples of this kind of failure."
The book is expensive. But oil and gas firms can likely afford it. Some good lessons here.
(By the way, I'm not saying above that there have not been some successes for oil and gas firms relating to corporate responsibility. There have been many. It's just that you learn more from failure than success, usually, that's why I mention the book here)
Christian Aid gets a little closer to the mark
Christian Aid has a track record of expounding its view that "CSR" has failed developing countries for years.
In recent years, the UK NGO, driven by some very left wing executives, has tried to score some points slamming CSR as an attempt to sidestep regulation in emerging economies.
This misses the point of CSR, now CR, by quite a long way.
The movement came from enhanced stakeholder pressure for companies to recognise their impact and begin to do something about it.
Societal pressure was a much bigger driver than dubiously-motivated corporate attempts to sidestep regulation.
One might argue that initiatives such as Responsible Care in the chemicals industry, post-Bhopal, were designed to discourage regulation. But I don't really buy that.
The main purpose of Responsible Care, as an idea, was to attempt to rehabilitate the reputation of the industry for operating safely, which was much needed.
You can of course say that a benefit of doing that was to fend off new laws, but largely regulation, such as REACH, has happened anyhow, so I'm not sure the argument stands up most of the time. I would doubt that CSR had much effect on the delays of REACH, those were due to the complexities of the regulation.
So having slammed CSR for years for pretending to be a substitute for regulation, (which it was never really intended to be) Christian Aid has now put out a new 'report' (really a campaigning note), on its current views on CSR.
The NGO is maturing a tiny bit. Having taken a trade union like approach to the topic of CSR for years, (claiming it is a distraction) Christian Aid now wants to give it a tiny amount of credit:
"...it has to be acknowledged that it has made a contribution to development - albeit a patchy one" (P.19)
Although in a previous page it makes the extraordinary statement that: "it must be recognised that CSR is no longer a satisfactory substitute for national and international law" (p.18)
Who on earth ever said that it was? This is a straw man argument, creating something that doesn't exist and then pulling apart a concept constructed of nonsense in an attempt to prove another point (that we need more laws).
Can Christian Aid, or anyone else, show us who is supposed to have said this? Only a lunatic of the far economic right would suggest that the CSR policies and actions of a particular company or industry are a substitute for "national and international law".
But the rest of the report still misses the point about corporations and development in many ways.
It seems to try and equate business contributions to economic development with criticisms of the World Bank and Washington Consensus in general.
These are not the same things. Nevertheless the report make some useful points.
Although it misunderstands the complex benefits of business, it is worth a read.
The best thing about this report is that it does, in several places, talk about institutions.
Development of institutions and creating the social capital that enables them, are really the key for poorer countries.
And I don't just mean institutions that create new regulations. These are of course, vitally important.
But as many of us know, having laws is not a problem in most countries. Enforcing them is the issue. And it's institutions, and their development, that govern how well this happens.
I don't just mean the courts, the police, parliament and the civil service.
I also mean free speech, the media, debate and information channels. I mean social institutions as well as traditional ones.
We need more debate about how these are created, strengthened, and maintained if we want to have a mature conversation about how companies and other actors behave in developing countries and elsewhere.
Campaigners might argue that is a distraction from talking about ways to prevent Western businesses from exploiting the third world. But Western companies are much less of a problem than local corruption, curtailment of free speech and yes, local companies who generally pollute much more.
In the meantime, is there a role for companies to encourage better institutions?
I would argue yes, if done in a very careful way.
Here's an explanation of what I mean in an article we published last year. And here's a much longer report on the topic.
In recent years, the UK NGO, driven by some very left wing executives, has tried to score some points slamming CSR as an attempt to sidestep regulation in emerging economies.
This misses the point of CSR, now CR, by quite a long way.
The movement came from enhanced stakeholder pressure for companies to recognise their impact and begin to do something about it.
Societal pressure was a much bigger driver than dubiously-motivated corporate attempts to sidestep regulation.
One might argue that initiatives such as Responsible Care in the chemicals industry, post-Bhopal, were designed to discourage regulation. But I don't really buy that.
