Will 2010 be the hottest year globally in recorded history? Asks the FT in its 2010 predictions.
The paper's science editor goes on to argue that:
"Climate change sceptics frequently point out that 1998 was the hottest year since measurements began. If the world is warming, why has the record not been broken, they ask.
Scientists say 1998 was so hot because of the exceptional El Niño warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean that year. With another El Niño apparently developing now - and superimposing its effect on man-made climate change - it is more likely than not that 2010 will beat the 1998 record, according to the much-maligned but often accurate UK Met Office.
Although a big volcanic eruption or El Niño's sudden death would cool things down, I'll go for the big heat. Next year's global average temperature will be the highest on record - which may give renewed impetus to international action against global warming, after the Copenhagen fiasco. Clive Cookson"
More FT 2010 predictions are here.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Top ten sustainability trends of 2009 (for Americans)
Now, more than any other time of year, it's hard not to be inundated with "top ten" list for the last decade, the last year, and 2010.
So I'm trying to pick and choose a few of them to highlight on the blog over the next couple of weeks.
This slideshow is useful, from a US perspective, for a simplistic yet easy to remember summary of the big issues for American greens in 2009 around sustainability.
I''m not sure I'd say these are right for Europe, but they do show how the debate is maturing a bit state-side.
If it was a more EU-centered list, the transparency bit would be quite a lot broader.
And carbon footprinting took off several years ago across western Europe.
But quibbles aside, generally, it's hard to argue with the main trends it points out.
Our analysis of 2009's ethical business trends and events is here.
And those of you interested in technology and what it can do for tracking and tracing around sustainability should take a look at this article:
Supply chains – Traceability on track. Traceability is becoming the new benchmark for measuring a brand’s ethical sourcing performance.
So I'm trying to pick and choose a few of them to highlight on the blog over the next couple of weeks.
This slideshow is useful, from a US perspective, for a simplistic yet easy to remember summary of the big issues for American greens in 2009 around sustainability.
I''m not sure I'd say these are right for Europe, but they do show how the debate is maturing a bit state-side.
If it was a more EU-centered list, the transparency bit would be quite a lot broader.
And carbon footprinting took off several years ago across western Europe.
But quibbles aside, generally, it's hard to argue with the main trends it points out.
Our analysis of 2009's ethical business trends and events is here.
And those of you interested in technology and what it can do for tracking and tracing around sustainability should take a look at this article:
Supply chains – Traceability on track. Traceability is becoming the new benchmark for measuring a brand’s ethical sourcing performance.
Business and human rights in 2010, is Amnesty making a smart move?
This article from the Financial Times speculates that NGOs will be raising their game over human rights issues next year.
This below excerpt from the piece is interesting, and perhaps significant:
"...But there are signs from Amnesty and beyond that the heat is being turned up again and that companies must brace themselves for greater scrutiny. “Things are getting more pressured,” admits the top corporate responsibility executive for one UK company with global operations, who declines to be named.
Lawmakers in many countries have raised concerns about corporate conduct. A cross-party group of parliamentarians in the UK earlier this month delivered a hard-hitting report on the “woeful [human rights] record abroad” of some British companies."
(In the last part of this the reference is likely to mean Vedanta resources, among others. The firm is embroiled in a nasty dispute in India over bauxite mining in Orissa.)
The piece goes on to talk about Amnesty's re-invigorated campaigning against Shell over Nigeria:
"Naomi MacAuliffe, an Amnesty campaign manager, says that while the alleged rights abuses would always have been a concern, Amnesty could have picked other companies to target. Shell was chosen, among other reasons, because it has a very well-known brand that is useful in mobilising activists."
Personally I think targeting Shell, because it is a big name with a track record of being campaigned against, is not the smartest move for Amnesty.
Yes pressure over the effectiveness of community development initiatives and gas flaring should be maintained, (although cutting gas flaring in countries with little infrastructure to pipe it away is tough) but there are other companies Amnesty could highlight.
The danger for NGOs in choosing the same old targets is that people get tired of seeing the same names, on the same issues.
The companies get better at issuing complex rebuttals, often based on some useful work they are doing in the areas complained about.
Most importantly, other firms who deserve the attentions of campaigners, continue to operate under the radar.
I'd like to see more emerging multi-national companies put under pressure by campaigners. It is some of these, alongside better known industrial names from the west, who will have the greatest impact on societies in the future.
Here's a suggestion for Amnesty or other human rights NGOs: Why not issue a list of the biggest high impact firms in the world, (not a ranking) pointing out who has a human rights policy / management system, and who does not? And ask them for comment as to why, or why not? Keep it relatively neutral, let the facts speak for themselves.
Meanwhile, the newly formed Institute for Human Rights and Business has laid out what it calls the: "Top 10 Emerging Business and Human Rights Challenges for 2010". It's a very useful list of the key issues.
This below excerpt from the piece is interesting, and perhaps significant:
"...But there are signs from Amnesty and beyond that the heat is being turned up again and that companies must brace themselves for greater scrutiny. “Things are getting more pressured,” admits the top corporate responsibility executive for one UK company with global operations, who declines to be named.
Lawmakers in many countries have raised concerns about corporate conduct. A cross-party group of parliamentarians in the UK earlier this month delivered a hard-hitting report on the “woeful [human rights] record abroad” of some British companies."
(In the last part of this the reference is likely to mean Vedanta resources, among others. The firm is embroiled in a nasty dispute in India over bauxite mining in Orissa.)
The piece goes on to talk about Amnesty's re-invigorated campaigning against Shell over Nigeria:
"Naomi MacAuliffe, an Amnesty campaign manager, says that while the alleged rights abuses would always have been a concern, Amnesty could have picked other companies to target. Shell was chosen, among other reasons, because it has a very well-known brand that is useful in mobilising activists."
Personally I think targeting Shell, because it is a big name with a track record of being campaigned against, is not the smartest move for Amnesty.
Yes pressure over the effectiveness of community development initiatives and gas flaring should be maintained, (although cutting gas flaring in countries with little infrastructure to pipe it away is tough) but there are other companies Amnesty could highlight.
The danger for NGOs in choosing the same old targets is that people get tired of seeing the same names, on the same issues.
The companies get better at issuing complex rebuttals, often based on some useful work they are doing in the areas complained about.
Most importantly, other firms who deserve the attentions of campaigners, continue to operate under the radar.
I'd like to see more emerging multi-national companies put under pressure by campaigners. It is some of these, alongside better known industrial names from the west, who will have the greatest impact on societies in the future.
Here's a suggestion for Amnesty or other human rights NGOs: Why not issue a list of the biggest high impact firms in the world, (not a ranking) pointing out who has a human rights policy / management system, and who does not? And ask them for comment as to why, or why not? Keep it relatively neutral, let the facts speak for themselves.
Meanwhile, the newly formed Institute for Human Rights and Business has laid out what it calls the: "Top 10 Emerging Business and Human Rights Challenges for 2010". It's a very useful list of the key issues.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Five ways business is responding to the 'transparency imperative'
One of Ethical Corporation's regular columnists, Andrea Bonime-Blanc, has co-authored a good Op-Ed in the New York Times and International Herald Tribune.
Here's the link to the full piece.
Here's a summary, extracted from the article:
"Whether they do so voluntarily or by regulatory mandate, companies are beginning to embrace the new transparency imperative in five key ways:
(1) Adopting better governance with stronger shareholder rights, board rules, director accountability and pay for performance.
(2) Integrating corporate integrity programs into business strategy and leadership development.
(3) Pursuing dialogue with multiple and increasingly vocal stakeholders.
(4) Engaging proactively with regulators intent on trans-border cooperation and enforcement (especially regarding anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, antitrust and anti-fraud).
(5) Catering to two critical constituents — employees and customers — who have shown greater willingness, and ability, to “vote with their feet.”"
Their conclusion is also very significant and something we've been arguing in Ethical Corporation magazine for years:
"...the irreversible Internet revolution that now “outs” what previously could be hidden will only further the irreversible progress to greater transparency that is already underway".
This has never been more true than today.
Companies will never keep up with technology and how it distributes ever more quickly generated information to anyone who is interested.
The only way to play is to jump on, accept you cannot control debate, and make a reasonable voice heard, amongst the ever growing din.
Because they have money, and often a recognised brand, companies have a chance to help support debate about the corporate responsibility issues they are engaged in.
I'd love to see more of them sponsoring public online and offline discussions on important responsible business issues.
So many companies spend so much money on advertising, PR firms, lobbying, and printing CR reports that no-one reads.
We know that marketing is becoming more permission based, and more segmented.
Why not take some of the traditional CR budget and spend it on supporting debate?
Or better still, go get more budget, from external affairs, comms or wherever, and re-allocate it for better use.
I have some ideas about how that can be done if any reader out there wants to discuss this further.
Here's the link to the full piece.
Here's a summary, extracted from the article:
"Whether they do so voluntarily or by regulatory mandate, companies are beginning to embrace the new transparency imperative in five key ways:
(1) Adopting better governance with stronger shareholder rights, board rules, director accountability and pay for performance.
(2) Integrating corporate integrity programs into business strategy and leadership development.
(3) Pursuing dialogue with multiple and increasingly vocal stakeholders.
(4) Engaging proactively with regulators intent on trans-border cooperation and enforcement (especially regarding anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, antitrust and anti-fraud).
(5) Catering to two critical constituents — employees and customers — who have shown greater willingness, and ability, to “vote with their feet.”"
