Many of us have of course, thought this for years.
Whilst detailed CR reporting won't be 'mandatory' any time soon, climate change related reporting looks like it will be.
Right now we just don't know how detailed it will need to be. Wording of guidelines is all-important.
CR reporting is of course, encouraged strongly in some countries (UK, Taiwan, Denmark, Sweden, France), and some kind of disclosure about it is becoming mandatory in places (listed companies in Denmark).
But regulated climate liability disclosure, where measurements are less subjective (although not without dispute) is definitely heading the way of large companies.
Two days ago Bloomberg reported thus: "SEC Sets Corporate Climate-Change Disclosure Standard", saying that:
"Guidelines approved today require companies to weigh the impact of climate-change laws and regulations when assessing what information to include in corporate filings, the commission said."
The medium-term question is: Will this be pushed on a 'comply or explain' basis over time, or simply demanded by law?
Bloomberg's report also notes that: "In the 3-to-2 vote, the commission said companies in the U.S. should also consider international accords, indirect effects such as lower demand for goods that produce greenhouse gases, and physical impacts such as the potential for increased insurance claims in coastal regions as a result of rising sea levels."
Friday, January 29, 2010
Cadbury takeover raises questions about ownership and purpose
There's been some discussion around about the meaning of ownership in the UK when it comes to our companies.
Mallen Baker's recent column on EthicalCorp.com asked "Is it time to change the ownership of our best companies?"
In the piece, he writes:
"...increasingly I'm coming to the view that it is easier to have a company founded on values and integrity when it is privately owned than when it is listed. Why?
Because the owner can make mistakes and learn from them without being fired the first time something goes wrong. Because the owner can show real leadership - in the way that Branson did, for instance, with pledging the profits from his transport companies into climate change programmes."
Following that, Mallen and I taped a podcast on the topic which you can find at this link.
And this morning Martin Wolf of the FT is asking some similar questions, before concluding that in the UK, sale at the highest price is just the way it is. This is not true elsewhere, he points out, in other large countries.
Wolf, the FT's chief economics commentator, says that: "Companies exist to provide valuable goods and services to their customers". I could not agree more.
It may well be that our 'traditional' (actually last 30-40 years only) model of profit maximisation for shareholder as purpose, will be called into question more and more.
The silver lining of the meltdown, you might say.
And I can't see the Asian tiger economies eagerly signing up 100% for the rough and tumble, more cut-throat capitalism of the UK or USA.
Is it time to 'bring on' the hybrid model? Where the stock market and dispersed shareholders/outside investors have their say and invest their capital, but have to share control with others, real owners, who have a longer term vision.
There are problems with this model of course. The potential for lack of clarity, in-fighting, and dictatorial owner-operator CEOs.
But clearly the 'three-four years ahead as long term' model of shareholder capitalism and private equity is not perfect either.
Might the answer lie somewhere in the messy middle? For some companies at least the answer must be yes.
Mallen Baker's recent column on EthicalCorp.com asked "Is it time to change the ownership of our best companies?"
In the piece, he writes:
"...increasingly I'm coming to the view that it is easier to have a company founded on values and integrity when it is privately owned than when it is listed. Why?
Because the owner can make mistakes and learn from them without being fired the first time something goes wrong. Because the owner can show real leadership - in the way that Branson did, for instance, with pledging the profits from his transport companies into climate change programmes."
Following that, Mallen and I taped a podcast on the topic which you can find at this link.
And this morning Martin Wolf of the FT is asking some similar questions, before concluding that in the UK, sale at the highest price is just the way it is. This is not true elsewhere, he points out, in other large countries.
Wolf, the FT's chief economics commentator, says that: "Companies exist to provide valuable goods and services to their customers". I could not agree more.
It may well be that our 'traditional' (actually last 30-40 years only) model of profit maximisation for shareholder as purpose, will be called into question more and more.
The silver lining of the meltdown, you might say.
And I can't see the Asian tiger economies eagerly signing up 100% for the rough and tumble, more cut-throat capitalism of the UK or USA.
Is it time to 'bring on' the hybrid model? Where the stock market and dispersed shareholders/outside investors have their say and invest their capital, but have to share control with others, real owners, who have a longer term vision.
There are problems with this model of course. The potential for lack of clarity, in-fighting, and dictatorial owner-operator CEOs.
But clearly the 'three-four years ahead as long term' model of shareholder capitalism and private equity is not perfect either.
Might the answer lie somewhere in the messy middle? For some companies at least the answer must be yes.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Fairtrade under attack in a new film about tea
A new documentary, showing in London soon, claims that:
"In the beautiful lush tea gardens of Kenya, India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, millions of tea-workers are plucking tea for multinational companies.
The companies promise consumers that they will act as responsible members of the global community; protecting the environment and ensuring good working and living conditions for the workers.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In the west, consumers have turned to Fairtrade believing it guarantees that the workers in the Fairtrade certified tea estates get a get a fair wage and better working conditions. This film tells the true story of how Fairtrade is not at all fair."
More about this new movie here.
"In the beautiful lush tea gardens of Kenya, India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, millions of tea-workers are plucking tea for multinational companies.
The companies promise consumers that they will act as responsible members of the global community; protecting the environment and ensuring good working and living conditions for the workers.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In the west, consumers have turned to Fairtrade believing it guarantees that the workers in the Fairtrade certified tea estates get a get a fair wage and better working conditions. This film tells the true story of how Fairtrade is not at all fair."
More about this new movie here.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
ISO 26,000 likely to be a big deal abroad
Whenever I've been at sustainability conferences in South America, the name ISO comes up all the time.
In the past it's been the 14,000 series, particularly 14,001.
Having not heard that much about it in the UK in the past, I was surprised at how big a deal it is in other countries too.
Interest has been particularly driven by the desire of many companies to pitch for contracts with the big multi-national firms, who have asked for it as a requirement in some suppliers.
In 2011, it may well be ISO 26,000 that makes the same waves.
Yet from what I can tell, 26,000 is a different kettle of fish from 14,000.
For a start, it's a 'guidance standard', and according to Wikipedia:
"This standard offers guidance on socially responsible behavior and possible actions; it does not contain requirements and, therefore, in contrast to ISO management system standards, is not certifiable."
So it seems surprising to me that already, we are seeing reports that companies who do not 'adhere' are losing business.
Knowing about it, and being able to show what you have done as a result, may be just as important as certification might have been under 14,000.
The Korean newspaper, the JoongAngDaily, reports today that:
"A local exporter of manufactured goods was puzzled when an importer demanded a report detailing how much the local firm is applying ISO 26000 standards to its management. The local company had heard of ISO 26000, a set of international standards covering corporate social responsibility, but had not yet even developed strategies to meet the requirements.
That led the importer to reach the conclusion that the local firm is not fully up to par in terms of social responsibility standards, so it exited a trading partnership with the local firm."
Now, this may be a badly reported article. Or it may be a 'one-off'. But it shows we should keep a close eye on ISO 26,000 and what it will mean particularly for B2B suppliers.
Paul Hohnen, an expert who has been closely involved in the 26,000 process, offers some thoughts on how it has come about, and what it might mean, in the opinion section of Ethical Corporation.
His analysis is worth our attention.
We're covering IS0 26,000 in-depth in the February 2010 edition of Ethical Corporation's print edition, which will be online in the next few days to subscribers.
Take a look at what we're covering at this link. And, of course, subscribe... ;)
In the past it's been the 14,000 series, particularly 14,001.
Having not heard that much about it in the UK in the past, I was surprised at how big a deal it is in other countries too.
Interest has been particularly driven by the desire of many companies to pitch for contracts with the big multi-national firms, who have asked for it as a requirement in some suppliers.
In 2011, it may well be ISO 26,000 that makes the same waves.
Yet from what I can tell, 26,000 is a different kettle of fish from 14,000.
For a start, it's a 'guidance standard', and according to Wikipedia:
"This standard offers guidance on socially responsible behavior and possible actions; it does not contain requirements and, therefore, in contrast to ISO management system standards, is not certifiable."
So it seems surprising to me that already, we are seeing reports that companies who do not 'adhere' are losing business.
Knowing about it, and being able to show what you have done as a result, may be just as important as certification might have been under 14,000.
The Korean newspaper, the JoongAngDaily, reports today that:
"A local exporter of manufactured goods was puzzled when an importer demanded a report detailing how much the local firm is applying ISO 26000 standards to its management. The local company had heard of ISO 26000, a set of international standards covering corporate social responsibility, but had not yet even developed strategies to meet the requirements.