The main purpose of Responsible Care, as an idea, was to attempt to rehabilitate the reputation of the industry for operating safely, which was much needed.
You can of course say that a benefit of doing that was to fend off new laws, but largely regulation, such as REACH, has happened anyhow, so I'm not sure the argument stands up most of the time. I would doubt that CSR had much effect on the delays of REACH, those were due to the complexities of the regulation.
So having slammed CSR for years for pretending to be a substitute for regulation, (which it was never really intended to be) Christian Aid has now put out a new 'report' (really a campaigning note), on its current views on CSR.
The NGO is maturing a tiny bit. Having taken a trade union like approach to the topic of CSR for years, (claiming it is a distraction) Christian Aid now wants to give it a tiny amount of credit:
"...it has to be acknowledged that it has made a contribution to development - albeit a patchy one" (P.19)
Although in a previous page it makes the extraordinary statement that: "it must be recognised that CSR is no longer a satisfactory substitute for national and international law" (p.18)
Who on earth ever said that it was? This is a straw man argument, creating something that doesn't exist and then pulling apart a concept constructed of nonsense in an attempt to prove another point (that we need more laws).
Can Christian Aid, or anyone else, show us who is supposed to have said this? Only a lunatic of the far economic right would suggest that the CSR policies and actions of a particular company or industry are a substitute for "national and international law".
But the rest of the report still misses the point about corporations and development in many ways.
It seems to try and equate business contributions to economic development with criticisms of the World Bank and Washington Consensus in general.
These are not the same things. Nevertheless the report make some useful points.
Although it misunderstands the complex benefits of business, it is worth a read.
The best thing about this report is that it does, in several places, talk about institutions.
Development of institutions and creating the social capital that enables them, are really the key for poorer countries.
And I don't just mean institutions that create new regulations. These are of course, vitally important.
But as many of us know, having laws is not a problem in most countries. Enforcing them is the issue. And it's institutions, and their development, that govern how well this happens.
I don't just mean the courts, the police, parliament and the civil service.
I also mean free speech, the media, debate and information channels. I mean social institutions as well as traditional ones.
We need more debate about how these are created, strengthened, and maintained if we want to have a mature conversation about how companies and other actors behave in developing countries and elsewhere.
Campaigners might argue that is a distraction from talking about ways to prevent Western businesses from exploiting the third world. But Western companies are much less of a problem than local corruption, curtailment of free speech and yes, local companies who generally pollute much more.
In the meantime, is there a role for companies to encourage better institutions?
I would argue yes, if done in a very careful way.
Here's an explanation of what I mean in an article we published last year. And here's a much longer report on the topic.
Astroturfing under threat from new U.S. guidelines
One of my favourite terms is in the news, for the right reasons for once.
"Astroturfing", the creation or use of fake grass roots voices or authentic-looking comment is used increasingly by PR, advertising and lobbying firms, often acting as proxies for big companies.
Wikipedia defines it as: "describing formal political, advertising, or public relations campaigns seeking to create the impression of being spontaneous "grassroots" behavior, hence the reference to the artificial grass, AstroTurf."
A translation of what these new guidelines might mean in action comes from the Financial Times, which says that:
"Advertisers), celebrity endorsers and even some internet bloggers will be held liable for false statements they make about products as part of a crackdown by US regulators on deceptive advertising practices. The new rules on the use of testimonials in advertising, released by the Federal Trade Commission on Monday, also say that anyone who endorses a product, including celebrities and bloggers, must make explicit the compensation received from companies."
The FTC wants, according to media, to tackle the use of astroturfing in new/social media, which is growing at an exponential rate. The FT reports that "...spending on social media marketing reached $1.35bn in 2007 and is expected to reach $3.7bn by 2011"
Some of the companies that have already developed social media ethics code include Coke, UPS and IBM, according to another FT piece, which you can find here.
"Astroturfing", the creation or use of fake grass roots voices or authentic-looking comment is used increasingly by PR, advertising and lobbying firms, often acting as proxies for big companies.
