Tag Archives: risk management

Social Media Tactics: McDonald’s Hosts Twitter Chat. And Issues a Policy.

09 Friday Dec 2011

Posted by in CSR

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Certainly not the blog post I planned on writing after spending two weeks in New Delhi, India but I am compelled.

Today, McDonald’s hosted a Twitter chat with VP of CSR Bob Langert. The motivations are many for a company that is besieged for its product line and constantly under fire.

In fact, last year at a diversity benchmarking event at Hamburger University, I had the opportunity to hear the McDonald’s executive team discuss a whole host of business practices and strategies, including diversity (led by Global Chief Diversity Officer Pat Harris), employee learning and corporate social responsibility (CSR).

Here’s a snapshot of what I wrote then:

There is an argument that some companies–such as those that deal in weapons and tobacco–just can’t do corporate responsibility in a meaningful way. As a result, they are often excluded from CSR rankings and benchmarking exercises.

But what about a company like McDonald’s constantly under fire for its products? How does the world’s largest fast-food chain practice corporate social responsibility that is both contextual and real?

Led by Senior Manager for Corporate Social Responsibility Kathleen Bannan, who began her presentation by saying “CSR is everybody’s business,” the day-long event proved both thought-provoking (how does a company who doesn’t enjoy corporate America’s most favorable retention rates or the public’s uniform love tackle responsibility and that ever-amorphous doing the right thing?) and insightful (McDonald’s is among very few companies to institute an employee resource group for its white male workforce).

What happened today, however, was an effort at cautious transparency and an attempt at crowd sourcing corporate social responsibility.

The questions were introspective:

And the answers, alternatively useful, creative and critical.

But then I saw this:

Now McDonald’s is not the first company to host a Twitter chat by any means. I have personally attended several as well as hosted a few — including one coming up next week with UPS’ Chief Sustainability Officer Scott Wicker — with varying levels of participation from a usually diverse set of activists, journalists, executives and consumers.

Never before, however, have I been handed a “Twitter Chat Policy.”

An indication of things to come or…?

Continue reading →

Advertisements

Net Impact and BSR 2011: 7 Days, 2 Conferences, 5 Trends in CSR & Sustainability

07 Monday Nov 2011

Posted by in CSR

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


There couldn’t have been a better way to end 2011 than the ambitious and cheerful Net Impact conference followed by Business for Social Responsibility‘s (BSR) annual conference.

Last year marked the inaugural year for my participation in both conferences. I came back encouraged, informed and enthused about the work ahead of us. [See: Can MBA Students be Taught Humility? and The Sustainability Jobs Debate] This year – perhaps because I have been deeply immersed in the CSR space – I feel a bit bereft, despite invigorating conversations and inspiring keynotes.

Don’t get me wrong.

While the Net Impact panels once again illustrated an incredibly knowledgeable student body set to graduate in coming years, BSR attendees and speakers showcased high aspirations and a deep understanding of the complexity of issues that face us today.

Throughout the seven days, I was continually questioned: Did you learn something new? What trends have you identified from all that you have heard? And each time I thought, what’s missing? Why am I not coming up with any articulate answers? Is my brain fried or is it something else?

On Friday, finally, sitting through a six-hour flight back to the east coast, it hit me. The CSR sector had grown up.

As a receiver of information, I was among familiarity, maturity. While last year the conferences motivated and inspired, this year the conversations focused on strategies, case studies, examples, successes and failures.

As Dave Stangis, VP of CSR for Campbell Soup articulated at a panel on Blue Sky Thinking during NI11, “CSR is no longer about identifying the business case. Today, we have evolved from questioning why to answering how.”

The Net Impact panels focused on nuts and bolts, dos and don’ts, a far cry from years past. The BSR roundtables featured honest evaluations, admittance of failure, collaborative statements of success and practical tips for newcomers.