That led the importer to reach the conclusion that the local firm is not fully up to par in terms of social responsibility standards, so it exited a trading partnership with the local firm."
Now, this may be a badly reported article. Or it may be a 'one-off'. But it shows we should keep a close eye on ISO 26,000 and what it will mean particularly for B2B suppliers.
Paul Hohnen, an expert who has been closely involved in the 26,000 process, offers some thoughts on how it has come about, and what it might mean, in the opinion section of Ethical Corporation.
His analysis is worth our attention.
We're covering IS0 26,000 in-depth in the February 2010 edition of Ethical Corporation's print edition, which will be online in the next few days to subscribers.
Take a look at what we're covering at this link. And, of course, subscribe... ;)
Monday, January 25, 2010
Sustainability and the Gillette test
I've often thought, as I've watched those razor ads evolve over the last twenty years, of where they will end up.
First it was one blade, then a blade and a moisturising strip. Then two blades, two and a strip, then three, plus the eternal strip, and then four.
Four blades and a moisturising strip.
"Where next?" I've been joking with friends? Five blades, six?
How many more can go blunt as quickly as two did?
What else can you add alongside the strip?
Of course, with three blades came the vibrating handle. This was of course, utter nonsense. It just made you more likely to cut yourself.
So where next for Gillette and the four bladed, sports-celebrity endorsed, vibrating, moisturising razor with heads so expensive they sit behind the counter?
Will it be the sustainable razor? What might that look like? I have been wondering.
Peter Knight, a columnist for Ethical Corporation, gave me pause for thought recently.
He bought a razor sharpener.
Peter notes that:
"My $9.99 model is super high-tech and needs a battery. You insert the razor into its mouth, press a button and in five second the blades are sharp. This is highly disruptive to the business model of Gillette et al. Think of the drop in revenue if every shaver was to follow my lead and get, say, twice as many shaves from their multiple blades. Think of the reduction of waste."
What a brilliant idea. For sustainable shave marketing to take hold, Gillette will surely need to figure out how to sell this device to us, and still make a hefty profit, keeping margins up, growth powering ahead and investors happy.
Is that possible? I don't know. It might not be. Can shaving be a service industry again? Hmm.
But shaving may be the acid test for consumer marketing, waste and sustainability, one day.
How silly can the marketing blurb get?
First it was one blade, then a blade and a moisturising strip. Then two blades, two and a strip, then three, plus the eternal strip, and then four.
Four blades and a moisturising strip.
"Where next?" I've been joking with friends? Five blades, six?
How many more can go blunt as quickly as two did?
What else can you add alongside the strip?
Of course, with three blades came the vibrating handle. This was of course, utter nonsense. It just made you more likely to cut yourself.
So where next for Gillette and the four bladed, sports-celebrity endorsed, vibrating, moisturising razor with heads so expensive they sit behind the counter?
Will it be the sustainable razor? What might that look like? I have been wondering.
Peter Knight, a columnist for Ethical Corporation, gave me pause for thought recently.
He bought a razor sharpener.
Peter notes that:
"My $9.99 model is super high-tech and needs a battery. You insert the razor into its mouth, press a button and in five second the blades are sharp. This is highly disruptive to the business model of Gillette et al. Think of the drop in revenue if every shaver was to follow my lead and get, say, twice as many shaves from their multiple blades. Think of the reduction of waste."
What a brilliant idea. For sustainable shave marketing to take hold, Gillette will surely need to figure out how to sell this device to us, and still make a hefty profit, keeping margins up, growth powering ahead and investors happy.
Is that possible? I don't know. It might not be. Can shaving be a service industry again? Hmm.
But shaving may be the acid test for consumer marketing, waste and sustainability, one day.
How silly can the marketing blurb get?
Kraft and Cadbury: Good for ethical certification of commodities
I posted a musing back in November on what the Kraft takeover of Cadbury could mean for sustainability.
Of course, since then Kraft has upped its offer and this has been accepted.
Provided it goes through, which it should, then the question now is what will this mean?
The Guardian has run a piece this morning giving voice to concerns that Cadbury's investment in Fairtrade could be under threat by the takeover. It quotes Kraft as responding that these should not be affected.
I taught the second class last week of the corporate responsibility course that I teach every year.
Kraft/Cadbury was high on the agenda for the students in our discussion seminar. What would happen?
Luckily for them, our guest lecturer, Brendan May of the Robertsbridge Group, a new consultancy, is a bit of an expert on certification, and a board member at the Rainforest Alliance.
Our conclusion in the group was that Kraft would indeed stick with Cadbury's commitments to fairtrade, but would also, as it has been doing for years, expand its work with Rainforest Alliance certification.
From the quotes in the Guardian, whilst nothing is yet 100% certain, it looks like this is what will happen. I'm pleased, it's definitely the right approach. What the certification mix looks like in five or ten years will be really interesting.
So whilst a great British icon is being swallowed, the result will be that what will be the world's largest foods company has a very serious plan to become increasingly sustainable, fast, with a mix of options to do so.
That is surely the silver lining for those of us in the ethical business world who felt a slight sting when the sale of Cadbury to Kraft was announced.
Of course, since then Kraft has upped its offer and this has been accepted.
Provided it goes through, which it should, then the question now is what will this mean?
The Guardian has run a piece this morning giving voice to concerns that Cadbury's investment in Fairtrade could be under threat by the takeover. It quotes Kraft as responding that these should not be affected.
I taught the second class last week of the corporate responsibility course that I teach every year.
Kraft/Cadbury was high on the agenda for the students in our discussion seminar. What would happen?
Luckily for them, our guest lecturer, Brendan May of the Robertsbridge Group, a new consultancy, is a bit of an expert on certification, and a board member at the Rainforest Alliance.
Our conclusion in the group was that Kraft would indeed stick with Cadbury's commitments to fairtrade, but would also, as it has been doing for years, expand its work with Rainforest Alliance certification.
From the quotes in the Guardian, whilst nothing is yet 100% certain, it looks like this is what will happen. I'm pleased, it's definitely the right approach. What the certification mix looks like in five or ten years will be really interesting.
So whilst a great British icon is being swallowed, the result will be that what will be the world's largest foods company has a very serious plan to become increasingly sustainable, fast, with a mix of options to do so.
That is surely the silver lining for those of us in the ethical business world who felt a slight sting when the sale of Cadbury to Kraft was announced.
In case you missed it, BRIC nations commit to voluntary emissions cuts
"During talks in New Delhi on Sunday, India, China, Brazil and South Africa agreed to submit formally their own voluntary carbon emission control plans to the United Nations by January 31.
At the climate summit in Copenhagen in December, all the big developed and developing countries agreed to limit their greenhouse gas emissions. Countries were then given until January 31 to submit their national goals on specific targets. The UN appeared to cast doubt last week on whether this deadline would be met.
However, the decision by the four countries, who call themselves the Basic group, to meet the deadline will help to put the frayed negotiations back on track."
For more, and for coverage of China's confused position, read this FT article.
At the climate summit in Copenhagen in December, all the big developed and developing countries agreed to limit their greenhouse gas emissions. Countries were then given until January 31 to submit their national goals on specific targets. The UN appeared to cast doubt last week on whether this deadline would be met.
However, the decision by the four countries, who call themselves the Basic group, to meet the deadline will help to put the frayed negotiations back on track."
For more, and for coverage of China's confused position, read this FT article.
Is too much financial attention being paid to climate change?
No clearly not. Or maybe yes, depending on how you look at it.
Your answer depends on how you decide to order the priorities you support, which is not easy when you consider the global challenges we face.
This article from the Financial Times makes an interesting, if not new, point.
In case you can't access it (damn publishers and their subscription fees :) here's an extract:
"In an annual letter released on Monday through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the world’s largest philanthropic organisation, Mr Gates expresses caution over the $100bn (€71bn, £62bn) in extra pledges by rich countries made to the developing world by 2020 at December’s Copenhagen climate summit.
He wrote: “If just 1 per cent of the $100bn goal came from vaccine funding, then 700,000 more children could die from preventable diseases. In the long run, not spending on health is a bad deal for the environment because improvements in health, including voluntary family planning, lead people to have smaller families, which in turn reduces the strain on the environment.”"
Bjorn Lomborg has made the same point for years. It's worth bearing in mind.
To be fair to Gates, he does believe in investing in low carbon technology. So it's not as if he (or Lomborg) are climate change deniers.