Wikipedia defines it as: "describing formal political, advertising, or public relations campaigns seeking to create the impression of being spontaneous "grassroots" behavior, hence the reference to the artificial grass, AstroTurf."
Now some elements of the practice may be under threat from new guidelines emanating from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, whose activities on the topic we also reported on last month.
A translation of what these new guidelines might mean in action comes from the Financial Times, which says that:
"Advertisers), celebrity endorsers and even some internet bloggers will be held liable for false statements they make about products as part of a crackdown by US regulators on deceptive advertising practices. The new rules on the use of testimonials in advertising, released by the Federal Trade Commission on Monday, also say that anyone who endorses a product, including celebrities and bloggers, must make explicit the compensation received from companies."
The FTC wants, according to media, to tackle the use of astroturfing in new/social media, which is growing at an exponential rate. The FT reports that "...spending on social media marketing reached $1.35bn in 2007 and is expected to reach $3.7bn by 2011"
Some of the companies that have already developed social media ethics code include Coke, UPS and IBM, according to another FT piece, which you can find here.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Is corporate responsibility responsible? Reich vs. Vogel
Here's a 2008 YouTube video of a debate between Robert Reich and David Vogel on corporate responsibility.
Both of them have written recent interesting books on CR and the business case, and the issues around that.
David Vogel's book, some years old now but worth a read, is called: The market for virtue: the potential and limits of corporate social responsibility
Robert Reich's is called Supercapitalism
Both are articulate and intelligence takes on corporate responsibility.
I disagree with both of them in many ways.
But their thinking, and more like it, is what we need to encourage better debate on the complexities of responsible business.
Both of them have written recent interesting books on CR and the business case, and the issues around that.
David Vogel's book, some years old now but worth a read, is called: The market for virtue: the potential and limits of corporate social responsibility
Robert Reich's is called Supercapitalism
Both are articulate and intelligence takes on corporate responsibility.
I disagree with both of them in many ways.
But their thinking, and more like it, is what we need to encourage better debate on the complexities of responsible business.
Seven challenges for sustainability
I had an email from my investor today.
He asked me a key question:
"Do you really do sustainable development as a positive business opportunity?"
"Do you really do sustainable development as a positive business opportunity?"
He'd been reading the latest Harvard Business Review, which has a piece on sustainability in it.
I was tempted to reply "Obviously, that's why you invest in my business!".
But he and I both know that when we started out with Ethical Corporation, CSR, as it was then, was all about defensive risk management, for 95% of big companies.
My colleague, copied on the email, chipped in with a reply:
"Very very much so", he said. "Pretty much every conference we do covers how a sustainable business can develop business advantage over unsustainable businesses. It’s a fundamental tenet of every show we do".
I wanted to temper this a bit, and communicate back some of the complexities of the business case argument.
After all, as David Vogel has said, there is not a business case for every aspect of CR, all the time.
So my reply tried to note some of this in a simplistic way, so I argued that:
- Risks and opportunities vary hugely by industry
- The issues often involve complex trade offs
- Governments are confused about what to do
- Implementation is patchy, some firms leap, others dawdle
- Incentives are mixed, at best
- Expertise is lacking
- Technology and transparency are key, but move faster than big companies keep up with
But I didn't want to be negative about the future of my business, and my 'industry'.
And I wanted to have one overall message as to why the business case, messy though it is, does hold true if you look at it broadly, and with the right timescale.
So I concluded that, ultimately, there is a business case for sustainability, because:
"Almost everyone wants it to happen. So it will, over time".
That's a simple summary, but I think it's the most appropriate one, if you want to have a catch all business case.
Monday, October 05, 2009
How to embed corporate responsibility
As regular readers will know, I don't often do plugs on the blog.
But this blog writer, as others, does need to be paid, so I would ask you to consider having a look at the report below, and forgiving me this commercial break!
A new Ethical Corporation report is now available.
It's called "How to embed corporate responsibility across different parts of your company"
The report features In-depth case analysis on strategies from leading companies including:
Alliance Boots, BT, Campbell Soup, Green & Black’s, HP, Innocent Drinks, Man Group, Novo Nordisk, PepsiCo, Sedex, Starbucks, Tata and Vodafone.