Here then, are the top five trends I observed at two of the year’s most well-attended conferences on corporate social responsibility, innovation and sustainability:

1. We LOVE Shared Value:

Michael Porter’s “creating shared value” has appealed to the corporate sector like no other concept in recent years. Not corporate social responsibility or corporate sustainability, citizenship or conscious capitalism. There seems something so potent about shared value that CSR and sustainability executives cannot stop talking about it! A year ago, they would tell me “CSR is embedded in our DNA.” Now that statement has evolved to “Our culture has always been about creating shared value.”

Point is, CSV offers us nothing more radically new than the concept of CSR. It dictates the same concept of stakeholder engagement, mutual benefits, holistic bottom lines. But it has resonated by removing the morality that responsibility instantly dictates. For CSR and sustainability executives who have to make the business case to their C-suite, creating shared value provides them with their business case.

2. Familiarity breeds contempt

I found several attendees tell me how repetitive some of the sessions were, that they didn’t learn too much that was new or revolutionary. Perhaps it was because the same folks were attending the conferences every year? Earlier this year I wrote on Forbes’ CSR blog that instead of attending the conferences every year, we should send a colleague the following year so that we can actually widen the net of information and inspiration.

This continues to hold true: Chances are, every year there will be some common denominator at these conferences. With issues like energy conservation, water scarcity, poverty, community relations and employee engagement remaining the overarching topics, why not let one of the non-converted/uneducated learn next year?

Lesser chance of you suffering from conference fatigue.

3. Where are the CSOs?

In September, Ellen Weinreb, a prominent CSR and sustainability recruiter, released a report titled CSO Back Story*. Essentially, the report tracks every executive with the title of chief sustainability officer among the U.S.’s publicly traded companies. Her research points to 29 such individuals. While it omits the many hundreds of officers holding a wide breadth of titles ranging from CSR director to VP for sustainability and social responsibility, the report pinpointed several best practices and the continuing lack of standardization on how companies define, prioritize and implement corporate responsibility.

But I digress. [See what Corporate Secretary had to say about the report or download the complete report here.]*

Point is: Only two of the 29 CSOs Weinreb identified were in attendance at BSR: Coca-Cola’s Beatrice Perez and UPS’ Scott Wicker. Both were named CSO sometime this year. Where were the others? Wasn’t the conference meant for CSR and sustainability executives to come together for three days of knowledge sharing and benchmarking? What happened this year?

4. The Emotional Quotient

Both conferences featured wonderfully articulate keynote speakers, including KaBoom’s Darryl Hammond, Keen Mobility’ Vail Horton, Nike’s Hannah Jones, Al Gore, Strauss Group’s Ofra Strauss, Anheuser Busch’ Carlos Brito and Best Buy’s Brian Dunn.

While they discussed CSR and sustainability from their unique pedestal, the common denominator was the emotional connection they demonstrated with their cause, their brand, and their philosophy.

Hammond discussed how his childhood taught him the importance of play in a kid’s life. Strauss emphasized how her consumers and conflict-ridden Israel continues to teach her the right way of conducting business, of stakeholder engagement, of business being the real power in solving social problems.

Dunn on the other hand, focused on humility, responsible leadership and the importance of connecting with employees and consumers.

While last year’s speakers evinced more pragmatism, a businessman’s stoicism, this year the air held tension, an unspoken worry that things were going wrong too quickly, that we all needed to wake up. Quickly. The speakers were talking of soft – un-businesslike some would say – attributes: Social responsibility, connecting, respect, and the human condition, even destitution.

What had happened?

Let’s see: A recession that instead of leveling off, seems to be spreading across generations and countries for starters; a growing understanding that each of our actions – and inactions – impact many others in the world; a disastrous lack of trust for business; and a generational divide that seems to be holding the current decision makers accountable for their decades of excess.

Is business leadership finally waking up to their societal stakeholders?