It's a question of how priorities get skewed as politicians react to headlines. Climate change is a hot topic, whilst vaccines and healthcare are older, complex, less headline friendly issues.
The health vs. climate change debate (ideally we do both, in a balanced way) is a bit like the question of whether pouring aid alone into disaster zones such as Haiti is the best idea.
The long term approach is to encourage jobs and institutional development, (which lead to better building standards, for example) rather than ignore the country until disaster strikes.
Your answer depends on how you decide to order the priorities you support, which is not easy when you consider the global challenges we face.
This article from the Financial Times makes an interesting, if not new, point.
In case you can't access it (damn publishers and their subscription fees :) here's an extract:
"In an annual letter released on Monday through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the world’s largest philanthropic organisation, Mr Gates expresses caution over the $100bn (€71bn, £62bn) in extra pledges by rich countries made to the developing world by 2020 at December’s Copenhagen climate summit.
He wrote: “If just 1 per cent of the $100bn goal came from vaccine funding, then 700,000 more children could die from preventable diseases. In the long run, not spending on health is a bad deal for the environment because improvements in health, including voluntary family planning, lead people to have smaller families, which in turn reduces the strain on the environment.”"
Bjorn Lomborg has made the same point for years. It's worth bearing in mind.
To be fair to Gates, he does believe in investing in low carbon technology. So it's not as if he (or Lomborg) are climate change deniers.
It's a question of how priorities get skewed as politicians react to headlines. Climate change is a hot topic, whilst vaccines and healthcare are older, complex, less headline friendly issues.
The health vs. climate change debate (ideally we do both, in a balanced way) is a bit like the question of whether pouring aid alone into disaster zones such as Haiti is the best idea.
The long term approach is to encourage jobs and institutional development, (which lead to better building standards, for example) rather than ignore the country until disaster strikes.
The bank bonus debate risks missing the key point
Goldman Sachs in the UK is limiting pay and bonuses to £1 million pounds each for its UK partners.
Others in the company will earn more, much more. The idea is that senior management shows leadership.
This means they will earn a lot less than counterparts elsewhere for the banks success in 2009.
The shift is a response to both the UK Government's call for restraint, and perhaps spurred on by the plans announced last month to tax bonuses at 50% over £25,000.
The company will pay hundreds of millions in tax in a one-off UK tax too, according to the BBC.
All this debate about bonuses is of course, right and proper.
But it does risk BECOMING the debate, when systemic issues around how banks are regulated are much more important.
I still am not sure what to think about the size of banks and the discussion about whether their size should be limited.
Much as it would be nice to dream of a time when we return to smaller, local banks, with limited market powers, I fear it may be too late for that.
A connected and competitive world may indeed need big global banks to cope with the challenges ahead for providing finance.
Some of the world's biggest banks are Chinese, for example, and it's unlikely they will be persuaded by the 'small is beautiful' idea.
I'm still finishing "Fool's Gold" by Gillian Tett of the FT, so hoping to become slightly better informed after trying to absorb it all.
But the risk of focusing all the time in the media on bonuses, is that we seem to have forgotten that the real issue is how banks are capitalised, regulated, incentivised and managed.
That's where focus is needed. As Gillian Tett points out in "Fool's Gold", pre-2008 many big banks were selling products their management did not understand. The ones that are left standing alone appear to be the ones which did, at least to some degree, understand risk.
Others in the company will earn more, much more. The idea is that senior management shows leadership.
This means they will earn a lot less than counterparts elsewhere for the banks success in 2009.
The shift is a response to both the UK Government's call for restraint, and perhaps spurred on by the plans announced last month to tax bonuses at 50% over £25,000.
The company will pay hundreds of millions in tax in a one-off UK tax too, according to the BBC.
All this debate about bonuses is of course, right and proper.
But it does risk BECOMING the debate, when systemic issues around how banks are regulated are much more important.
I still am not sure what to think about the size of banks and the discussion about whether their size should be limited.
Much as it would be nice to dream of a time when we return to smaller, local banks, with limited market powers, I fear it may be too late for that.
A connected and competitive world may indeed need big global banks to cope with the challenges ahead for providing finance.
Some of the world's biggest banks are Chinese, for example, and it's unlikely they will be persuaded by the 'small is beautiful' idea.
I'm still finishing "Fool's Gold" by Gillian Tett of the FT, so hoping to become slightly better informed after trying to absorb it all.
But the risk of focusing all the time in the media on bonuses, is that we seem to have forgotten that the real issue is how banks are capitalised, regulated, incentivised and managed.
That's where focus is needed. As Gillian Tett points out in "Fool's Gold", pre-2008 many big banks were selling products their management did not understand. The ones that are left standing alone appear to be the ones which did, at least to some degree, understand risk.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Business and NGOs helping in Haiti
It goes almost without saying that the growing crisis in Haiti is shocking all of us.
A sobering reminder of how tenous a grip on life is for many. Haiti has it tough enough without this happening.
It puts the banking crisis into serious perspective, yet it will get less attention.
The Financial Times has published a piece today which we tried to help them with, on what companies are doing in response:
"On Friday evening corporate donations to Haiti in cash and other aid known to the FT totalled about $21m. General Electric, the US conglomerate, on Thursday said it was giving $2.5m towards the relief efforts in Haiti, while the banks including Citigroup, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Crédit Agricole, Goldman Sachs, Société Générale and Jefferies made donations worth millions of dollars."
"Other corporate donations include bottled water from Nestlé, medicines from drugmaker AstraZeneca, and a $500,000 pledge from Unilever to the United Nations’ World Food Programme. Deutsche Post DHL said it had deployed a disaster response team to provide logistical support, while Ericsson said it would send telecom equipment to assist relief work."
I just hope that the money can be distributed as fast as possible. One organisation that is seeking to speed up how disaster relief is utilised is AdvanceAid, an NGO which Ethical Corporation supports wherever we can. Take a look at their work here and make a donation if you can.
We donate all our corporate stakeholder engagement interview fees to AdvanceAid. Every little amount helps them with their important work.
For Haiti-specific donations, the following links may be of use to readers:
UNICEF - www.unicef.org.uk
ActionAid - www.actionaid.org.uk
British Red Cross - www.redcross.org.uk
Oxfam - www.oxfam.org.uk
World Vision - www.worldvision.org.uk
Save the Children UK - www.savethechildren.org.uk
Action Against Hunger - www.actionagainsthunger.org.uk
Disaster Emergency Committee (DEC) - www.dec.org.uk
Merlin - www.merlin.org.uk
Salvation Army - www.salvationarmy.org.uk
A sobering reminder of how tenous a grip on life is for many. Haiti has it tough enough without this happening.
It puts the banking crisis into serious perspective, yet it will get less attention.
The Financial Times has published a piece today which we tried to help them with, on what companies are doing in response:
"On Friday evening corporate donations to Haiti in cash and other aid known to the FT totalled about $21m. General Electric, the US conglomerate, on Thursday said it was giving $2.5m towards the relief efforts in Haiti, while the banks including Citigroup, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Crédit Agricole, Goldman Sachs, Société Générale and Jefferies made donations worth millions of dollars."
"Other corporate donations include bottled water from Nestlé, medicines from drugmaker AstraZeneca, and a $500,000 pledge from Unilever to the United Nations’ World Food Programme. Deutsche Post DHL said it had deployed a disaster response team to provide logistical support, while Ericsson said it would send telecom equipment to assist relief work."
I just hope that the money can be distributed as fast as possible. One organisation that is seeking to speed up how disaster relief is utilised is AdvanceAid, an NGO which Ethical Corporation supports wherever we can. Take a look at their work here and make a donation if you can.
We donate all our corporate stakeholder engagement interview fees to AdvanceAid. Every little amount helps them with their important work.
For Haiti-specific donations, the following links may be of use to readers:
UNICEF - www.unicef.org.uk
ActionAid - www.actionaid.org.uk
British Red Cross - www.redcross.org.uk
Oxfam - www.oxfam.org.uk
World Vision - www.worldvision.org.uk
Save the Children UK - www.savethechildren.org.uk
Action Against Hunger - www.actionagainsthunger.org.uk
Disaster Emergency Committee (DEC) - www.dec.org.uk
Merlin - www.merlin.org.uk
Salvation Army - www.salvationarmy.org.uk
Friday, January 15, 2010
Key industries and issues analysed Ethical Corp's Feb edition
Here below are some highlights of what's coming up in Ethical Corporation's February 2010 issue.