There's a free summary at: http://www.ethicalcorporationinstitute.com/reports/csr/more-information-logix.asp
Blog readers can save 200 Euros when buying the report. Just quote discount code ‘REFLECTIONS’ at http://www.ethicalcorp.com/csr
Commercial break over, normal service resumed...
But this blog writer, as others, does need to be paid, so I would ask you to consider having a look at the report below, and forgiving me this commercial break!
A new Ethical Corporation report is now available.
It's called "How to embed corporate responsibility across different parts of your company"
The report features In-depth case analysis on strategies from leading companies including:
Alliance Boots, BT, Campbell Soup, Green & Black’s, HP, Innocent Drinks, Man Group, Novo Nordisk, PepsiCo, Sedex, Starbucks, Tata and Vodafone.
There's a free summary at: http://www.ethicalcorporationinstitute.com/reports/csr/more-information-logix.asp
Blog readers can save 200 Euros when buying the report. Just quote discount code ‘REFLECTIONS’ at http://www.ethicalcorp.com/csr
Commercial break over, normal service resumed...
Best press release of the month: Chocolate powered racing cars
But there in my in-box lies the release from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council promoting the first "sustainable racing car" in the world.
Apparently it's "made from woven flax, recycled carbon fibre, recycled resin and carrot pulp for the steering wheel. It runs on biofuel made from chocolate and animal fats and is lubricated with plant oils."
The car has a top speed of 135 mph, and can achieve 0-60 in 2.5 seconds, so says the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.
Here's a PDF about it... Unusual to say the least! The video about it is here.
Announcement:
Ethical Corporation report now available: "How to embed corporate responsibility across different parts of your company". Blog readers save 200 Euros. Quote discount code ‘REFLECTIONS’ at http://www.ethicalcorp.com/csr
If you are big, corporate and American, then read this...
I've been pondering a post for a while on what big companies might do that's progressive on climate change lobbying.
After posting on opponents to Obama's plans recently, it seems appropriate to talk also about solultions.
But the excellent Marc Gunther has beaten me to it. He is anyhow better placed to comment, being from the U.S.
His brief summary of the political and business state of play is detailed in this concise posting.
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement:
"...business groups like the U.S. Climate Action Partnership can play a constructive role. Companies like GE, Exelon and NRG... should be pushing their Democratic and Republican allies to craft a climate bill together."
Many people are uncomfortable with the idea of big business having a political voice. But that's a reality.
It's surely better they use that voice for progressive change than allow dinosaur lobby groups to do it for them.
After posting on opponents to Obama's plans recently, it seems appropriate to talk also about solultions.
But the excellent Marc Gunther has beaten me to it. He is anyhow better placed to comment, being from the U.S.
His brief summary of the political and business state of play is detailed in this concise posting.
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement:
"...business groups like the U.S. Climate Action Partnership can play a constructive role. Companies like GE, Exelon and NRG... should be pushing their Democratic and Republican allies to craft a climate bill together."
Many people are uncomfortable with the idea of big business having a political voice. But that's a reality.
It's surely better they use that voice for progressive change than allow dinosaur lobby groups to do it for them.
Announcement:
Ethical Corporation report now available: "How to embed corporate responsibility across different parts of your company". Blog readers save 200 Euros. Quote discount code ‘REFLECTIONS’ at http://www.ethicalcorp.com/csr
Did you think Nordic companies were the best at CR? Think again...
Well, not quite think again. But this article we've just published shows why the complexities of corporate responsibility mean you can't make sweeping statements (even though we all enjoy doing so sometimes!).
As we all know, due to progressive governments in the Scandinavian region, companies in the area are often pretty good at grasping how important sustainability is.
You can list lots of companies from the region who do excellent work in many CR areas (I'm not saying they are perfect!).
These might include StatoilHydro, H&M, ICA, Novo Nordisk, NovoZymes, IKEA, Nokia, etc etc.
As a British citizen, I'm probably not alone in sometimes looking northwards with envy and thinking: "If only we had a government that smart, a culture that progressive, and a population that small..."