5. Occupy Wall Street: Ignore or Engage?

Almost every keynote brought up this mass of undefined protestors that have continued to expand beyond American borders. Net Impact’s Executive Director Liz Maw opened the 2011 conference by asking attendees to “Occupy Wall Street but from within.”

Al Gore said, “Business must respond,” and that “it wasn’t a question any more.”

Ofra Strauss showed a three-minute video of the protestors equating them to civil unrest and a grassroots movement of discontent that business has to recognize and address.

At my BSR panel on hyper-transparency I brought up this commonality in one of my responses and posed a question for the audience: Will business ever think of these protestors as stakeholders? To my surprise, Jeff Mendelsohn from New Leaf Paper said that he and fellow attendees had, in fact, invited the Occupiers during a recent conference and that “The dialogue proved very productive for business and the protestors.”

Will anyone else follow?

*Full disclaimer: I worked with Weinreb on the report.

11 Challenges for Corporate Sustainability: A Review

24 Saturday Sep 2011

Posted by in CSR, CSR reporting

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Early this year, at the Global Reporting Initiative’s official launch in North America, Director of the Conference Board’s Center for Sustainability David Vidal asked a room full of senior CSR and sustainability executives:

What are the top three reasons for your company’s reluctance to embrace sustainability—and adopt sustainability reporting?

Now, as I prepare my keynote presentation for the Center’s annual summit next week on Innovation, Sustainability & Social Media, the answers to David’s question six months ago remind me of how quickly some businesses — and the sustainability space — are evolving.

Here’s what I wrote then on Vault’s CSR blog:

——————————–

The responses that came from an audience representing the glitterati of the corporate social responsibility world might surprise.

Keep in mind that a majority of them (I’m almost tempted to say all) don’t need another lecture on the business case for CSR or sustainability, are active advocates, and represent companies that–for a multitude of reasons–recognize the link to their bottom lines.

What these responses point to, however, is the continued sense of reluctance across senior leadership toward combining the social and environmental with corporate. The path to effective CSR isn’t a linear process by any means and these responses should help those who continue to struggle with mental and ideological barriers within their companies.

Because knowing the challenge is half the battle.

As you go through these, make an elementary checklist. Which of these sound familiar? How did you tackle them? Do any seem/remain insurmountable in the current corporate reality of thrift and inflexibility? Share your perspectives by leaving a comment or connecting with me @AmanSinghCSR.

And, without further ado, and in no particular order:

  1. Doubt
  2. Liabilities
  3. Denial
  4. Resources
  5. Causality
  6. Lack of Global Standards
  7. Benchmarking
  8. Lack of comparative credibility
  9. Uncertainty
  10. Fear of the unknown
  11. Fear of the known

——————————–

My estimation is that this list continues to evolve depending on the industry, the chief in charge, and even by which quarter we are in.

In coming days, I will review these challenges  — after hearing from some of business’ most eminent executives at the Annual Summit —  and hopefully shed some light on how some businesses’ have indeed managed to overcome them, and found advantage in doing so.

Stay tuned!

Does Expending Resources on CSR and Sustainability Destroy Economic Value?

13 Tuesday Sep 2011

Posted by in CSR

≈ 11 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Corporate Social Responsibility isn’t about giving money away and adopting the latest cause of activists. CSR and sustainability are approaches to business operation and execution that build employee engagement, improve environmental performance, create positive social impact, enable operational efficiency, reduce cost, foster innovation, strengthen relationships with customers and consumers and ultimately…create business advantage.

That was Dave Stangis, VP for Corporate Responsibility with Campbell Soup Company responding to University of Michigan Professor Aneel Karnani’s infamous editorial in The Wall Street Journal, “The Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility.”

Then, the argument was “capitalism versus corporate social responsibility, CSR versus profits, and where an idea like CSR fits into a business’ main objective, which is to make profits for its shareholders.”

Despite numerous debates [Fenton’s BIG CSR debate] and as many editorials and reports [Why There Is a Case for Corporate Social Responsibility], the inequity of the idea — or the perception that being responsible will cost a company money and therefore is an expense business doesn’t need — prevails.