Their conclusion is also very significant and something we've been arguing in Ethical Corporation magazine for years:
"...the irreversible Internet revolution that now “outs” what previously could be hidden will only further the irreversible progress to greater transparency that is already underway".
This has never been more true than today.
Companies will never keep up with technology and how it distributes ever more quickly generated information to anyone who is interested.
The only way to play is to jump on, accept you cannot control debate, and make a reasonable voice heard, amongst the ever growing din.
Because they have money, and often a recognised brand, companies have a chance to help support debate about the corporate responsibility issues they are engaged in.
I'd love to see more of them sponsoring public online and offline discussions on important responsible business issues.
So many companies spend so much money on advertising, PR firms, lobbying, and printing CR reports that no-one reads.
We know that marketing is becoming more permission based, and more segmented.
Why not take some of the traditional CR budget and spend it on supporting debate?
Or better still, go get more budget, from external affairs, comms or wherever, and re-allocate it for better use.
I have some ideas about how that can be done if any reader out there wants to discuss this further.
China at Copenhagen, some fallout
From our China editor, Paul French, in Shanghai:
As promised following my round up of the green issue in China in the December issue of the magazine (Is China ready to go green? - some follow up.
In the article I spoke to two veteran China environment watchers - Isabel Hilton of China Dialogue and Jonathan Watts, The Guardian's first Asia environment Correspondent and based in Beijing.
They were fairly positive but deadlines being deadlines the article was polished off pre-Copenhagen.
The widely read and well regarded China blog Danwei has now followed up with an interview with Watts on the fall out from Copenhagen and, in particular, China's role in scuppering the deal.
His view has a special resonance in China as Mark Lynas's article in the Guardian claiming that China scuppered the deal on purpose and deliberately has led to an outpouring of comment on the Chinese blogosphere - some of it rational (and maybe more but we cannot know what has been doctored or censored by the Net Nanny) but most of it attacks on Lynas (some of which appear state orchestrated - Beijing's paid bloggers).
Anyway, here's Watts take post-Copenhagen that hopefully adds a little flesh to the bones of my column in Ethical Corporation.
(PS: readers may wish to note that Danwei.org is a blocked site in China itself)
As promised following my round up of the green issue in China in the December issue of the magazine (Is China ready to go green? - some follow up.
In the article I spoke to two veteran China environment watchers - Isabel Hilton of China Dialogue and Jonathan Watts, The Guardian's first Asia environment Correspondent and based in Beijing.
They were fairly positive but deadlines being deadlines the article was polished off pre-Copenhagen.
The widely read and well regarded China blog Danwei has now followed up with an interview with Watts on the fall out from Copenhagen and, in particular, China's role in scuppering the deal.
His view has a special resonance in China as Mark Lynas's article in the Guardian claiming that China scuppered the deal on purpose and deliberately has led to an outpouring of comment on the Chinese blogosphere - some of it rational (and maybe more but we cannot know what has been doctored or censored by the Net Nanny) but most of it attacks on Lynas (some of which appear state orchestrated - Beijing's paid bloggers).
Anyway, here's Watts take post-Copenhagen that hopefully adds a little flesh to the bones of my column in Ethical Corporation.
(PS: readers may wish to note that Danwei.org is a blocked site in China itself)
2010: What matters now?
This ebook, from a variety of figures, is a good read to end 2009 on.
I like the advice on slide 15:
"Leadership is more than influence. It is about reminding people of what it is we are trying to build—and why it matters. It is about painting a picture of a better future. It comes down to pointing the way and saying, “C’mon. We can do this!”"
And this one, from slide 29:
"Power comes from an ability to build your reputation, create efficient and effective networks of social relations, act and speak in ways that build influence, and from an ability to create and employ resources—things that others want"
I hope you'll take ten minutes to download the ebook above. It's easy to read and full of useful nuggets you'll find useful in the future.
A happy New Year to all readers.
I like the advice on slide 15:
"Leadership is more than influence. It is about reminding people of what it is we are trying to build—and why it matters. It is about painting a picture of a better future. It comes down to pointing the way and saying, “C’mon. We can do this!”"
And this one, from slide 29:
"Power comes from an ability to build your reputation, create efficient and effective networks of social relations, act and speak in ways that build influence, and from an ability to create and employ resources—things that others want"
I hope you'll take ten minutes to download the ebook above. It's easy to read and full of useful nuggets you'll find useful in the future.
A happy New Year to all readers.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Merry Christmas to all readers!
Hi everyone,
I'm taking a break from blogging for a few days, perhaps until January.
It's been a long hard year, but a good one in the end.
Ethical Corporation turned over more than a million pounds and made a small profit, so no complaints as we reach the end of the year.
I can't say I am sad to see the back of 2009, but I definitely learned a lot.
Whilst it is a cliché to say it, you do learn more in tough times.
Roll on 2010. To all readers of this blog. Have a great break and Merry Christmas!
Toby
I'm taking a break from blogging for a few days, perhaps until January.
It's been a long hard year, but a good one in the end.
Ethical Corporation turned over more than a million pounds and made a small profit, so no complaints as we reach the end of the year.
I can't say I am sad to see the back of 2009, but I definitely learned a lot.
Whilst it is a cliché to say it, you do learn more in tough times.
Roll on 2010. To all readers of this blog. Have a great break and Merry Christmas!
Toby
Final blog post from EC correspondent in Copenhagen
Here's the final installment of our series of blog postings from Copenhagen over the last week.
Here's an extract:
"A global climate accord committing the world to no more than a two degree Celsius temperature increase was finally agreed Saturday morning.
This was despite the challenges that faced the proverbial cable car that UN climate chief Yvo de Boer had referred to this week.
Only on Thursday de Boer described the stop-start negotiations like a cable car that had made an unexpected stop but should now finish its ride smoothly.
Earlier on Friday, US President Barack Obama called for “an accord taking us further than one ever seen before.”
By Friday, the unexpected happened - the mountain suddenly appeared bigger as world leaders’ and delegations appeared radically split along North-South lines of developed and developing world responsibilities, accountability and transparency."
For the rest of the posting, go to this link on the Ethical Corporation website.
Here's an extract:
"A global climate accord committing the world to no more than a two degree Celsius temperature increase was finally agreed Saturday morning.
This was despite the challenges that faced the proverbial cable car that UN climate chief Yvo de Boer had referred to this week.
Only on Thursday de Boer described the stop-start negotiations like a cable car that had made an unexpected stop but should now finish its ride smoothly.
Earlier on Friday, US President Barack Obama called for “an accord taking us further than one ever seen before.”
By Friday, the unexpected happened - the mountain suddenly appeared bigger as world leaders’ and delegations appeared radically split along North-South lines of developed and developing world responsibilities, accountability and transparency."
For the rest of the posting, go to this link on the Ethical Corporation website.
Are the Chinese really building those giant arks to take us all to safety
The movies might soon have us believe it. From Paul French in Shanghai.
The Chinese internet is full of debate about movies – the latest being the climate change shocker 2012.
In the past the Chinese blogosphere has either loved or hated any number of foreign films – Kung Fu Panda (cute vs insulting), Mulan (Hollywood theft of Chinese culture) and most recently Transformers: Robot Heroes (where Shanghai gets wiped out annoying some who saw it as an attack on China).
And now eco-warning flick 2012.
In the movie lots of survivors of a global environmental disaster end up in China where they try to board a sort of giant Ark (Made in China, many have noticed).
Great, say China’s bloggers who like the film – you see, China will save the world; terrible, say others, the Chinese are shown as thuggish and controlling who gets to survive and who doesn’t.
Others have pointed out that the Chinese are shown saving the elite and leaving ‘the workers’ to die – rather callous – while the brave and honourable American demands they try and save everyone.
You get the idea – good westerners, bad Chinese. Chinese pragmatism vs Western romanticism others argue.
And so the debate has raged in China – are they the good guys or the bad guys when the environmental apocalypse comes?
All this ensured that 2012 became the No.1 movie at the Chinese box office (and spawned millions of pirated DVD copies on every street corner (let’s just hope the Arks aren’t fake when the time comes!) – see the cover of one below).
Importantly it seems that China’s infamously touchy film censors thought the film bigged up China – only 20 foreign films a year are allowed to be shown at Chinese cinemas and 2012 made the cut.
Actually, the uncut–2012 has not been cut by the censors unlike other recent movies that featured China, such as Mission Impossible III.
The questions that remains unanswered are:
1) did 2012 director Roland Emmerich purposely try to show China saving the world from environmental catastrophe to ensure good box office takings in a country of 1.3 billion people?
And 2) are the Chinese really building those giant arks to take us all to safety?
The Chinese internet is full of debate about movies – the latest being the climate change shocker 2012.
In the past the Chinese blogosphere has either loved or hated any number of foreign films – Kung Fu Panda (cute vs insulting), Mulan (Hollywood theft of Chinese culture) and most recently Transformers: Robot Heroes (where Shanghai gets wiped out annoying some who saw it as an attack on China).
And now eco-warning flick 2012.
In the movie lots of survivors of a global environmental disaster end up in China where they try to board a sort of giant Ark (Made in China, many have noticed).
Great, say China’s bloggers who like the film – you see, China will save the world; terrible, say others, the Chinese are shown as thuggish and controlling who gets to survive and who doesn’t.
Others have pointed out that the Chinese are shown saving the elite and leaving ‘the workers’ to die – rather callous – while the brave and honourable American demands they try and save everyone.
You get the idea – good westerners, bad Chinese. Chinese pragmatism vs Western romanticism others argue.
And so the debate has raged in China – are they the good guys or the bad guys when the environmental apocalypse comes?