Features
1) Copenhagen special report
An 8-page in depth analysis of the Copenhagen climate summit and what it means for business.
Interviews and comment
• Some background to what happened at Copenhagen and some behind the scenes insight into what happened before and during the summit.
• Focus on how the summit's outcomes will impact on what companies need now to be thinking about in terms of climate change, and giving examples of how it will affect best practice strategy.
Analysis of the accord
• What are the big picture, macro-level implications at a national level (in brief)
• How are companies operating in different sectors going to be affected?
• Reaction from NGOs and companies: are the outcomes of the summit what they wanted? or expected?
Focus on the reaction from the right in the US from Ethical Corporation columnist Jon Entine.
Data and analysis from Ethical Corporation’s research team.
2 Cars – have they really improved?
• A new report ranks car manufacturers by sustainability. Toyota and BMW leaders. GM the laggard.
• What are the leading car companies doing?
• Are they taking advantage of the opportunities from developing low/non emissions cars?
• How is the approach from US/European/Asian manufacturers differing?
Plus an in-depth interview with one of India’s leading entrepreneurs Chetan Maini, deputy chairman and CTO, Reva Electric Car Company.
Country briefing – Germany
The first in a regular series of 8 page country briefings, incorporating the best research and statistics from Ethical Corporation’s team, and comment and analysis from the leading companies.
• What are the big CR issues in Germany and which companies are the leaders.
• Case studies of the some of the big players.
• NGO viewpoints
• Analysis of the political situation and how this impacts on corporate sustainability from Ethical Corporation’s politics editor.
Strategy and management
Special focus on ISO 26000
• ISO’s new 26000 voluntary guidance standard on social responsibility will be released in 2010.
• It’s designed to “encourage voluntary commitment to social responsibility and lead to common guidance on concepts, definitions and methods of evaluation”.
• What’s it going to be about? Who will be affected? What do companies make of it?
• Plus personal insight from leading consultant Paul Hohnen, who examines the background to the standard’s development and speculates on its eventual impact.
CRwatch
Our regular roundup of what the NGOs, consultants and voluntary sector programmes are up to, with highlights from new corporate responsibility and sustainability initiatives from companies large and small.
Columnists
The usual pithy comment from our regulars Mallen Baker, Paul French and Peter Knight, and introducing our new columnist Brendan May who will be writing – amongst other issues – about communications and corporate strategy.
Review
Alongside the usual roundup of business school news and some suggested new reading February’s corporate responsibility report reviews will be of the latest offerings from Monsanto and Deloitte.
To read all these, and more, when the magazine comes out and the website is updated in a couple of weeks, you need sign up for a print and online subscription, here.
For web-only subscription options, take a look here.
Features
1) Copenhagen special report
An 8-page in depth analysis of the Copenhagen climate summit and what it means for business.
Interviews and comment
• Some background to what happened at Copenhagen and some behind the scenes insight into what happened before and during the summit.
• Focus on how the summit's outcomes will impact on what companies need now to be thinking about in terms of climate change, and giving examples of how it will affect best practice strategy.
Analysis of the accord
• What are the big picture, macro-level implications at a national level (in brief)
• How are companies operating in different sectors going to be affected?
• Reaction from NGOs and companies: are the outcomes of the summit what they wanted? or expected?
Focus on the reaction from the right in the US from Ethical Corporation columnist Jon Entine.
Data and analysis from Ethical Corporation’s research team.
2 Cars – have they really improved?
• A new report ranks car manufacturers by sustainability. Toyota and BMW leaders. GM the laggard.
• What are the leading car companies doing?
• Are they taking advantage of the opportunities from developing low/non emissions cars?
• How is the approach from US/European/Asian manufacturers differing?
Plus an in-depth interview with one of India’s leading entrepreneurs Chetan Maini, deputy chairman and CTO, Reva Electric Car Company.
Country briefing – Germany
The first in a regular series of 8 page country briefings, incorporating the best research and statistics from Ethical Corporation’s team, and comment and analysis from the leading companies.
• What are the big CR issues in Germany and which companies are the leaders.
• Case studies of the some of the big players.
• NGO viewpoints
• Analysis of the political situation and how this impacts on corporate sustainability from Ethical Corporation’s politics editor.
Strategy and management
Special focus on ISO 26000
• ISO’s new 26000 voluntary guidance standard on social responsibility will be released in 2010.
• It’s designed to “encourage voluntary commitment to social responsibility and lead to common guidance on concepts, definitions and methods of evaluation”.
• What’s it going to be about? Who will be affected? What do companies make of it?
• Plus personal insight from leading consultant Paul Hohnen, who examines the background to the standard’s development and speculates on its eventual impact.
CRwatch
Our regular roundup of what the NGOs, consultants and voluntary sector programmes are up to, with highlights from new corporate responsibility and sustainability initiatives from companies large and small.
Columnists
The usual pithy comment from our regulars Mallen Baker, Paul French and Peter Knight, and introducing our new columnist Brendan May who will be writing – amongst other issues – about communications and corporate strategy.
Review
Alongside the usual roundup of business school news and some suggested new reading February’s corporate responsibility report reviews will be of the latest offerings from Monsanto and Deloitte.
To read all these, and more, when the magazine comes out and the website is updated in a couple of weeks, you need sign up for a print and online subscription, here.
For web-only subscription options, take a look here.
Expert debate on responsible water stewardship
A couple of months ago we co-hosted an excellent and fascinating debate with PepsiCo UK on global water issues being faced by large companies.
The roundtable featured 16 or so heavyweight experts from NGOs, academia, think-tanks, industry groups and companies such as Marks and Spencer, IBM and Sainsbury's.
Over 90 minutes, many of the key issues facing companies, and what they are doing about them, were debated in detail, along with the challenges.
The report from the event is available at this link. If you are interested in water, it should be useful.
The roundtable featured 16 or so heavyweight experts from NGOs, academia, think-tanks, industry groups and companies such as Marks and Spencer, IBM and Sainsbury's.
Over 90 minutes, many of the key issues facing companies, and what they are doing about them, were debated in detail, along with the challenges.
The report from the event is available at this link. If you are interested in water, it should be useful.
Useful case studies on greener supply chains
This posting, entitled "15 Green Supply Chain Studies You Should Know About" may be useful for some readers.
Greener (as I prefer to call them) supply chains are clearly key to cutting emissions, particularly in emerging economies reliant (as we are) on fossil fuels. If we can't yet stop those several coal power stations a week being built, we can at least encourage our supply chain to be as efficient as possible while we wait for greener power supply options.
Ethical Corporation held a conference on this top (one of many) last year. The details are here.
And our forthcoming UK climate/business conference will no doubt be packed full of practical examples.
More about that soon on the EthicalCorp.com website. Meantime, this event may be of interest to some readers.
And of course, I hope some blog readers will enter their company for the first Ethical Corporation business first awards in May. The deadline is approaching fast.
Greener (as I prefer to call them) supply chains are clearly key to cutting emissions, particularly in emerging economies reliant (as we are) on fossil fuels. If we can't yet stop those several coal power stations a week being built, we can at least encourage our supply chain to be as efficient as possible while we wait for greener power supply options.
Ethical Corporation held a conference on this top (one of many) last year. The details are here.
And our forthcoming UK climate/business conference will no doubt be packed full of practical examples.
More about that soon on the EthicalCorp.com website. Meantime, this event may be of interest to some readers.
And of course, I hope some blog readers will enter their company for the first Ethical Corporation business first awards in May. The deadline is approaching fast.
Lessons from teaching corporate responsibility
I taught my first class tonight of the new CR module of the MSC Corporate Governance and Ethics at Birkbeck College, University of London.
It's the second year I have taught it and the plan for 2010 is half way down this posting from a couple of weeks back.
I try to make it as interactive as possible and luckily have guest 'speakers' scheduled from JP Morgan, Boots, KPMG, Accenture, my own team at Ethical Corporation and my favourite NGO, AdvanceAid.
Tonight I was trying to cover a potted history of the corporate responsibility movement, dating from the 19th century to the present day.
If any readers would like a copy of the slides you can get them at this link on SlideShare.
I'd be interested in comments as to anything I might have missed.
I learned a valuable lesson about glib comments tonight.
I made an off-the-cuff remark about the effectiveness of a particular well known corporate responsibility initiative.
I think I'm right in what I said, broadly speaking, but I didn't provide any evidence on that example.
Lo and behold, who happens to be in the class? An employee from that very initiative! This got a good laugh from the audience of MSC students when he mentioned this.