But everything is not perfect in the Nordic region, as Rory Sullivan points out in this article we've just run, entitled: "Lagging or leading? How are Nordic companies responding to climate change?"
It's based on a report by Insight Investment and Ethix SRI Advisers, which finds some problems in companies across the region. For example, one startling conclusion which really surprised me is:
"Nordic companies lag significantly behind their European peers on all major aspects of climate change management and governance.
Specifically, climate change policies are much weaker, the quality of GHG inventories is much lower, the targets being set are much more modest and the emissions reductions that have been achieved are much lower."
Clearly some way to go for firms in the region, if the report is credible. And I strongly suspect it is.
For more, go here for the article, and here for the report.
As we all know, due to progressive governments in the Scandinavian region, companies in the area are often pretty good at grasping how important sustainability is.
You can list lots of companies from the region who do excellent work in many CR areas (I'm not saying they are perfect!).
These might include StatoilHydro, H&M, ICA, Novo Nordisk, NovoZymes, IKEA, Nokia, etc etc.
As a British citizen, I'm probably not alone in sometimes looking northwards with envy and thinking: "If only we had a government that smart, a culture that progressive, and a population that small..."
But everything is not perfect in the Nordic region, as Rory Sullivan points out in this article we've just run, entitled: "Lagging or leading? How are Nordic companies responding to climate change?"
It's based on a report by Insight Investment and Ethix SRI Advisers, which finds some problems in companies across the region. For example, one startling conclusion which really surprised me is:
"Nordic companies lag significantly behind their European peers on all major aspects of climate change management and governance.
Specifically, climate change policies are much weaker, the quality of GHG inventories is much lower, the targets being set are much more modest and the emissions reductions that have been achieved are much lower."
Clearly some way to go for firms in the region, if the report is credible. And I strongly suspect it is.
For more, go here for the article, and here for the report.
Announcement:
Ethical Corporation report now available: "How to embed corporate responsibility across different parts of your company". Blog readers save 200 Euros. Quote discount code ‘REFLECTIONS’ at http://www.ethicalcorp.com/csr
Sunday, October 04, 2009
A good summary of Britain's bribery mess
The Economist, as they often do, has a good short summary of where we are on BAE Systems and the Serious Fraud Office right now.
Articles on corruption and bribery can often be confusing for the reader due to the complexity of the cases, so this is worth reading. The original article is here.
I love this quote from the Economist piece:
"BAE has maintained throughout that it made no irregular payments there or anywhere else, though it admitted last year that it had not always been ethically fastidious. It has, the company says, left itself open to accusations of “poor record-keeping”."
Surely if you admit poor record keeping, as is the case here, in corporate-speak, how would you know exactly what's been done in your name?
Answer: you wouldn't.
I understand that it's hard for companies to comment whilst investigations are ongoing, given that comments can be used against them. But being a bit clearer is surely a better idea.
It reminds me of when companies admit no liability on an issue, then pay out millions to bring matter to an end.
One of the many contraditions of modern capitalism I suppose.
Here's a recent piece we did on the company and the corporate responsibility function.
I'd be interested in reader comments.
5/10/09 UPDATE: The Sunday papers in the UK are claiming the case will be settled soon, with the main point of debate being how much is paid. The Sunday Times reckons BAE wants to pay £20 million, (and fears shareholder lawsuits if it pays too much), whilst the SFO wants £200 million plus to save some face.
P.S. The bbc has a useful Q&A on arms deals, here. Worth a look. Nice and simple.
Articles on corruption and bribery can often be confusing for the reader due to the complexity of the cases, so this is worth reading. The original article is here.
I love this quote from the Economist piece:
"BAE has maintained throughout that it made no irregular payments there or anywhere else, though it admitted last year that it had not always been ethically fastidious. It has, the company says, left itself open to accusations of “poor record-keeping”."
Surely if you admit poor record keeping, as is the case here, in corporate-speak, how would you know exactly what's been done in your name?
Answer: you wouldn't.
I understand that it's hard for companies to comment whilst investigations are ongoing, given that comments can be used against them. But being a bit clearer is surely a better idea.