All this ensured that 2012 became the No.1 movie at the Chinese box office (and spawned millions of pirated DVD copies on every street corner (let’s just hope the Arks aren’t fake when the time comes!) – see the cover of one below).
Importantly it seems that China’s infamously touchy film censors thought the film bigged up China – only 20 foreign films a year are allowed to be shown at Chinese cinemas and 2012 made the cut.
Actually, the uncut–2012 has not been cut by the censors unlike other recent movies that featured China, such as Mission Impossible III.
The questions that remains unanswered are:
1) did 2012 director Roland Emmerich purposely try to show China saving the world from environmental catastrophe to ensure good box office takings in a country of 1.3 billion people?
And 2) are the Chinese really building those giant arks to take us all to safety?
The value of metaphor in communication
This is a TED video of one of Ethical Corporation's writers, and the editor of three of our other sites, speaking at TED this summer.
His name is James Geary and he edits some sites I look after for Ethical Corporation's parent company, FC Business Intelligence, on pharmaceuticals, telematics and smart grids strategies.
Very interesting speech and worth a look. James is finishing a book on the topic early next year.
Here's a question: can corporate communications utilise some of these techniques James describes to improve stakeholder engagement?
Undoubtedly, I would think.
His name is James Geary and he edits some sites I look after for Ethical Corporation's parent company, FC Business Intelligence, on pharmaceuticals, telematics and smart grids strategies.
Very interesting speech and worth a look. James is finishing a book on the topic early next year.
Here's a question: can corporate communications utilise some of these techniques James describes to improve stakeholder engagement?
Undoubtedly, I would think.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
US public supports climate change action
Latest research among seemingly fickle US citizens is showing 'overwhelming' support for action on climate change.
Many people in the latest polls appear to be viewing it as an opportunity for jobs rather than a threat.
Great news, if this holds true.
Some other results led to claims that support for action amongst the US public was slipping.
Let's hope this new research is more accurate. Great news if so.
Our man in Copenhagen, Felix von Geyer, is blogging this week for us.
Check out his latest blog post here.
Many people in the latest polls appear to be viewing it as an opportunity for jobs rather than a threat.
Great news, if this holds true.
Some other results led to claims that support for action amongst the US public was slipping.
Let's hope this new research is more accurate. Great news if so.
Our man in Copenhagen, Felix von Geyer, is blogging this week for us.
Check out his latest blog post here.
And the prize for the most tasteless marketing campaign during Copenhagen goes to...
Paddy Power.
The Irish betting firm have scored a couple of spectacular own goals this week with a risible marketing campaign designed presumably, to boost their sales.
Why they thought sending the following headlines to environmental press is a mystery:
"BOOKIE BETS ON THE RISE AND RISE OF GLOBAL EMISSIONS"
And:
"POLAR BEARS SET TO SINK PREDICTS BOOKIE"
The company claims that they take an "unconventional approach to betting and is famous for its mischievous and sometimes irreverent promotional campaigns"
Surely, "utterly risible, tasteless and unhelpful promotional campaigns"?
The polar bear press release seems to proudly note:
"Ireland’s largest bookmaker Paddy Power are taking bets on the estimated global polar bear population on 31 December 2011 according to the world's largest independent conservation organization, the WWF."
When I rang the WWF's press office to let them know about this quote, they were less than pleased.
Paddy Power goes on to gleefully suggest that:
"The current WWF estimate places the polar bear population between 20,000 and 25,000 however Paddy Power’s odds predict a sharp decline in their population over the next two years and are offering odds of 13/8 that the number dips between 15,000 to 20,000."
What an awful thing to bet on. Would anyone truly bet on this? No, I don't think so.
This is just cynical marketing by a pathetic organisation that has truly run out of ideas.
To make matter worse, Paddy Power shrills that they are:
"...also offering odds on the number of critically endangered species that will appear on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species in 2010 with between 3501 and 4000 the 11/8 favourite."
Any responsible gamblers (sic) should boycott Paddy Power immediately and stick with normal, standard exploitative, slightly less sick, gambling companies.
The Irish betting firm have scored a couple of spectacular own goals this week with a risible marketing campaign designed presumably, to boost their sales.
Why they thought sending the following headlines to environmental press is a mystery:
"BOOKIE BETS ON THE RISE AND RISE OF GLOBAL EMISSIONS"
And:
"POLAR BEARS SET TO SINK PREDICTS BOOKIE"
The company claims that they take an "unconventional approach to betting and is famous for its mischievous and sometimes irreverent promotional campaigns"
Surely, "utterly risible, tasteless and unhelpful promotional campaigns"?
The polar bear press release seems to proudly note:
"Ireland’s largest bookmaker Paddy Power are taking bets on the estimated global polar bear population on 31 December 2011 according to the world's largest independent conservation organization, the WWF."
When I rang the WWF's press office to let them know about this quote, they were less than pleased.
Paddy Power goes on to gleefully suggest that:
"The current WWF estimate places the polar bear population between 20,000 and 25,000 however Paddy Power’s odds predict a sharp decline in their population over the next two years and are offering odds of 13/8 that the number dips between 15,000 to 20,000."
What an awful thing to bet on. Would anyone truly bet on this? No, I don't think so.
This is just cynical marketing by a pathetic organisation that has truly run out of ideas.
To make matter worse, Paddy Power shrills that they are:
"...also offering odds on the number of critically endangered species that will appear on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species in 2010 with between 3501 and 4000 the 11/8 favourite."
Any responsible gamblers (sic) should boycott Paddy Power immediately and stick with normal, standard exploitative, slightly less sick, gambling companies.
Mote on China going green, from the New Yorker
From Paul French, our China editor, in Shanghai:
Worth noting a very good article on China's 'green revolution' in the New Yorker by their correspondent in Beijing, Evan Osnos.
Osnos has written a number of interesting articles from China for the New Yorker in the last couple of years including on the situation of African traders in Guangzhou and an in-depth look at Hu Shuli, who until her recent resignation was the pioneering editor of Caijing magazine, the closest thing China has had so far to a campaigning journalism magazine.
Osnos's article echoes some of the issues raised in my China Column in the December issue of Ethical Corporation but with some more historical background to China's apparent embracing of green tech.
As its Copenhagen time the New Yorker has opened access to the article on its site: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/12/21/091221fa_fact_osnos
Worth noting a very good article on China's 'green revolution' in the New Yorker by their correspondent in Beijing, Evan Osnos.
Osnos has written a number of interesting articles from China for the New Yorker in the last couple of years including on the situation of African traders in Guangzhou and an in-depth look at Hu Shuli, who until her recent resignation was the pioneering editor of Caijing magazine, the closest thing China has had so far to a campaigning journalism magazine.
Osnos's article echoes some of the issues raised in my China Column in the December issue of Ethical Corporation but with some more historical background to China's apparent embracing of green tech.
As its Copenhagen time the New Yorker has opened access to the article on its site: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/12/21/091221fa_fact_osnos
Monday, December 14, 2009
Prediction for 2010: Anti-corruption enforcement will increase
I've been blogging on the risks of not taking anti-corruption seriously for a while.
And I've been trying to get other publications, such as the Economist, interested in it too, which works sometimes.
This is for a few reasons. Firstly, EU states are slowly getting their act together and implementing the OECD Convention on Bribery.
Secondly, as a reaction to that, Ethical Corporation has been holding conferences on the topic and publishing reports such as this, and this.
Our report series has also covered corruption in China in detail. The website for the report is here.
These have increased my knowledge of just how important the issue is to business.
And thirdly and most significantly, the risks to companies are increasing from the one country that actively enforces anti-corruption and bribery laws, the USA.
Here's some examples from the Wall Street Journal and from Financial Fraud Law if you need convincing.
The Department of Justice's "headcount for indicted individuals is now at 19 for the year — more than for any previous year", according to the WSJ, which previously reported that enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is set to increase.
Meanwhile FinancialFraudlaw.com reports that: "Assistant U.S. Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer told the 22nd National Forum on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act that 2009 “was probably the most dynamic single year in the more than 30 years since the FCPA was enacted.” Breuer noted that there has been a “record number of trials, a record number of individuals charged with FCPA violations, and record corporate fines, including $1.6 billion in global penalties in the Siemens matter and $579 million in penalties in Halliburton/KBR.”"
And I've been trying to get other publications, such as the Economist, interested in it too, which works sometimes.
This is for a few reasons. Firstly, EU states are slowly getting their act together and implementing the OECD Convention on Bribery.
Secondly, as a reaction to that, Ethical Corporation has been holding conferences on the topic and publishing reports such as this, and this.
Our report series has also covered corruption in China in detail. The website for the report is here.
These have increased my knowledge of just how important the issue is to business.
And thirdly and most significantly, the risks to companies are increasing from the one country that actively enforces anti-corruption and bribery laws, the USA.
Here's some examples from the Wall Street Journal and from Financial Fraud Law if you need convincing.
The Department of Justice's "headcount for indicted individuals is now at 19 for the year — more than for any previous year", according to the WSJ, which previously reported that enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is set to increase.
Meanwhile FinancialFraudlaw.com reports that: "Assistant U.S. Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer told the 22nd National Forum on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act that 2009 “was probably the most dynamic single year in the more than 30 years since the FCPA was enacted.” Breuer noted that there has been a “record number of trials, a record number of individuals charged with FCPA violations, and record corporate fines, including $1.6 billion in global penalties in the Siemens matter and $579 million in penalties in Halliburton/KBR.”"