He, of course, objected to my comment.
I explained my position was based on conversations with sources I trust who know the area inside out but I still regretted the casualness of my original statement.
It re-inforced something I should have remembered: That in the world of corporate responsibility, you have to be careful what you say, and how you say it.
So much is in the eye of the beholder, and so much is still open to dispute (definitions of what constitutes meaningful progress for example) that one should consider words carefully.
One habit I seek to correct is the occasional offhand remark about something important. A lesson learned for next week.
Tonight's lecture slides are also below: (the font is a bit small here, it's bigger on the slideshare link above)
It's the second year I have taught it and the plan for 2010 is half way down this posting from a couple of weeks back.
I try to make it as interactive as possible and luckily have guest 'speakers' scheduled from JP Morgan, Boots, KPMG, Accenture, my own team at Ethical Corporation and my favourite NGO, AdvanceAid.
Tonight I was trying to cover a potted history of the corporate responsibility movement, dating from the 19th century to the present day.
If any readers would like a copy of the slides you can get them at this link on SlideShare.
I'd be interested in comments as to anything I might have missed.
I learned a valuable lesson about glib comments tonight.
I made an off-the-cuff remark about the effectiveness of a particular well known corporate responsibility initiative.
I think I'm right in what I said, broadly speaking, but I didn't provide any evidence on that example.
Lo and behold, who happens to be in the class? An employee from that very initiative! This got a good laugh from the audience of MSC students when he mentioned this.
He, of course, objected to my comment.
I explained my position was based on conversations with sources I trust who know the area inside out but I still regretted the casualness of my original statement.
It re-inforced something I should have remembered: That in the world of corporate responsibility, you have to be careful what you say, and how you say it.
So much is in the eye of the beholder, and so much is still open to dispute (definitions of what constitutes meaningful progress for example) that one should consider words carefully.
One habit I seek to correct is the occasional offhand remark about something important. A lesson learned for next week.
Tonight's lecture slides are also below: (the font is a bit small here, it's bigger on the slideshare link above)
Lecture One Introduction To Cr
View more presentations from Tobiaswebb.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Google's statement on China
It's all over the news that Google is apparently attempting to stand up to Chinese censorship of the web in China.
In case you missed it, here's their official statement (some elements of the press are no doubt getting it wrong!)
"A new approach to China
Posted: 12 Jan 2010 03:09 PM PST
Like many other well-known organizations, we face cyber attacks of varying degrees on a regular basis. In mid-December, we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google. However, it soon became clear that what at first appeared to be solely a security incident--albeit a significant one--was something quite different.
First, this attack was not just on Google. As part of our investigation we have discovered that at least twenty other large companies from a wide range of businesses--including the Internet, finance, technology, media and chemical sectors--have been similarly targeted. We are currently in the process of notifying those companies, and we are also working with the relevant U.S. authorities.
Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective. Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves.
Third, as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties. These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google, but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users' computers.
We have already used information gained from this attack to make infrastructure and architectural improvements that enhance security for Google and for our users. In terms of individual users, we would advise people to deploy reputable anti-virus and anti-spyware programs on their computers, to install patches for their operating systems and to update their web browsers. Always be cautious when clicking on links appearing in instant messages and emails, or when asked to share personal information like passwords online. You can read more here about our cyber-security recommendations. People wanting to learn more about these kinds of attacks can read this U.S. government report (PDF), Nart Villeneuve's blog and this presentation on the GhostNet spying incident.
We have taken the unusual step of sharing information about these attacks with a broad audience not just because of the security and human rights implications of what we have unearthed, but also because this information goes to the heart of a much bigger global debate about freedom of speech. In the last two decades, China's economic reform programs and its citizens' entrepreneurial flair have lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese people out of poverty. Indeed, this great nation is at the heart of much economic progress and development in the world today.
We launched Google.cn in January 2006 in the belief that the benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor some results. At the time we made clear that "we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services. If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China."
These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered--combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web--have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.
The decision to review our business operations in China has been incredibly hard, and we know that it will have potentially far-reaching consequences. We want to make clear that this move was driven by our executives in the United States, without the knowledge or involvement of our employees in China who have worked incredibly hard to make Google.cn the success it is today. We are committed to working responsibly to resolve the very difficult issues raised.
Posted by David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer'
In case you missed it, here's their official statement (some elements of the press are no doubt getting it wrong!)
"A new approach to China
Posted: 12 Jan 2010 03:09 PM PST
Like many other well-known organizations, we face cyber attacks of varying degrees on a regular basis. In mid-December, we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google. However, it soon became clear that what at first appeared to be solely a security incident--albeit a significant one--was something quite different.
First, this attack was not just on Google. As part of our investigation we have discovered that at least twenty other large companies from a wide range of businesses--including the Internet, finance, technology, media and chemical sectors--have been similarly targeted. We are currently in the process of notifying those companies, and we are also working with the relevant U.S. authorities.
Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective. Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves.
Third, as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties. These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google, but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users' computers.
We have already used information gained from this attack to make infrastructure and architectural improvements that enhance security for Google and for our users. In terms of individual users, we would advise people to deploy reputable anti-virus and anti-spyware programs on their computers, to install patches for their operating systems and to update their web browsers. Always be cautious when clicking on links appearing in instant messages and emails, or when asked to share personal information like passwords online. You can read more here about our cyber-security recommendations. People wanting to learn more about these kinds of attacks can read this U.S. government report (PDF), Nart Villeneuve's blog and this presentation on the GhostNet spying incident.
We have taken the unusual step of sharing information about these attacks with a broad audience not just because of the security and human rights implications of what we have unearthed, but also because this information goes to the heart of a much bigger global debate about freedom of speech. In the last two decades, China's economic reform programs and its citizens' entrepreneurial flair have lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese people out of poverty. Indeed, this great nation is at the heart of much economic progress and development in the world today.
We launched Google.cn in January 2006 in the belief that the benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor some results. At the time we made clear that "we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services. If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China."
These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered--combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web--have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.
The decision to review our business operations in China has been incredibly hard, and we know that it will have potentially far-reaching consequences. We want to make clear that this move was driven by our executives in the United States, without the knowledge or involvement of our employees in China who have worked incredibly hard to make Google.cn the success it is today. We are committed to working responsibly to resolve the very difficult issues raised.
Posted by David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer'
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
TV discussion about Barrick Gold in Argentina and Peru
A few months ago I reviewed a documentary "Mirages of El Dorado" on Press TV, the Iranian version of CNN or Al-Jazeera.
It seemed to have come out in 2008, but for some reason we reviewed it on the channel at the end of last year. Perhaps that was when it came over to Europe.
The documentary, which is powerfully shot but quite flawed, is still worth watching if you see it on your DVD rental website or in Blockbuster video.
Here's the discussion we had below, with a fair bit of footage from the film, which gives you a good flavour of what it's all about.
When you look at projects like this, and the claims and counter claims on both sides, it serves as reminder of how complex these issues are.
One thing is for sure though, Barrick Gold has not demonstrated it really understands stakeholder engagement very well at all.
The company will loathe the documentary, but it should at least teach them that talking to stakeholders is incredibly important.
The trailer for the film is here:
It seemed to have come out in 2008, but for some reason we reviewed it on the channel at the end of last year. Perhaps that was when it came over to Europe.
The documentary, which is powerfully shot but quite flawed, is still worth watching if you see it on your DVD rental website or in Blockbuster video.
Here's the discussion we had below, with a fair bit of footage from the film, which gives you a good flavour of what it's all about.
When you look at projects like this, and the claims and counter claims on both sides, it serves as reminder of how complex these issues are.
One thing is for sure though, Barrick Gold has not demonstrated it really understands stakeholder engagement very well at all.
The company will loathe the documentary, but it should at least teach them that talking to stakeholders is incredibly important.
The trailer for the film is here:
Monday, January 11, 2010
In the non-business of Football, Arsenal are a responsible icon
I say 'non-business' because most football clubs are not viable businesses.
The debt racked up by the likes of Real Madrid, Chelsea and Manchester United is the stuff of legend.
In some cases it can be more than double the annual turnover. Treble, even.
If they were real companies or countries their bonds would be rated as junk.
This article from the Guardian shows the extent of the football spending craziness.
But also shows why Arsenal's manager, Arsene Wenger, is a beacon of hope for responsible management in top flight football.