It reminds me of when companies admit no liability on an issue, then pay out millions to bring matter to an end.
One of the many contraditions of modern capitalism I suppose.
Here's a recent piece we did on the company and the corporate responsibility function.
I'd be interested in reader comments.
5/10/09 UPDATE: The Sunday papers in the UK are claiming the case will be settled soon, with the main point of debate being how much is paid. The Sunday Times reckons BAE wants to pay £20 million, (and fears shareholder lawsuits if it pays too much), whilst the SFO wants £200 million plus to save some face.
P.S. The bbc has a useful Q&A on arms deals, here. Worth a look. Nice and simple.
Announcement:
Ethical Corporation report now available: "How to embed corporate responsibility across different parts of your company". Blog readers save 200 Euros. Quote discount code ‘REFLECTIONS’ at http://www.ethicalcorp.com/csr
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Are small banks the answer? They seem to think so
I don't normally link to press releases, since 99% of them are fairly worthless (sorry PR people!)
But this one is interesting. Here's the headline:
"The World’s Leading Sustainable Banks Announce Major New Commitment"
These banks style themselves as both sustainable and crisis-resistant. I wonder how accurate this is.
Here's the list:
Alternative Bank ABS, Switzerland, www.abs.ch
Banca Popolare Etica, Italy, www.bancaetica.com
Banex, Banco del Exito, Nicaragua, www.banex.com
BRAC Bank and BRAC Microfinance Programme, Bangladesh, www.brac.net and www.bracbank.com
GLS Bank, Germany, www.gls.de
Merkur Bank, Denmark, www.merkurbank.dk
Mibanco, Banco de la Microempresa, Peru, www.mibanco.com.pe
New Resource Bank, United States, www.newresourcebank.com
ShoreBank Corporation, United States, www.shorebankcorp.com
Triodos Bank, The Netherlands, www.triodos.com
XacBank, Mongolia, www.xacbank.com
To qualify for membership, each institution has to meet three criteria:
- Independent and licensed with a focus on retail customers
- Minimum balance sheet of $100 million
- Committed to responsible financing and the triple bottom line of people, planet and profit
Are these banks enough?
Clearly we need bigger ones too, for project and general business finance that encourages jobs on a large scale.
A question I don't know the answer to. But one where clearly we need much more debate.
Announcement:
Ethical Corporation report now available: "How to embed corporate responsibility across different parts of your company". Blog readers save 200 Euros. Quote discount code ‘REFLECTIONS’ at http://www.ethicalcorp.com/csr
China out-greens America: The stats
This posting is fascinating. If these numbers are right, China is really steaming ahead of the US in many areas of green investment.
Areas that may not be paying off big right now, whilst we are still in the oil age, but are surely the industries of the future.
Here's an excerpt:
• China is targeting more of its stimulus money to green economy initiatives than the US. It is directing 34% of its stimulus spending to green economy initiatives versus less than 20% for US stimulus spending.
• China has surged ahead of the US in solar PV manufacturing capacity and now has more than five times the installed production capacity.
• China has more than tripled its target for wind power capacity to 100 gigawatts by 2020, likely making it the world’s fastest growing market for wind energy technology. It is aiming for an annual growth rate of 20% per year.
• China currently has 12 gigawatts of installed wind power, but that is set to grow to 20 gigawatts by next year. To put this in perspective this is around three times the projected increase in capacity (7GW) in the US for wind energy.
• Last year, China invested $35 billion in Smart Grid construction far out pacing US investment in upgrading its own aging and over taxed grid.
More here.
Announcement:
Ethical Corporation report now available: "How to embed corporate responsibility across different parts of your company". Blog readers save 200 Euros. Quote discount code ‘REFLECTIONS’ at http://www.ethicalcorp.com/csr
Stakeholder engagement, some lessons
As mentioned in my previous post we attempted what we hoped was a new and innovative form of stakeholder engagement yesterday.
It's at http://www.ethicalcorp.com/livedebate
Together with Vodafone and Context, we hosted a debate on three time zones on the role of mobile in climate change.