Cadbury, Kraft, and sustainability in takeover defence
This morning Cadbury's defence against Kraft's £10.3 billion offer is all over the news.
I was emailed a copy of it this morning by the company.
It makes fascinating reading.
It does show how an unwanted takeover bid can sharpen corporate targets.
But what's likely more interesting for corporate responsibility professionals is what Cadbury has to say about sustainability to shareholders.
There's a page on the topic in the PDF advocating a 'no' to Kraft's shareholder overtures, sent out this morning to shareholders and media.
Cadbury says that the company is creating "Sustainable value from our values", telling shareholders that:
"Our sustainability commitments are integrated into our business plan to create value and competitive advantage, helping to strengthen our business, build our reputation and motivate our people".
The page in the PDF goes on to talk about how having 350 million Cadbury Dairy Milk bars to carry the Fairtrade mark , adds "value to the brand and the consumer", noting that the company has "100 farming communities active in the Cadbury Cocoa Partnership adding value to our supply chain".
The copy goes on to point out that Cadbury is targeting a 10% reduction in absolute carbon emissions by 2011, has achieved a 20% water reduction since 2006 and has some "award-winning eco packaging launched for key seasonal and gifting lines".
The company also points out to shareholders that "97% of our portfolio carries nutritional labelling, 40% of our portfolio is defined as a ‘wellbeing choice’ including sugar free, natural, organic, fortified and portion controlled options" and that "88% of colleagues say they are ‘proud to work’ at Cadbury".
Obviously, it's great to see a company referencing sustainability as part of a takeover defence, particularly when so much is at stake for them.
Cadbury has missed an opportunity here though.
That's because the argument they make throughout the document, which is that the company is better as a stand alone 'pure play' chocolate, gum and confectionery company does not reference sustainability except on one page.
Cadbury is not linking their considerable responsible business achievements to shareholder value, real and future, as much as they might have done.
You can make a tangential connection between Cadbury's reduced energy consumption and shareholder value, but it's not made obvious.
This may be because saving money is not as important as new opportunities.
So one could argue it is reasonable not to make that a central plank of their argument throughout the document.
However, the real missed opportunity IS related to the central core of their argument.
This is that their future lies in high growth emerging markets.
These are riskier operating environments for companies, as we all know.
So Cadbury could have highlighted their commitment to sustainable sourcing much more as a risk management tool, than they do in the current document.
Expensive commodities such as cocoa are from volatile regions, such as West Africa.
There's a good argument to make that going fairtrade helps reduce risk in such places by creating a more stable economic growth platform.
Highlighting this represents a chance to link core business practice and sustainability.
After all, 46% of Cadbury's revenue comes from chocolate.
Similarly, the fact that "88% of colleagues say they are ‘proud to work’ at Cadbury" is an important statistic.
More could have been made of this elsewhere in the company's defence document. A business is nothing without motivated people. The takeover would surely have a big impact on employee morale, which is currently high. Yet this is not mentioned.
Cadbury is a leader in big business sustainability. The fact that they reference their achievements in responsible business in a hostile takeover defence document is praiseworthy.
There have been comments from Cadbury's CEO and Chairman in the media in recent months, emphasising that Kraft's values are a long way from theirs.
More could have been made of their responsible business related progress in this defence document, and the company could have spent more time emphasising the links between sustainability and core business for future growth.
So if indeed "sustainability commitments are integrated into our business plan", which I believe they are in the company, let's hope to hear more about them as the takeover saga continues.
I was emailed a copy of it this morning by the company.
It makes fascinating reading.
It does show how an unwanted takeover bid can sharpen corporate targets.
But what's likely more interesting for corporate responsibility professionals is what Cadbury has to say about sustainability to shareholders.
There's a page on the topic in the PDF advocating a 'no' to Kraft's shareholder overtures, sent out this morning to shareholders and media.
Cadbury says that the company is creating "Sustainable value from our values", telling shareholders that:
"Our sustainability commitments are integrated into our business plan to create value and competitive advantage, helping to strengthen our business, build our reputation and motivate our people".
The page in the PDF goes on to talk about how having 350 million Cadbury Dairy Milk bars to carry the Fairtrade mark , adds "value to the brand and the consumer", noting that the company has "100 farming communities active in the Cadbury Cocoa Partnership adding value to our supply chain".
The copy goes on to point out that Cadbury is targeting a 10% reduction in absolute carbon emissions by 2011, has achieved a 20% water reduction since 2006 and has some "award-winning eco packaging launched for key seasonal and gifting lines".
The company also points out to shareholders that "97% of our portfolio carries nutritional labelling, 40% of our portfolio is defined as a ‘wellbeing choice’ including sugar free, natural, organic, fortified and portion controlled options" and that "88% of colleagues say they are ‘proud to work’ at Cadbury".
Obviously, it's great to see a company referencing sustainability as part of a takeover defence, particularly when so much is at stake for them.
Cadbury has missed an opportunity here though.
That's because the argument they make throughout the document, which is that the company is better as a stand alone 'pure play' chocolate, gum and confectionery company does not reference sustainability except on one page.
Cadbury is not linking their considerable responsible business achievements to shareholder value, real and future, as much as they might have done.
You can make a tangential connection between Cadbury's reduced energy consumption and shareholder value, but it's not made obvious.
This may be because saving money is not as important as new opportunities.
So one could argue it is reasonable not to make that a central plank of their argument throughout the document.
However, the real missed opportunity IS related to the central core of their argument.
This is that their future lies in high growth emerging markets.
These are riskier operating environments for companies, as we all know.
So Cadbury could have highlighted their commitment to sustainable sourcing much more as a risk management tool, than they do in the current document.
Expensive commodities such as cocoa are from volatile regions, such as West Africa.
There's a good argument to make that going fairtrade helps reduce risk in such places by creating a more stable economic growth platform.
Highlighting this represents a chance to link core business practice and sustainability.
After all, 46% of Cadbury's revenue comes from chocolate.
Similarly, the fact that "88% of colleagues say they are ‘proud to work’ at Cadbury" is an important statistic.
More could have been made of this elsewhere in the company's defence document. A business is nothing without motivated people. The takeover would surely have a big impact on employee morale, which is currently high. Yet this is not mentioned.
Cadbury is a leader in big business sustainability. The fact that they reference their achievements in responsible business in a hostile takeover defence document is praiseworthy.
There have been comments from Cadbury's CEO and Chairman in the media in recent months, emphasising that Kraft's values are a long way from theirs.
More could have been made of their responsible business related progress in this defence document, and the company could have spent more time emphasising the links between sustainability and core business for future growth.
So if indeed "sustainability commitments are integrated into our business plan", which I believe they are in the company, let's hope to hear more about them as the takeover saga continues.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Enel is making a mistake suing Greenpeace
This FT article: "Enel seeks damages from Greenpeace" reports that:
"Enel, Italy’s largest utility, is seeking more than €1.6m in damages from Greenpeace for alleged losses in electricity production and damage caused by protests launched by the environmental group at Enel’s four coal-fired power stations".
The facts of the case seem to be in little doubt or dispute.
The question point is whether this is a smart move by Enel.
This is a company that, despite being in a very difficult industry for sustainability, has a half decent reputation for being engaged in corporate responsibility.
Why then, would it make sense to sue the world's pre-eminent environmental campaigning organisation?
In terms of effecting change and cutting deals that help achieve that, Greenpeace is miles ahead of Friends of the Earth and WWF. (The latter appears confused about whether to campaign or sell business services, and you can't do both, in my view)
I understand that Enel is annoyed that Greenpeace's stunts cost it money.
The FT reports that this is €1,606,545 since 2006, calculated to the last penny by Enel.
But this is peanuts compared to the cost of the fallout from suing Greenpeace.
Big companies cannot win in the court of public opinion against NGOs like Greenpeace unless the NGO is revealed to have done something so egregious that all trust is lost.
Despite the odd claim of exaggeration and figure-fiddling against Greenpeace, (the most serious of which is in the book Flat Earth News, evidence seen in these two conflicting GP and WHO reports about Chernobyl) the organisation is seen as acting in the public interest by most people who care about the environment.
So Enel can't win. The company may rightfully feel that those who break the law should be punished. But that should be a decision for the Italian prosecution service from the criminal perspective. On a civil, financial basis, the pros for Enel must clearly outweigh the cons.
When a company reacts in this way, it reeks of a combination of sour grapes, defensiveness and agression.
Does Enel want to end up with a reputation for attempting to hobble discussion and debate?
Any company that continues down a path like this may well end up viewed that way.
Trafigura has achieved that. I can't see why that's a position anyone would want to emulate.
Who wants to become a negative case study in business and academia?
Just ask Shell, Exxon, United Fruit, Union Minière, Newmont Mining, Monsanto and Freeport McMoran.
Even if Enel 'wins' in court, that's surely how this will end up.
"Enel, Italy’s largest utility, is seeking more than €1.6m in damages from Greenpeace for alleged losses in electricity production and damage caused by protests launched by the environmental group at Enel’s four coal-fired power stations".
The facts of the case seem to be in little doubt or dispute.
The question point is whether this is a smart move by Enel.
This is a company that, despite being in a very difficult industry for sustainability, has a half decent reputation for being engaged in corporate responsibility.
Why then, would it make sense to sue the world's pre-eminent environmental campaigning organisation?
In terms of effecting change and cutting deals that help achieve that, Greenpeace is miles ahead of Friends of the Earth and WWF. (The latter appears confused about whether to campaign or sell business services, and you can't do both, in my view)
I understand that Enel is annoyed that Greenpeace's stunts cost it money.