Here's a great quote from the piece:
""Professional football is about winning and balancing the budget. That's the basic rule, one I fought for. All the rest is half-cheating. For every club it has to be the same. I always pleaded for financial fair play. The clubs belong to the fans. That's all I feel my responsibility is, to keep the club in good financial condition.""
In an unusual industry, Wenger is as ethical leader as you can get. He actually refuses to spend the £30 odd million in his transfer budget rather than compromise his ethics. Now that's leadership.
And yes, I am an Arsenal fan. But tell me I'm wrong...:)
The debt racked up by the likes of Real Madrid, Chelsea and Manchester United is the stuff of legend.
In some cases it can be more than double the annual turnover. Treble, even.
If they were real companies or countries their bonds would be rated as junk.
This article from the Guardian shows the extent of the football spending craziness.
But also shows why Arsenal's manager, Arsene Wenger, is a beacon of hope for responsible management in top flight football.
Here's a great quote from the piece:
""Professional football is about winning and balancing the budget. That's the basic rule, one I fought for. All the rest is half-cheating. For every club it has to be the same. I always pleaded for financial fair play. The clubs belong to the fans. That's all I feel my responsibility is, to keep the club in good financial condition.""
In an unusual industry, Wenger is as ethical leader as you can get. He actually refuses to spend the £30 odd million in his transfer budget rather than compromise his ethics. Now that's leadership.
And yes, I am an Arsenal fan. But tell me I'm wrong...:)
Climate change in the media: Not yet on the big map
The Daily Climate (probably the best daily climate change newsletter) has looked at what impact climate change stories made in 2009 on the 'global news map'
The results are intriguing. Not what you would think.
The article also offers a great who's who of environmental journalists.
Despite the build up to and the events of Copenhagen, the map (below) and in larger form here might show us partly why real action on climate change is slow to come.
If it doesn't register on the news map, does it matter to politicians? Clearly it does matter to many of them.
But elections are still fought and won on other issues, if the news map is anything to go by.
The results are intriguing. Not what you would think.
The article also offers a great who's who of environmental journalists.
Despite the build up to and the events of Copenhagen, the map (below) and in larger form here might show us partly why real action on climate change is slow to come.
If it doesn't register on the news map, does it matter to politicians? Clearly it does matter to many of them.
But elections are still fought and won on other issues, if the news map is anything to go by.
Who are your top "sustainable" business leaders?
Triple Pundit is calling for ideas on this topic. The idea is based on the recent Harvard list of top performing CEOs on a financial basis.
Much as I don't like pat comparisons of companies on complex CR issus (The greenest/most ethical/most nice company lists that have more methodological holes than a Swiss cheese peppered with a machine gun), when it comes to our subjective views of individuals and leadership, without the pretend 'science', then it's really interesting.
I've been wondering who I would put on my list of top business leaders.
Here's some ideas, not in any particular order.
To keep it relevant, all of my non-CEOs were bosses of their firms until fairly recently or are still hugely influential:
Jeff Swartz, Timberland
Paul Polman, Unilever
Todd Stitzer, Cadbury
Jeffrey Hollender, Seventh Generation
Lars Rebien Sørensen, Novo Nordisk
Ray Anderson, Interface (Chairman)
Lee Scott, Wal-Mart (former CEO)
Richard Reed (co-CEO), Innocent
Irene Rosenfeld, Kraft
Anne Mulcahy, Xerox (former CEO)
Craig Sams, Green & Blacks (founder)
AG Lafley, Procter and Gamble (former CEO)
John Mackey, Whole Foods Market
Stephen Green, HSBC (Chairman)
Mark Parker, Nike
Mark Hurd, HP
Stewart Rose, Marks and Spencer
Ratan Tata, Tata Group
Akio Toyoda, Toyota
Juliet Davenport, Good Energy
I'll stop there, for now. I know this list is very Anglo-Saxon heavy and almost totally male-dominated.
Now it's your turn readers. Who did I miss? Who would you nominate?
We may turn this debate into something for our print/online magazine in future so we can go into a little more depth as to why these, and others, deserve our respect and support.
Much as I don't like pat comparisons of companies on complex CR issus (The greenest/most ethical/most nice company lists that have more methodological holes than a Swiss cheese peppered with a machine gun), when it comes to our subjective views of individuals and leadership, without the pretend 'science', then it's really interesting.
I've been wondering who I would put on my list of top business leaders.
Here's some ideas, not in any particular order.
To keep it relevant, all of my non-CEOs were bosses of their firms until fairly recently or are still hugely influential:
Jeff Swartz, Timberland
Paul Polman, Unilever
Todd Stitzer, Cadbury
Jeffrey Hollender, Seventh Generation
Lars Rebien Sørensen, Novo Nordisk
Ray Anderson, Interface (Chairman)
Lee Scott, Wal-Mart (former CEO)
Richard Reed (co-CEO), Innocent
Irene Rosenfeld, Kraft
Anne Mulcahy, Xerox (former CEO)
Craig Sams, Green & Blacks (founder)
AG Lafley, Procter and Gamble (former CEO)
John Mackey, Whole Foods Market
Stephen Green, HSBC (Chairman)
Mark Parker, Nike
Mark Hurd, HP
Stewart Rose, Marks and Spencer
Ratan Tata, Tata Group
Akio Toyoda, Toyota
Juliet Davenport, Good Energy
I'll stop there, for now. I know this list is very Anglo-Saxon heavy and almost totally male-dominated.
Now it's your turn readers. Who did I miss? Who would you nominate?
We may turn this debate into something for our print/online magazine in future so we can go into a little more depth as to why these, and others, deserve our respect and support.
Why the CSR world has a more equal gender balance
As any of us who work in the corporate responsibility 'industry' know, it's much more balanced between the sexes than other industries.
Having in the past worked in both the technology and automotive sectors, this seems like a fair statement to make.
The Economist recently decided to take on the debate about what can, or should, drive better gender equality in business.
(There's a fantastic Margaret Thatcher anecdote in the article: "Margaret Thatcher made no secret of her contempt for the wimpish men around her. (There is a joke about her going out to dinner with her cabinet. “Steak or fish?” asks the waiter. “Steak, of course,” she replies. “And for the vegetables?” “They’ll have steak as well.”)
Having noted some important (and largely correct, in my book) views, such as:
"The new feminism contends that women are wired differently from men, and not just in trivial ways. They are less aggressive and more consensus-seeking, less competitive and more collaborative, less power-obsessed and more group-oriented. Judy Rosener, of the University of California, Irvine, argues that women excel at “transformational” and “interactive” management. Peninah Thomson and Jacey Graham, the authors of “A Woman’s Place is in the Boardroom”, assert that women are “better lateral thinkers than men” and “more idealistic” into the bargain."
The piece then goes on to say that:
"What is more, the argument runs, these supposedly womanly qualities are becoming ever more valuable in business. The recent financial crisis proved that the sort of qualities that men pride themselves on, such as risk-taking and bare-knuckle competition, can lead to disaster. Lehman Brothers would never have happened if it had been Lehman Sisters, according to this theory. Even before the financial disaster struck, the new feminists also claim, the best companies had been abandoning “patriarchal” hierarchies in favour of “collaboration” and “networking”, skills in which women have an inherent advantage."
This all makes sense to me. I know generalisation is VERY dangerous territory, but in my years in business I have definitely seen women be better collaborators and men as better at being focused on one specific task, naturally with exceptions.
An example would be that in what constitutes a large part of our business, conferences, women make much better organisers and men make better salespeople.
I know some people won't like me writing it, but it does seem true to me. (And it doesn't make anyone 'better' than anyone else, just different)
Hardly irrefutable evidence, I am aware.
The world of responsible business has clearly understood, organically I would suggest, that the above quotations contain much of merit, and that's why we see a much better gender balance in this 'industry'. By its very nature the CR world attracts a more diverse talent pool.
Of course, at top management level, that still stops abruptly, but some progress, albeit slow, is being made.
Where the Economist gets it totally wrong is in the conclusion to the article.
Perhaps driven by the the constant Economist need to editorialise (surely outdated now?), the author tries to give a definitive answer to a fiendishly complex question, saying that:
"Women would be well advised to ignore the siren voices of the new feminism...Despite their frustration, the future looks bright. Women are now outperforming men markedly in school and university. It would be a grave mistake to abandon old-fashioned meritocracy just at the time when it is turning to women’s advantage."
This is where I disagree. As the article itself points out:
"Britain’s Equality and Human Rights Commission calculated that, at the current rate of progress, it will take 60 years for women to gain equal representation on the boards of the FTSE 100".