It was a pretty exhausting task. But it seemed to work. We had around 130 people join us for three hours of debate, on Asia, Europe, and North America time zones,
You can see the result at the link above. We generated perhaps 10,000 words of text debate in three hours.
What did we learn?
First, that discussion is hard to control. We knew this was the case offline. Online, particularly given delays in posting response to questions with new comments coming in all the time, it's even harder.
Secondly, that companies are more reticent to comment than other stakeholders, like academics and consultants. It takes them much longer to warm up and gain confidence. No surprises there, we've seen that many times at conferences.
Thirdly, that structuring the debate didn't help that much. We tried, in our third debate (see it at the above link) to spend 15 minutes per topic area. But it only partially worked. Postings on previous points, which we wanted to allow, ran over into other debate areas.
Lastly, I think we learned that a narrow set of questions or topic areas is best.
To do it successfully, real focus on 1-3 points is probably best in future. We've seen that offline too.
So we'll be doing it again, and will keep you posted on what's in the pipeline.
Meanwhile, you can see how it worked at http://www.ethicalcorp.com/livedebate and there's a lot there to learn, if you are interested in the role of mobile in climate change.
It's at http://www.ethicalcorp.com/livedebate
Together with Vodafone and Context, we hosted a debate on three time zones on the role of mobile in climate change.
It was a pretty exhausting task. But it seemed to work. We had around 130 people join us for three hours of debate, on Asia, Europe, and North America time zones,
You can see the result at the link above. We generated perhaps 10,000 words of text debate in three hours.
What did we learn?
First, that discussion is hard to control. We knew this was the case offline. Online, particularly given delays in posting response to questions with new comments coming in all the time, it's even harder.
Secondly, that companies are more reticent to comment than other stakeholders, like academics and consultants. It takes them much longer to warm up and gain confidence. No surprises there, we've seen that many times at conferences.
Thirdly, that structuring the debate didn't help that much. We tried, in our third debate (see it at the above link) to spend 15 minutes per topic area. But it only partially worked. Postings on previous points, which we wanted to allow, ran over into other debate areas.
Lastly, I think we learned that a narrow set of questions or topic areas is best.
To do it successfully, real focus on 1-3 points is probably best in future. We've seen that offline too.
So we'll be doing it again, and will keep you posted on what's in the pipeline.
Meanwhile, you can see how it worked at http://www.ethicalcorp.com/livedebate and there's a lot there to learn, if you are interested in the role of mobile in climate change.
Announcement:
Ethical Corporation report now available: "How to embed corporate responsibility across different parts of your company". Blog readers save 200 Euros. Quote discount code ‘REFLECTIONS’ at http://www.ethicalcorp.com/csr
We need a Ted for corporate responsibility
I've been watching Ted Online again this morning. Sparked by a debate with our editorial team about organised crime and a piece we are doing on the rise of the Eco Mafia.
If you don't know Ted, it's fantastic. Free, online debate and discussion on important issues.
Check it out at http://www.ted.com
We need a Ted for corporate responsibility.
To show the world the issues we deal with every day in this complex world of business ethics are just that, difficult, tough, and often with trade-offs that need discussing.
So if any corporates out there want to support such an idea, let us know.
We did our own mini version of a ted debate yesterday. A bit low-tech. Check it out at http://www.ethicalcorp.com/livedebate
If you don't know Ted, it's fantastic. Free, online debate and discussion on important issues.
Check it out at http://www.ted.com
We need a Ted for corporate responsibility.
To show the world the issues we deal with every day in this complex world of business ethics are just that, difficult, tough, and often with trade-offs that need discussing.
So if any corporates out there want to support such an idea, let us know.
We did our own mini version of a ted debate yesterday. A bit low-tech. Check it out at http://www.ethicalcorp.com/livedebate
Announcement:
Ethical Corporation report now available: "How to embed corporate responsibility across different parts of your company". Blog readers save 200 Euros. Quote discount code ‘REFLECTIONS’ at http://www.ethicalcorp.com/csr
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Sign up to my feed here
Posts
All Comments