The FT reports that this is €1,606,545 since 2006, calculated to the last penny by Enel.
But this is peanuts compared to the cost of the fallout from suing Greenpeace.
Big companies cannot win in the court of public opinion against NGOs like Greenpeace unless the NGO is revealed to have done something so egregious that all trust is lost.
Despite the odd claim of exaggeration and figure-fiddling against Greenpeace, (the most serious of which is in the book Flat Earth News, evidence seen in these two conflicting GP and WHO reports about Chernobyl) the organisation is seen as acting in the public interest by most people who care about the environment.
So Enel can't win. The company may rightfully feel that those who break the law should be punished. But that should be a decision for the Italian prosecution service from the criminal perspective. On a civil, financial basis, the pros for Enel must clearly outweigh the cons.
When a company reacts in this way, it reeks of a combination of sour grapes, defensiveness and agression.
Does Enel want to end up with a reputation for attempting to hobble discussion and debate?
Any company that continues down a path like this may well end up viewed that way.
Trafigura has achieved that. I can't see why that's a position anyone would want to emulate.
Who wants to become a negative case study in business and academia?
Just ask Shell, Exxon, United Fruit, Union Minière, Newmont Mining, Monsanto and Freeport McMoran.
Even if Enel 'wins' in court, that's surely how this will end up.
The 'crazed hitler youth' of climate change
This is rather funny.
The video below shows right wing climate change deniers at Copenhagen having their rather pathetic (and largely empty) press conferences disrupted by clean energy activists.
Thanks to Marc Gunther for alerting me to this on his blog.
The video features climate sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton.
He calls the students “crazed Hitler youth" on the above video.
Highly amusing to contrast these student protesters with such a movement.
Actually, I wonder why we are calling ideologues like Monckton 'sceptics'?
That implies rational intelligence.
A trait rarely on display amongst the climate deniers.
The video below shows right wing climate change deniers at Copenhagen having their rather pathetic (and largely empty) press conferences disrupted by clean energy activists.
Thanks to Marc Gunther for alerting me to this on his blog.
The video features climate sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton.
He calls the students “crazed Hitler youth" on the above video.
Highly amusing to contrast these student protesters with such a movement.
Actually, I wonder why we are calling ideologues like Monckton 'sceptics'?
That implies rational intelligence.
A trait rarely on display amongst the climate deniers.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Greenwash and sustainability: A glimmer of hope for marketing and PR?
I recently blogged on my frustrations with PR companies not getting CR, which spawned a pubcast on the topic with Brendan May.
(Ethical Corporation also publishes a column called "Greenwasher", ten times a year in our print edition)
I wouldn't go so far as to say we've had an influence on this recent announcement, but the news is definitely a good sign.
The company making useful announcements about greenwash is The Publicis Groupe, which claims to be one of the largest advertising conglomerates of the world.
The firm says it is now "forbidding greenwashing among any of its companies". These include including Saatchi & Saatchi, Leo Burnett, Fallon, Starcom, MS&L, Digitas, and VivaKi.
The author of the blog post linked to above that announced the shift, Adam Werbach, has a fondness for hubris, and claims that this now means that "greenwashing is dead".
Not true at all I'm afraid, sorry Adam.
In fact, it may well get worse before it gets better.
Just because Shell, Exxon, Ford, and a few other companies now realise they can't oversell their environmental credentials, a few government regulatory bodies have made a small fuss, and Publicis has a new policy, that does not mean the end of greenwash.
I say it may get worse because there are lots of companies who have not yet grasped that the environment is a key business issue. (See recent Boston Consulting Group research for evidence)
This means there's likely a lot more greenwash to come yet.
Marketing departments will take a long time to get to grips with sustainability, that much is clear.
Whilst most greenwash is accidental, it will still be around for quite a while yet.
The challenge for companies like Publicis is in their business model.
For example, when Maurice Levy, CEO of Publicis Groupe says “...the values of our Groupe compel us to create honest, truthful communication campaigns" he is taking both a leap of leadership and a reputational risk.
What happens the next time a car company, or a big industrial/extractive firm, or an airline, wants to boast about some environmental achievement that's not really that impressive? What to do then? Turn down the account, the campaign, the business? Unlikely.
Ideally of course, Publicis should be able to persuade the client that the campaign is a bad idea, and suggest a better idea, or present the environmental claims in a truthful way.
The challenge will be when doing so negates the point of the ad or campaign in the first place, or the client doesn't buy the idea, or Publicis can't really think of a more compelling plan. So what then?
This is bold, impressive, leading committment by Publicis. We should applaud the sentiment. It will be fascinating to watch how it plays out under a combination of scrutiny and short term financial pressure.
(Ethical Corporation also publishes a column called "Greenwasher", ten times a year in our print edition)
I wouldn't go so far as to say we've had an influence on this recent announcement, but the news is definitely a good sign.
The company making useful announcements about greenwash is The Publicis Groupe, which claims to be one of the largest advertising conglomerates of the world.
The firm says it is now "forbidding greenwashing among any of its companies". These include including Saatchi & Saatchi, Leo Burnett, Fallon, Starcom, MS&L, Digitas, and VivaKi.
The author of the blog post linked to above that announced the shift, Adam Werbach, has a fondness for hubris, and claims that this now means that "greenwashing is dead".
Not true at all I'm afraid, sorry Adam.
In fact, it may well get worse before it gets better.
Just because Shell, Exxon, Ford, and a few other companies now realise they can't oversell their environmental credentials, a few government regulatory bodies have made a small fuss, and Publicis has a new policy, that does not mean the end of greenwash.
I say it may get worse because there are lots of companies who have not yet grasped that the environment is a key business issue. (See recent Boston Consulting Group research for evidence)
This means there's likely a lot more greenwash to come yet.
Marketing departments will take a long time to get to grips with sustainability, that much is clear.
Whilst most greenwash is accidental, it will still be around for quite a while yet.
The challenge for companies like Publicis is in their business model.
For example, when Maurice Levy, CEO of Publicis Groupe says “...the values of our Groupe compel us to create honest, truthful communication campaigns" he is taking both a leap of leadership and a reputational risk.
What happens the next time a car company, or a big industrial/extractive firm, or an airline, wants to boast about some environmental achievement that's not really that impressive? What to do then? Turn down the account, the campaign, the business? Unlikely.
Ideally of course, Publicis should be able to persuade the client that the campaign is a bad idea, and suggest a better idea, or present the environmental claims in a truthful way.
The challenge will be when doing so negates the point of the ad or campaign in the first place, or the client doesn't buy the idea, or Publicis can't really think of a more compelling plan. So what then?
This is bold, impressive, leading committment by Publicis. We should applaud the sentiment. It will be fascinating to watch how it plays out under a combination of scrutiny and short term financial pressure.
Saturday, December 05, 2009
Supply chains will come back to bite, but present an opportunity
On Thursday last week I attended a presentation by human rights lawyers who tackle big business.
The two lawyers, Paul Hoffman and Martyn Day, described their cases against large companies such as Unocal, Shell, Trafigura and others.
They are among a small handful of lawyers who are raising the risk stakes for companies world-wide.
As Martyn Day noted last week, such litigators are few and far between, but the largely student crowd at the event may indicate growing interest in swelling their limited ranks.
Human rights lawsuits are a growing risk for companies, that much is clear if you take a look at what's happening globally on the Business and Human Rights website.
Whilst a recent ruling related to the recently used 1789 Alien Tort Claims Act may considerable narrow it's scope or limit its use if it stands (according to Martyn Day on Friday), its clear companies need to pay attention to what's happening in emerging economies, where supply chains often live, or face unknown and unmanaged risks.
Here's a couple of examples as to why. This first one is a big South African waste company.
More importantly, the issue of general waste dumping may come to bite groups of companies, rather than individual firms.
The first example is likely just one company, as in the recent Trafigura case.
But class actions against groups of companies are not inconceivable in the future. In the end the Trafigura legal settlement included some 30,000 injured stakeholders.
If you read this shocking and emotive Der Spiegel story, you realise two things.
First, governments such as Germany's, are realising that EU Directives such as WEEE are having severe unintended consequences as waste is offshored en masse (since it's 60% + cheaper to send it abroad to the unknown, than recycle it properly in the EU).
Secondly, companies are increasingly being held morally and legally to account over what happens to goods they made after use. That's the point of take-back schemes.
But if the 'recycled' waste ends up poisoning children, companies will be rightfully open to increased moral censure and legal risk for not making sure disposal is done properly.
Supply chain ethical audits will soon be flowing downstream, as well as upstream.
The Spiegel article points out that on the information technology waste tips of Ghana, computers and their innards with "labels from the US Department of Defense, British authorities and companies like Barclays Bank and British Telecom", are being burned and are poisoning the poor.
Three years ago, we published an investigation on this topic.
Lots of other publications and media outlets are increasingly covering this issue of supply chain waste. We can't put it in landfill any more, and if it's not properly recycled the chances are strong it will end up being disposed of dangerously.
If you work for a company with looming supply chain liabilities like these, can I suggest two courses of action:
1) Show your colleagues and senior executives this Spiegel article and talk to them about what's happened to the reputation of Trafigura (a case study of malfeasance today)
2) Start thinking about how you can turn future and emerging downstream supply chain waste issues into opportunity in advance of NGO attention, lawsuits or media stories
Business is fabulous at finding solutions to difficult problems.
Closed loop recycling for electronics is a big challenge, but it can, will and must be done. Those companies who get in early, (and I don't just mean electronics manufacturers) will surely benefit in the longer term. And so will the children of Africa.