Companies will need to make a big extra effort to get good female executives into top management, for a variety of reasons, as many of us know.
Corporate responsibility will succeed as a business strategy and ethos both because of single minded aggressive drive, AND due to constant re-iteration of the need to collaborate, compromise, admit errors, and listen.
Which is why this book is important reading for your (likely) male chief executive.
And also why CR directors with real power need to make sure they have a say in how the HR department works, hires, and builds capacity in female executives.
Having in the past worked in both the technology and automotive sectors, this seems like a fair statement to make.
The Economist recently decided to take on the debate about what can, or should, drive better gender equality in business.
(There's a fantastic Margaret Thatcher anecdote in the article: "Margaret Thatcher made no secret of her contempt for the wimpish men around her. (There is a joke about her going out to dinner with her cabinet. “Steak or fish?” asks the waiter. “Steak, of course,” she replies. “And for the vegetables?” “They’ll have steak as well.”)
Having noted some important (and largely correct, in my book) views, such as:
"The new feminism contends that women are wired differently from men, and not just in trivial ways. They are less aggressive and more consensus-seeking, less competitive and more collaborative, less power-obsessed and more group-oriented. Judy Rosener, of the University of California, Irvine, argues that women excel at “transformational” and “interactive” management. Peninah Thomson and Jacey Graham, the authors of “A Woman’s Place is in the Boardroom”, assert that women are “better lateral thinkers than men” and “more idealistic” into the bargain."
The piece then goes on to say that:
"What is more, the argument runs, these supposedly womanly qualities are becoming ever more valuable in business. The recent financial crisis proved that the sort of qualities that men pride themselves on, such as risk-taking and bare-knuckle competition, can lead to disaster. Lehman Brothers would never have happened if it had been Lehman Sisters, according to this theory. Even before the financial disaster struck, the new feminists also claim, the best companies had been abandoning “patriarchal” hierarchies in favour of “collaboration” and “networking”, skills in which women have an inherent advantage."
This all makes sense to me. I know generalisation is VERY dangerous territory, but in my years in business I have definitely seen women be better collaborators and men as better at being focused on one specific task, naturally with exceptions.
An example would be that in what constitutes a large part of our business, conferences, women make much better organisers and men make better salespeople.
I know some people won't like me writing it, but it does seem true to me. (And it doesn't make anyone 'better' than anyone else, just different)
Hardly irrefutable evidence, I am aware.
The world of responsible business has clearly understood, organically I would suggest, that the above quotations contain much of merit, and that's why we see a much better gender balance in this 'industry'. By its very nature the CR world attracts a more diverse talent pool.
Of course, at top management level, that still stops abruptly, but some progress, albeit slow, is being made.
Where the Economist gets it totally wrong is in the conclusion to the article.
Perhaps driven by the the constant Economist need to editorialise (surely outdated now?), the author tries to give a definitive answer to a fiendishly complex question, saying that:
"Women would be well advised to ignore the siren voices of the new feminism...Despite their frustration, the future looks bright. Women are now outperforming men markedly in school and university. It would be a grave mistake to abandon old-fashioned meritocracy just at the time when it is turning to women’s advantage."
This is where I disagree. As the article itself points out:
"Britain’s Equality and Human Rights Commission calculated that, at the current rate of progress, it will take 60 years for women to gain equal representation on the boards of the FTSE 100".
Companies will need to make a big extra effort to get good female executives into top management, for a variety of reasons, as many of us know.
Corporate responsibility will succeed as a business strategy and ethos both because of single minded aggressive drive, AND due to constant re-iteration of the need to collaborate, compromise, admit errors, and listen.
Which is why this book is important reading for your (likely) male chief executive.
And also why CR directors with real power need to make sure they have a say in how the HR department works, hires, and builds capacity in female executives.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Great advice for corporate responsibility communicators
Ok, so this article is written more for product marketeers than CR communicators.
But given so much CR communication fails these ten tests in many places, it's sage advice for responsible business communications as well as for anyone else.
It's called "10 Reasons Your Marketing Messages Stink". Worth five minutes if you are a communicator. I've sent it around our team of marketeers here at Ethical Corporation. We can definitely learn from this ourselves.
I hope you'll also find it useful. And let us know if we are breaking too many of these rules at Ethical Corporation :)
But given so much CR communication fails these ten tests in many places, it's sage advice for responsible business communications as well as for anyone else.
It's called "10 Reasons Your Marketing Messages Stink". Worth five minutes if you are a communicator. I've sent it around our team of marketeers here at Ethical Corporation. We can definitely learn from this ourselves.
I hope you'll also find it useful. And let us know if we are breaking too many of these rules at Ethical Corporation :)
Nitrogen, an unknown factor in global warming?
This very interesting article from the Discovery Channel, hosted on MSNBC, asks what could be an important question:
What happens when nitrogen is factored into global warming models?
According to the article, this is not happening at the moment in the best known climate models. And as a result, warming could be a more serious problem than some think.
"Of all the 11 models the IPCC will be using in its next report, not a single one has yet to consider nitrogen limitation", says one academic.
"The researcher's results indicate that global warming has been underestimated. In the worst-case scenario, they found that nearly 300 billion tons of carbon could stay aloft in our atmosphere between 1900 and 2100 because of plants' lack of access to nitrogen -- enough to warm the planet an additional 1.19 degrees centigrade (2.14 degrees Fahrenheit)"
Worrying findings, if credible. For the full story, go here.
Ethical Corporation will be covering the fall out for business from the Copenhagen climate talks in our February edition. For more information on our next issue and what's in store, take a look here.
UPDATE: 7/1/09 - This Scientific American article suggests that the volcanic rock basalt could be a partial solution for the concerns of those worried about carbon capture and storage. The idea is that: "...the rock both stores CO2 and, over a relatively short period of years, forms carbonate minerals with it—in other words, limestone."
What happens when nitrogen is factored into global warming models?
According to the article, this is not happening at the moment in the best known climate models. And as a result, warming could be a more serious problem than some think.
"Of all the 11 models the IPCC will be using in its next report, not a single one has yet to consider nitrogen limitation", says one academic.
"The researcher's results indicate that global warming has been underestimated. In the worst-case scenario, they found that nearly 300 billion tons of carbon could stay aloft in our atmosphere between 1900 and 2100 because of plants' lack of access to nitrogen -- enough to warm the planet an additional 1.19 degrees centigrade (2.14 degrees Fahrenheit)"
Worrying findings, if credible. For the full story, go here.
Ethical Corporation will be covering the fall out for business from the Copenhagen climate talks in our February edition. For more information on our next issue and what's in store, take a look here.
UPDATE: 7/1/09 - This Scientific American article suggests that the volcanic rock basalt could be a partial solution for the concerns of those worried about carbon capture and storage. The idea is that: "...the rock both stores CO2 and, over a relatively short period of years, forms carbonate minerals with it—in other words, limestone."
Sunday, January 03, 2010
Drucker was the true father of modern CSR
In 1953, Howard Bowen, known by some as the "father of CSR", conceptualised the notion as social obligation: “to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society”.
Bowen's work, along with the arguments between Merrick Dodd and Adolf Berle about shareholder versus stakeholder primacy in the early 1930's, was clearly pioneering.
But I would suggest Peter Drucker is the father of modern CSR.
After all, he combined thoughts on social responsibility with the idea of a future made up of knowledge workers, way before anyone else got there.
His essay "Managing oneself" stands the test of time more than just about anything else I have ever read.
This thoughtful article from the LA Times notes that:
"Peter was talking about this in the 1950s," or long before corporate social responsibility became a formalized management principle" and:
"Drucker's most important insight concerned the role of the corporation in society. "The business enterprise is a creature of a society and an economy, and society or economy can put any business out of existence overnight," he wrote in 1974.
"The enterprise exists on sufferance and exists only as long as the society and the economy believe that it does a necessary, useful, and productive job.""
The current debate about banker pay might not be such an issue if we had listened to Drucker decades back:
"Excessive compensation, he wrote in 1974, is designed to create status rather than income. "It can only lead to political measures that, while doing no one any good, can seriously harm society, economy, and the manager as well.""
For more on Drucker go here.
I've been re-reading some Drucker gems as I prepare to begin teaching the CR module of the MSc Corporate Governance and Ethics at Birkbeck, University of London in a couple of weeks.
I've got eight weeks, three hours per session, to teach post-graduate students about corporate responsibility. Not much time for such a broad subject.
Here below, is how I am planning to structure it. I'd appreciate any reader comments on what I might have missed. I couldn't see how to fit SRI in, for example.