If we can't stop offshoring waste, why not create jobs in places such as Africa by building proper recycling facilities. After all, if commodity prices keep rising, (and they will) there's no reason why doing this can't be profitable.
(If you want to see how models that work for African jobs are being developed, check out the work of Advance Aid, and make a donation to them)
The two lawyers, Paul Hoffman and Martyn Day, described their cases against large companies such as Unocal, Shell, Trafigura and others.
They are among a small handful of lawyers who are raising the risk stakes for companies world-wide.
As Martyn Day noted last week, such litigators are few and far between, but the largely student crowd at the event may indicate growing interest in swelling their limited ranks.
Human rights lawsuits are a growing risk for companies, that much is clear if you take a look at what's happening globally on the Business and Human Rights website.
Whilst a recent ruling related to the recently used 1789 Alien Tort Claims Act may considerable narrow it's scope or limit its use if it stands (according to Martyn Day on Friday), its clear companies need to pay attention to what's happening in emerging economies, where supply chains often live, or face unknown and unmanaged risks.
Here's a couple of examples as to why. This first one is a big South African waste company.
More importantly, the issue of general waste dumping may come to bite groups of companies, rather than individual firms.
The first example is likely just one company, as in the recent Trafigura case.
But class actions against groups of companies are not inconceivable in the future. In the end the Trafigura legal settlement included some 30,000 injured stakeholders.
If you read this shocking and emotive Der Spiegel story, you realise two things.
First, governments such as Germany's, are realising that EU Directives such as WEEE are having severe unintended consequences as waste is offshored en masse (since it's 60% + cheaper to send it abroad to the unknown, than recycle it properly in the EU).
Secondly, companies are increasingly being held morally and legally to account over what happens to goods they made after use. That's the point of take-back schemes.
But if the 'recycled' waste ends up poisoning children, companies will be rightfully open to increased moral censure and legal risk for not making sure disposal is done properly.
Supply chain ethical audits will soon be flowing downstream, as well as upstream.
The Spiegel article points out that on the information technology waste tips of Ghana, computers and their innards with "labels from the US Department of Defense, British authorities and companies like Barclays Bank and British Telecom", are being burned and are poisoning the poor.
Three years ago, we published an investigation on this topic.
Lots of other publications and media outlets are increasingly covering this issue of supply chain waste. We can't put it in landfill any more, and if it's not properly recycled the chances are strong it will end up being disposed of dangerously.
If you work for a company with looming supply chain liabilities like these, can I suggest two courses of action:
1) Show your colleagues and senior executives this Spiegel article and talk to them about what's happened to the reputation of Trafigura (a case study of malfeasance today)
2) Start thinking about how you can turn future and emerging downstream supply chain waste issues into opportunity in advance of NGO attention, lawsuits or media stories
Business is fabulous at finding solutions to difficult problems.
Closed loop recycling for electronics is a big challenge, but it can, will and must be done. Those companies who get in early, (and I don't just mean electronics manufacturers) will surely benefit in the longer term. And so will the children of Africa.
If we can't stop offshoring waste, why not create jobs in places such as Africa by building proper recycling facilities. After all, if commodity prices keep rising, (and they will) there's no reason why doing this can't be profitable.
(If you want to see how models that work for African jobs are being developed, check out the work of Advance Aid, and make a donation to them)
The climate change emails scandal, a good analysis
Here's a great analysis of what these so-called leaks on climate science have been distorted by the mad right and the head-in-the-sand climate sceptics.
(And here's a good overview of the real science.
And the start of a good clear series is here, the embedded video is a great episode but you should watch them all)
Grist has some compelling stats on why these sceptics have caused a lot of damage.
In the view of the writer Geoffrey Lean, environmental NGOs have not seen off the challenge nearly effectively enough.
It's scary:
"Perhaps the first sign of the shift came six weeks ago when a Pew Research Center poll reported “a sharp decline in the percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising”—only 57 percent compared to 71 percent in April 2008 and 77 percent in the two previous years. Those who believed that humans were causing it dropped to 35 percent, from 41 to 50 percent in previous polls."
"...only 41 percent of Britons, concluded the survey for The Times, accepted as an established scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made."
I've got only one thing to say about climate change science:
If you felt a bit ill, and went to see 1000 doctors, and 999 of those doctors told you act in one way, or risk early death, and one of them said "don't worry", then what would you do?
(And here's a good overview of the real science.
And the start of a good clear series is here, the embedded video is a great episode but you should watch them all)
Grist has some compelling stats on why these sceptics have caused a lot of damage.
In the view of the writer Geoffrey Lean, environmental NGOs have not seen off the challenge nearly effectively enough.
It's scary:
"Perhaps the first sign of the shift came six weeks ago when a Pew Research Center poll reported “a sharp decline in the percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising”—only 57 percent compared to 71 percent in April 2008 and 77 percent in the two previous years. Those who believed that humans were causing it dropped to 35 percent, from 41 to 50 percent in previous polls."
"...only 41 percent of Britons, concluded the survey for The Times, accepted as an established scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made."
I've got only one thing to say about climate change science:
If you felt a bit ill, and went to see 1000 doctors, and 999 of those doctors told you act in one way, or risk early death, and one of them said "don't worry", then what would you do?
What is responsible lobbying? Ten ideas to consider
I've just come back from half a seminar at the excellent Doughty Centre for Corporate Responsibility at Cranfield.
David Grayson, the Center's director, had kindly invited me to take part in a seminar on what constitutes responsible lobbying.
The other invitees were from a wide range of academic, business, and consultancy firms.
Today's was a fascinating debate. I disagreed on occasion with some protagonists, all three from a lobbying background, on just how widespread negative lobbying and particularly 'astro-turfing' and pretend authentic commentary has become.
(They said it didn't work at all, companies always got caught, and it's not much of a problem, whilst I think we only know about it when companies get caught, and there is a lot going on we don't hear about. At the time, I don't think I made my points very clearly, and could have handled it better. A lesson learned.)
I digress.
The seminar hasn't finished yet, the aim is to come out with some practical ideas on this question and it continues later on today.
The aim is to inform academic thinking at Cranfield/Doughty and perhaps become part of future research and papers. (Doughty does some very good papers you should check out).
Here's a quick summary of what we discussed that might constitute principles for responsible lobbying, in no particular order, with some additions I've added :
1) Lobbying should based on real evidence from independent, credible sources
2) Transparency is vital. Lobbying positions should be clear, and obviously consistent with the values, aims and intentions of the company
3) Lobbying should not be outsourced to third parties (relates to my above point about nefarious activities that public affairs consultants can undertake on a company's behalf)
4) Lobbying should not be against the public interest
5) It should persuade by the force of argument rather than with money
6) Positions taken should be those any company would be happy standing up for in public
7) Responsible lobbying should not utilise inappropriate (favourable) access to politicians
8) It should not seek to persuade public servants to act outside their area of public duty
9) The motives for lobbying on a particular issue should be made clear at all times
10) Timeframes are important to consider. A short gain enabled by intense lobbying on an issue, for example, may not be to the medium or long term corporate advantage.
I couldn't attend the last part of the seminar, later on today, where ideas like this will be further debated. I'm sure something more sensible than the above will come out of it in note, paper, or report form. When it does I'll come back to this issue. It's a really important one that is not nearly discussed often enough.
David Grayson, the Center's director, had kindly invited me to take part in a seminar on what constitutes responsible lobbying.
The other invitees were from a wide range of academic, business, and consultancy firms.
Today's was a fascinating debate. I disagreed on occasion with some protagonists, all three from a lobbying background, on just how widespread negative lobbying and particularly 'astro-turfing' and pretend authentic commentary has become.
(They said it didn't work at all, companies always got caught, and it's not much of a problem, whilst I think we only know about it when companies get caught, and there is a lot going on we don't hear about. At the time, I don't think I made my points very clearly, and could have handled it better. A lesson learned.)
I digress.
The seminar hasn't finished yet, the aim is to come out with some practical ideas on this question and it continues later on today.
The aim is to inform academic thinking at Cranfield/Doughty and perhaps become part of future research and papers. (Doughty does some very good papers you should check out).
Here's a quick summary of what we discussed that might constitute principles for responsible lobbying, in no particular order, with some additions I've added :
1) Lobbying should based on real evidence from independent, credible sources
2) Transparency is vital. Lobbying positions should be clear, and obviously consistent with the values, aims and intentions of the company
3) Lobbying should not be outsourced to third parties (relates to my above point about nefarious activities that public affairs consultants can undertake on a company's behalf)
4) Lobbying should not be against the public interest
5) It should persuade by the force of argument rather than with money
6) Positions taken should be those any company would be happy standing up for in public
7) Responsible lobbying should not utilise inappropriate (favourable) access to politicians
8) It should not seek to persuade public servants to act outside their area of public duty
9) The motives for lobbying on a particular issue should be made clear at all times
10) Timeframes are important to consider. A short gain enabled by intense lobbying on an issue, for example, may not be to the medium or long term corporate advantage.
I couldn't attend the last part of the seminar, later on today, where ideas like this will be further debated. I'm sure something more sensible than the above will come out of it in note, paper, or report form. When it does I'll come back to this issue. It's a really important one that is not nearly discussed often enough.
Friday, December 04, 2009
MBAs and ethics: Let's hope they are not like consumers
I say this because as many of us know, consumers love saying they care about responsible business, but then fail to turn this idea into action when they buy.
Partly this is due to the fact that making ethical buying choices is not made easy enough, and partly it's due to apathy and not usually keeping issues related to CSR top of mind when shopping (which is understandable).
Let's hope MBA's are not echoing consumers on the apathy/outright lying front.
Some new research from Durham Business School and the Association of MBA's offers some cheering stats. The next generation of business leaders and managers are getting much keener on ethics, apparently.
The Post-Downturn MBA report, says (according to the press release, although I can't find the report on the web or the press release so I can't link to it, only an article about it, which take a different line from mine) that:
"just 10% of those graduating in the 1980s said that the curriculum examined corporate ethics to a large or very large extent. For those graduating in the 1990s, this figure rose to 16%. In contrast, almost half (49%) of those graduating in 2008-2009 said that ethics played a large or very large part in the curriculum, while 45% said the same about sustainability."
This is interesting. Unless the people surveyed are telling porkies, it's encouraging.
The report then says that:
"In terms of its importance in the current market conditions, alumni agreed that ethics have become important or very important (82%), whilst 75% said that corporate governance is now important or very important. Some 40% of business schools believe that to a “very large” extent, corporate social responsibility should underpin the actions of organisations."
Good to hear. CSR has gone mainstream in MBA's then? Maybe not, but penetration appears to be improving.
Business schools clearly need to raise their game though:
"When asked how the MBA could better prepare students post-downturn, almost one half (46%) of the respondents raised issues relating to sustainability or ethics."
This is not a new finding. What is surprising is how long business schools have taken to react to this sea change in demand. And some are saying they have integrated it, when they actually have not:
"The question was also raised as to the degree to which business schools are perceived to cover key issues such as ethics as part of the core curriculum. For example, whilst 46% of schools say they cover business ethics as part of the core programme, only 23% of alumni said this was the case. The same was true for recent graduates where only 30% thought that business ethics was part of the core programme."
This next finding may have Milton Friedman rolling in his grave:
"responses in the research indicate a shift away from the shareholder value- dominated perspective of business. The MBAs surveyed agreed to a large, or very large extent with statements such as "corporate social responsibility should underpin the actions of organisations," (54%) and "the MBA should adopt a stakeholder focus concerning all those affected by the actions of an organisation, rather than just a shareholder focus" (59%)."
However, one starts to smell a small rat when one reads this final quote I selected:
"Business schools, however, seem even more convinced that a new approach is necessary. Some 79% agreed to a large or very large extent that the MBA should adopt a stakeholder focus rather than a shareholder focus, while 80% agreed to a large or very large extent that corporate social responsibility should underpin the actions of organisations."
If that's the case, why haven't they done it sooner? Let's just hope this report gets widely read among deans.
I've heard it can take many years for academic curriculae to catch up with society. The rate of change has no doubt acceleratd in recent years. For MBA's, clearly, it can't evolve fast enough.
I've argued for years that a big part of the evolution of responsible busines is down to generational change in management. That much will not happen until folks with more modern ideas get into business at a senior level. We are seeing this begin to happen now.
What we now need is business schools to help it happen even faster.
It seems ethics in MBA teaching may become a competitive issue for them as well as a moral one, if demand is really this high. I hope so.
(It's a real shame the report is not freely available. I can't even find the press release on the web, since it was emailed to me and I can't post the PDF on here. But if you want the full report, contact Mark Stoddard at m.stoddard@mbaworld.com, +44 (0)20 7246 2697)
Partly this is due to the fact that making ethical buying choices is not made easy enough, and partly it's due to apathy and not usually keeping issues related to CSR top of mind when shopping (which is understandable).
Let's hope MBA's are not echoing consumers on the apathy/outright lying front.
Some new research from Durham Business School and the Association of MBA's offers some cheering stats. The next generation of business leaders and managers are getting much keener on ethics, apparently.
The Post-Downturn MBA report, says (according to the press release, although I can't find the report on the web or the press release so I can't link to it, only an article about it, which take a different line from mine) that:
"just 10% of those graduating in the 1980s said that the curriculum examined corporate ethics to a large or very large extent. For those graduating in the 1990s, this figure rose to 16%. In contrast, almost half (49%) of those graduating in 2008-2009 said that ethics played a large or very large part in the curriculum, while 45% said the same about sustainability."
This is interesting. Unless the people surveyed are telling porkies, it's encouraging.
The report then says that:
"In terms of its importance in the current market conditions, alumni agreed that ethics have become important or very important (82%), whilst 75% said that corporate governance is now important or very important. Some 40% of business schools believe that to a “very large” extent, corporate social responsibility should underpin the actions of organisations."
Good to hear. CSR has gone mainstream in MBA's then? Maybe not, but penetration appears to be improving.
Business schools clearly need to raise their game though:
"When asked how the MBA could better prepare students post-downturn, almost one half (46%) of the respondents raised issues relating to sustainability or ethics."
This is not a new finding. What is surprising is how long business schools have taken to react to this sea change in demand. And some are saying they have integrated it, when they actually have not:
"The question was also raised as to the degree to which business schools are perceived to cover key issues such as ethics as part of the core curriculum. For example, whilst 46% of schools say they cover business ethics as part of the core programme, only 23% of alumni said this was the case. The same was true for recent graduates where only 30% thought that business ethics was part of the core programme."
This next finding may have Milton Friedman rolling in his grave:
"responses in the research indicate a shift away from the shareholder value- dominated perspective of business. The MBAs surveyed agreed to a large, or very large extent with statements such as "corporate social responsibility should underpin the actions of organisations," (54%) and "the MBA should adopt a stakeholder focus concerning all those affected by the actions of an organisation, rather than just a shareholder focus" (59%)."
However, one starts to smell a small rat when one reads this final quote I selected:
"Business schools, however, seem even more convinced that a new approach is necessary. Some 79% agreed to a large or very large extent that the MBA should adopt a stakeholder focus rather than a shareholder focus, while 80% agreed to a large or very large extent that corporate social responsibility should underpin the actions of organisations."
If that's the case, why haven't they done it sooner? Let's just hope this report gets widely read among deans.
I've heard it can take many years for academic curriculae to catch up with society. The rate of change has no doubt acceleratd in recent years. For MBA's, clearly, it can't evolve fast enough.
I've argued for years that a big part of the evolution of responsible busines is down to generational change in management. That much will not happen until folks with more modern ideas get into business at a senior level. We are seeing this begin to happen now.
What we now need is business schools to help it happen even faster.
It seems ethics in MBA teaching may become a competitive issue for them as well as a moral one, if demand is really this high. I hope so.
(It's a real shame the report is not freely available. I can't even find the press release on the web, since it was emailed to me and I can't post the PDF on here. But if you want the full report, contact Mark Stoddard at m.stoddard@mbaworld.com, +44 (0)20 7246 2697)
Some good examples of how reporting is evolving
I've seen a couple of better ideas about communicating responsible business this last week.
First, a short 16 page PepsiCo UK and Ireland CR summary. Not a new idea, but this one is well done, accessible but not cheesy or patronising.
It's not perfect, could have had slightly better design and is cluttered in places, but it's a good way to begin evolving report data and information marketing in a more engaging way than a dull press release and the usual unreadable report (though these are improving and getting shorter).
The second is a new idea from BAA, the British Airport operating company. They plan to do away with the annual CR report, and produce some engaging papers, with some relevant report-like data in them too, about issues that affect stakeholders related to their business and how they operate.
I haven't see a final version of the initial one (it's still a draft) but from what I recall they plan six or so over a year.
It's an excellent idea, if executed well, and has to be a more engaging way to communicate with some stakeholders (not all!) than the standard report.
Worth checking out on the respective websites of the companies.
First, a short 16 page PepsiCo UK and Ireland CR summary. Not a new idea, but this one is well done, accessible but not cheesy or patronising.
It's not perfect, could have had slightly better design and is cluttered in places, but it's a good way to begin evolving report data and information marketing in a more engaging way than a dull press release and the usual unreadable report (though these are improving and getting shorter).
The second is a new idea from BAA, the British Airport operating company. They plan to do away with the annual CR report, and produce some engaging papers, with some relevant report-like data in them too, about issues that affect stakeholders related to their business and how they operate.
I haven't see a final version of the initial one (it's still a draft) but from what I recall they plan six or so over a year.
It's an excellent idea, if executed well, and has to be a more engaging way to communicate with some stakeholders (not all!) than the standard report.
Worth checking out on the respective websites of the companies.
More evidence on a greener China
From Paul French, China Editor, in Shanghai.
As mentioned previously I'm posting a few additional piece of evidence to support my forthcoming China Column in the December issue of Ethical Corporation on whether China 'got' green in 2009. Here's a further piece of interesting evidence from the Lowy Institute in Sydney.
This poll indicates that the environment and climate change are now a top concern of Chinese people followed by the related phenomena of water and food shortages.
I must acknowledge the American journalist and author James Fallows who first posted this information on his blog.
James is also a friend and lived in Beijing and Shanghai for a couple of years reporting on China for The Atlantic.
By way of apology I would heartily recommend anyone looking for a book on the current major issues and state of play in China and its likely future development to pick up a copy of Fallows's book Postcards From Tomorrow Square, a collection of his articles from China for The Atlantic, that is one of the most concise and spot on analyses of China published this year.
I'd also echo Fallows's reservations about survey data from China which tend to reflect the thinking and concerns of the better urbanised, wealthier and urban middle classes who are invariably 'on side' with the Party's agenda rather than surveys of what all China thinks. However, for my purposes the poll is significant.
If the respondents were parroting official views then environment and climate change come top.