Week 1: Introduction to CSR: Theory, Practice and Governance
Week 2: Greenwash, Communications and NGO engagement
Week 3: Business Strategy and Innovation: Social Opportunity
Week 4: Business, Human Rights and the Supply Chain
Week 5: Reading Week
Week 6: Embedding Corporate Responsibility
Week 7: Corporate Responsibility Accounting, Reporting and Auditing
Week 8: Business and Climate Change
Week 9: Corporate Responsibility, Governance and Globalisation
In 2010 I'll be adapting some of these lectures/seminars for corporate training, as Ethical Corporation launches our training division. At first this will be face to face team or management training, with online offerings to follow later.
We'll offer a variety of modules for companies to buy access to, with a variety of experts from our network around the world available to deliver executive and management training. If it sounds interesting for your company, please get in touch.
Drucker and Bush: Evidence that opposites can indeed attract
Bowen's work, along with the arguments between Merrick Dodd and Adolf Berle about shareholder versus stakeholder primacy in the early 1930's, was clearly pioneering.
But I would suggest Peter Drucker is the father of modern CSR.
After all, he combined thoughts on social responsibility with the idea of a future made up of knowledge workers, way before anyone else got there.
His essay "Managing oneself" stands the test of time more than just about anything else I have ever read.
This thoughtful article from the LA Times notes that:
"Peter was talking about this in the 1950s," or long before corporate social responsibility became a formalized management principle" and:
"Drucker's most important insight concerned the role of the corporation in society. "The business enterprise is a creature of a society and an economy, and society or economy can put any business out of existence overnight," he wrote in 1974.
"The enterprise exists on sufferance and exists only as long as the society and the economy believe that it does a necessary, useful, and productive job.""
The current debate about banker pay might not be such an issue if we had listened to Drucker decades back:
"Excessive compensation, he wrote in 1974, is designed to create status rather than income. "It can only lead to political measures that, while doing no one any good, can seriously harm society, economy, and the manager as well.""
For more on Drucker go here.
I've been re-reading some Drucker gems as I prepare to begin teaching the CR module of the MSc Corporate Governance and Ethics at Birkbeck, University of London in a couple of weeks.
I've got eight weeks, three hours per session, to teach post-graduate students about corporate responsibility. Not much time for such a broad subject.
Here below, is how I am planning to structure it. I'd appreciate any reader comments on what I might have missed. I couldn't see how to fit SRI in, for example.
Week 1: Introduction to CSR: Theory, Practice and Governance
Week 2: Greenwash, Communications and NGO engagement
Week 3: Business Strategy and Innovation: Social Opportunity
Week 4: Business, Human Rights and the Supply Chain
Week 5: Reading Week
Week 6: Embedding Corporate Responsibility
Week 7: Corporate Responsibility Accounting, Reporting and Auditing
Week 8: Business and Climate Change
Week 9: Corporate Responsibility, Governance and Globalisation
In 2010 I'll be adapting some of these lectures/seminars for corporate training, as Ethical Corporation launches our training division. At first this will be face to face team or management training, with online offerings to follow later.
We'll offer a variety of modules for companies to buy access to, with a variety of experts from our network around the world available to deliver executive and management training. If it sounds interesting for your company, please get in touch.
Drucker and Bush: Evidence that opposites can indeed attract
Organised crime and the environment
We pointed out in our November 2009 issue that organised crime long ago turned its attention to the environment.
Starting out in waste (brilliantly described in the superb book and film, Gomorrah, by Roberto Saviano), the mafia has recently turned its attention to wind farms.
Now carousel fraudsters and others are joining in. As we noted threee years ago in this article entitled the carbon con the carbon markets are and were riddled with problems.
Now this Telegraph article shows how, worryingly: "Just a few weeks ago, Europol, the cross-border police force, said that carbon trading fraudsters may have accounted for up to 90pc of all market activity in some European countries, with criminals mainly from Britain, France, Spain, Denmark and Holland pocketing an estimated €5bn (£4.5bn)."
Of course, with any new market, there are always teething problems while regulation and enforcement catches up with 'innovation'. The investors of the 1720's eventually found this out after the disaster of the South Sea Bubble.
And it looks like regulation IS catching up in this last case.
But we can expect more market players to emerge the environmental sphere in the coming years with less than perfect ethics.
We'll be keeping an eye on all this in our magazine on a regular basis.
Naples: Where rubbish is big business
Starting out in waste (brilliantly described in the superb book and film, Gomorrah, by Roberto Saviano), the mafia has recently turned its attention to wind farms.
Now carousel fraudsters and others are joining in. As we noted threee years ago in this article entitled the carbon con the carbon markets are and were riddled with problems.
Now this Telegraph article shows how, worryingly: "Just a few weeks ago, Europol, the cross-border police force, said that carbon trading fraudsters may have accounted for up to 90pc of all market activity in some European countries, with criminals mainly from Britain, France, Spain, Denmark and Holland pocketing an estimated €5bn (£4.5bn)."
Of course, with any new market, there are always teething problems while regulation and enforcement catches up with 'innovation'. The investors of the 1720's eventually found this out after the disaster of the South Sea Bubble.
And it looks like regulation IS catching up in this last case.
But we can expect more market players to emerge the environmental sphere in the coming years with less than perfect ethics.
We'll be keeping an eye on all this in our magazine on a regular basis.
Naples: Where rubbish is big business
The macro stats on biodiversity decline
If you wanted the latest 'macro' stats on biodiversity decline, then this Telegraph article by Geoffrey Lean summarises some of the latest thinking well.
The numbers are quite scary:
"Species are now going extinct at between 1,000 and 10,000 times the natural rate: by some estimates, half of the 13 million or so forms of life on the planet will disappear by the end of the century. That would be the greatest extinction since the death of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, from which life took millions of years to recover."
And:
"Forty per cent of the world's forests – which absorb rainwater, releasing it gradually rather than letting it run straight off to cause floods – have been felled in the last three centuries. A third of its coral reefs – the most vital breeding grounds for fish – have been seriously damaged. And every year a staggering 25 billion tons of precious topsoil is eroded away.
In all, the most thorough international study into the issue concluded, 60 per cent of the world's ecosystem services have been degraded in the past 50 years."
I've been watching a brilliant documentary series released a year or so ago called "South Pacific" about the islands, region and wildlife there.
(It's also available in HD on iTunes, where I bought it, which seems like a more environmentally friendly way to watch it)
I'd really recommend it to anyone wanting to see what these numbers I linked to above mean in practice. It contains some of the best nature photography you'll ever see. The last episode looks at some of the proposed solutions to tackle negative change.
Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" is also a useful reminder of what can happen when humans fail to plan. But it also contains some useful descriptions of how a bit of advance planning can often save the day on specific issues.
A weighty read, but fascinating
UPDATE: 4/12/10: I don't want to depress anyone. But this link to the species lost recently is worth a look. I didn't know the up to seven meter Chinese paddlefish even existed, until it, er, didn't.
The numbers are quite scary:
"Species are now going extinct at between 1,000 and 10,000 times the natural rate: by some estimates, half of the 13 million or so forms of life on the planet will disappear by the end of the century. That would be the greatest extinction since the death of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, from which life took millions of years to recover."
And:
"Forty per cent of the world's forests – which absorb rainwater, releasing it gradually rather than letting it run straight off to cause floods – have been felled in the last three centuries. A third of its coral reefs – the most vital breeding grounds for fish – have been seriously damaged. And every year a staggering 25 billion tons of precious topsoil is eroded away.
In all, the most thorough international study into the issue concluded, 60 per cent of the world's ecosystem services have been degraded in the past 50 years."
I've been watching a brilliant documentary series released a year or so ago called "South Pacific" about the islands, region and wildlife there.
(It's also available in HD on iTunes, where I bought it, which seems like a more environmentally friendly way to watch it)
I'd really recommend it to anyone wanting to see what these numbers I linked to above mean in practice. It contains some of the best nature photography you'll ever see. The last episode looks at some of the proposed solutions to tackle negative change.
Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" is also a useful reminder of what can happen when humans fail to plan. But it also contains some useful descriptions of how a bit of advance planning can often save the day on specific issues.
A weighty read, but fascinating
UPDATE: 4/12/10: I don't want to depress anyone. But this link to the species lost recently is worth a look. I didn't know the up to seven meter Chinese paddlefish even existed, until it, er, didn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Sign up to my feed here
Posts
All Comments