If they weren't then they still come top showing that one or another people are more aware and concerned about this issues than previously and put them ahead of issues that receive more propagandist news coverage in China such as separatism and the supposed attempted of America to keep China down.
(Click to enlarge)
As mentioned previously I'm posting a few additional piece of evidence to support my forthcoming China Column in the December issue of Ethical Corporation on whether China 'got' green in 2009. Here's a further piece of interesting evidence from the Lowy Institute in Sydney.
This poll indicates that the environment and climate change are now a top concern of Chinese people followed by the related phenomena of water and food shortages.
I must acknowledge the American journalist and author James Fallows who first posted this information on his blog.
James is also a friend and lived in Beijing and Shanghai for a couple of years reporting on China for The Atlantic.
By way of apology I would heartily recommend anyone looking for a book on the current major issues and state of play in China and its likely future development to pick up a copy of Fallows's book Postcards From Tomorrow Square, a collection of his articles from China for The Atlantic, that is one of the most concise and spot on analyses of China published this year.
I'd also echo Fallows's reservations about survey data from China which tend to reflect the thinking and concerns of the better urbanised, wealthier and urban middle classes who are invariably 'on side' with the Party's agenda rather than surveys of what all China thinks. However, for my purposes the poll is significant.
If the respondents were parroting official views then environment and climate change come top.
If they weren't then they still come top showing that one or another people are more aware and concerned about this issues than previously and put them ahead of issues that receive more propagandist news coverage in China such as separatism and the supposed attempted of America to keep China down.
(Click to enlarge)
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Little Mouse, big trouble in China
From our China editor Paul French in Shanghai:
It all looked so good for Disney in China - finally permission to start planning a theme park near Shanghai on Chongming Island - Disney's first theme park on the Mainland and a compliment to their Hong Kong park.
Meanwhile Disney's English schools in China have been doing well and sales of Disney merchandise too.
Despite a recent backlash by some more nationalistic elements in China against foreign, and particularly American, companies it seemed the old adage of you 'don't mess with the mouse' still held true, even in the People's Republic of China.
Then a group of pesky students from Nanchang University decided to go and interview over 100 workers at a factory in Guangdong province making Disney products.
What they found was not so good - labour abuses, long hours, poor conditions. They compiled the interviews and issued a report with the catchy title (unless you're a Disney executive) - Mickey Mouse is no Longer Cute.
The article linked to here is in Chinese I'm afraid but recounts the major complaints of the workers - frequent accidents, poor safety standards, arbitrarily reduced wages for workers with no consultation on wage cuts.
Annoyingly for Disney the story was picked up by the widely read Jiefang Ribao (Liberation Daily) newspaper which is solidly Party and never reports anything the censors have a problem with.
http://www.jfdaily.com/a/697895.htm
It all looked so good for Disney in China - finally permission to start planning a theme park near Shanghai on Chongming Island - Disney's first theme park on the Mainland and a compliment to their Hong Kong park.
Meanwhile Disney's English schools in China have been doing well and sales of Disney merchandise too.
Despite a recent backlash by some more nationalistic elements in China against foreign, and particularly American, companies it seemed the old adage of you 'don't mess with the mouse' still held true, even in the People's Republic of China.
Then a group of pesky students from Nanchang University decided to go and interview over 100 workers at a factory in Guangdong province making Disney products.
What they found was not so good - labour abuses, long hours, poor conditions. They compiled the interviews and issued a report with the catchy title (unless you're a Disney executive) - Mickey Mouse is no Longer Cute.
The article linked to here is in Chinese I'm afraid but recounts the major complaints of the workers - frequent accidents, poor safety standards, arbitrarily reduced wages for workers with no consultation on wage cuts.
Annoyingly for Disney the story was picked up by the widely read Jiefang Ribao (Liberation Daily) newspaper which is solidly Party and never reports anything the censors have a problem with.
http://www.jfdaily.com/a/697895.htm
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Are PR companies fundamentally unable to understand corporate responsibility?
We published our first issue of Ethical Corporation magazine eight years ago this week.
Here's our first ever cover. We went for the shock factor back then!
It was pretty amateurish I must admit. But it got us started.
The day we printed it, Enron declared bankruptcy.
That turned out to be a useful event for the growth in concern about corporate ethics.
Since then, I've watched corporate social responsibility become corporate responsibility and recently, start to shift towards sustainable business.
The terminology all means pretty much the same thing in my book.
But the change in language use over the years has accompanied a shift towards CSR or whatever you want to call it, moving much more into the mainstream of business.
Still, despite this welcome sea change in how many companies view responsible business, the public relations industry continues to lag in many cases.
On the one hand you can't blame the marketing side of communications. High profile mistakes scared off a lot of companies.
And the complexity of communicating the notion that 'we're 10% better than we used to be', means selling sustainability within a limited communications space is extremely tough.
Green labels have proliferated. Many to the detriment of their users, with the odd exception.
So marketing CR is hard. But why still do the PR companies fail to grasp it?
Some tried to set up sustainability practices, but all of these are tiny.
Others tried to pretend it was a key part of what they do, but it's obvious they just don't grasp it.
I was at an event the other evening where this was painfully obvious.
Academics and corporate clients, poorly briefed and badly prepared, were rolled out to speak to a seasoned audience who, almost as one, were collectively rolling their eyes by half way through the evening at the simplistic clichéd platitudes put to them.
The PR company, meanwhile, had no clue this has happening, and continued to make solemn and utterly obvious statements to the audience about how they really saw CR as vital for clients. Clearly they didn't understand that it means a bit more than basic marketing (which doesn't work for CR) and sponsorship/philanthropy.
Their 'report' (awful marketing tosh) on the table in front of us all contradicted itself on its own cover, a true triumph in poorly thought through communications.
My theory is that this a cultural issue in PR companies. They do have some smart people in them (we all know effective PR can be very useful to companies), so its not an intelligence issue.
It must be because the senior people just don't want to acknowledge that CR puts them outside their traditional comfort zone.
And so they persist in not hiring experienced people who will really challenge clients, and their own paradigm of business and society.
I can't think of why else this would be the case.
Whilst those of us who have worked in CR for some time can get a good laugh out of the ineptitude of PR companies and their botched communication efforts, there is a serious point here.
Big PR firms, and their senior directors, have serious and considerable reach into big companies.
In many cases into areas the new sustainability knowledge has yet to penetrate.
They could do themselves, and their clients, a massive favour by understanding that they just don't yet get what CR means at a top level, and doing something about it.
One attendee, talking about flexible morals still being a big problem in business, quoted Groucho Marx at the recent PR event, "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."
An apt description of the upper echelons in big, and many small, PR companies.
Surely time to wake up and smell the Rainforest Alliance certified coffee? Here's to hoping.
Here's a pubcast on the topic I taped yesterday.
Here's our first ever cover. We went for the shock factor back then!
It was pretty amateurish I must admit. But it got us started.
The day we printed it, Enron declared bankruptcy.
That turned out to be a useful event for the growth in concern about corporate ethics.
Since then, I've watched corporate social responsibility become corporate responsibility and recently, start to shift towards sustainable business.
The terminology all means pretty much the same thing in my book.
But the change in language use over the years has accompanied a shift towards CSR or whatever you want to call it, moving much more into the mainstream of business.
Still, despite this welcome sea change in how many companies view responsible business, the public relations industry continues to lag in many cases.
On the one hand you can't blame the marketing side of communications. High profile mistakes scared off a lot of companies.
And the complexity of communicating the notion that 'we're 10% better than we used to be', means selling sustainability within a limited communications space is extremely tough.
Green labels have proliferated. Many to the detriment of their users, with the odd exception.
So marketing CR is hard. But why still do the PR companies fail to grasp it?
Some tried to set up sustainability practices, but all of these are tiny.
Others tried to pretend it was a key part of what they do, but it's obvious they just don't grasp it.
I was at an event the other evening where this was painfully obvious.
Academics and corporate clients, poorly briefed and badly prepared, were rolled out to speak to a seasoned audience who, almost as one, were collectively rolling their eyes by half way through the evening at the simplistic clichéd platitudes put to them.
The PR company, meanwhile, had no clue this has happening, and continued to make solemn and utterly obvious statements to the audience about how they really saw CR as vital for clients. Clearly they didn't understand that it means a bit more than basic marketing (which doesn't work for CR) and sponsorship/philanthropy.
Their 'report' (awful marketing tosh) on the table in front of us all contradicted itself on its own cover, a true triumph in poorly thought through communications.
My theory is that this a cultural issue in PR companies. They do have some smart people in them (we all know effective PR can be very useful to companies), so its not an intelligence issue.
It must be because the senior people just don't want to acknowledge that CR puts them outside their traditional comfort zone.
And so they persist in not hiring experienced people who will really challenge clients, and their own paradigm of business and society.
I can't think of why else this would be the case.
Whilst those of us who have worked in CR for some time can get a good laugh out of the ineptitude of PR companies and their botched communication efforts, there is a serious point here.
Big PR firms, and their senior directors, have serious and considerable reach into big companies.
In many cases into areas the new sustainability knowledge has yet to penetrate.
They could do themselves, and their clients, a massive favour by understanding that they just don't yet get what CR means at a top level, and doing something about it.
One attendee, talking about flexible morals still being a big problem in business, quoted Groucho Marx at the recent PR event, "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."
An apt description of the upper echelons in big, and many small, PR companies.
Surely time to wake up and smell the Rainforest Alliance certified coffee? Here's to hoping.
Here's a pubcast on the topic I taped yesterday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Sign up to my feed here
Posts
All Comments