But the actual essence of this debate no one can seem to pinpoint. Are we fighting over semantics or strategy?

Is it the misperception that CSR is a cost, a tagged on responsibility, and therefore, unnecessary for companies? Or that CSR is completely estranged from the notions of capitalism as Professor Karnani believes — and is, in fact, the wrong argument?

Since his controversial editorial, Karnani of course has continued to incite criticism for what many call an “extremely shortsighted and narrow view.”

Now, the associate professor of management and strategy for Michigan’s Ross School of Business is headed to New York City to debate his argument in real-time on the occasion of the CR COMMIT! Forum 2011, organized by Corporate Responsibility Magazine and NYSE Euronext [Details below].

Fashioned as an Oxford-style debate [DEBATE: RESOLVED that when companies expend resources on corporate responsibility and sustainability they destroy economic value], Karnani will be joined by Gerry Sullivan, president of the VICE fund, on the pro-markets side.

On the pro-sustainability side will be Paul Herman, CEO of HIP Investor and Dr. Vinay Nair, founding partner of Ada Investments and adjunct associate professor of finance and economics at Columbia Business School.

In a sneak peek, I talked to three of the debaters [Dr. Nair couldn’t make it] on the essence of their arguments as well as: How does each of them define CSR?

Take a read:

Thriving on the Value of Vice

Gerry Sullivan from VICE funds believes in the power of capitalism. His funds select well performing stocks of tobacco, alcohol, gaming and weapons companies because they believe that, “Vice industries tend to thrive regardless of the economy as a whole.” Anyone reminded of the root of the financial collapse?

“I believe in capitalism because it ensures that products and services coming out are tested on the profit mandate and ultimately are good processes because they come through the interaction and the ability to gain profit,” he said.

Fair enough. Historically, companies who do well tend to share more.

Making Too Much of CSR?

“My biggest fear of CSR is that people want to make more of it than it really is. A company’s ability to employ better people and deploy profits is the real goal. Everything else is settled by the market,” he continued.

But clearly there is a differentiator between companies that invest in their community and immediate environment over the long-term and those that focus on short-term yields?

Affirmative, says Paul Herman.

Citing the ever quotable example of BP, he said, “When you look at their track record, BP was not a good corporate citizen and lost 40% of shareholder value in just a few months post the oil spill. Companies are not prepared for the volatility of climate change and its effect on cash flows and natural resources.”

Further, “Research from Wharton School and other academics has shown measurably that companies that help solve social and environmental problems can enjoy a higher shareholder and portfolio value,” he said.

“This decreases risk for business and increases value,” he added.

CSR Cannot Dictate Social Enterprise, But Profits Can

Because it had begun to sound like a battle between two followers of capitalism with opposite operational ideologies, I asked Karnani to step in.

“Companies can maximize profits and social enterprise at the same time, which is why capitalism works well. This is where Paul makes a good argument. Of course companies should do all this,” he said.

“But we don’t need CSR to make this argument. It’s as simple as ‘make the money, help employees.’” he added.

Here is where the caveat comes in however, he said. “This isn’t always true. When markets fail, we cannot appeal to companies to sacrifice profits for CSR and it is naive of anyone to think that all the stakeholders are always aligned in their interests. If this were true, we wouldn’t need the study of economics,” he argued.

His solution? Going back to what he had argued in the WSJ editorial last year: Government regulation.

And this is where my problem with the debate starts: How can government regulate behavioral change, cultural perceptions, and a deteriorating environment? Or are we now talking of CSR as a program, an initiative, a fundraising for charity opportunity?

If so, was Karnani suggesting the route the Indian government took recently by “mandating 2.5% of net operating profits must be spent on CSR” by all publicly traded companies?

Perhaps, although we won’t know till the live debate at the COMMIT! Forum.

Back to Square One: What the heck is CSR?

Clearly, the next question: How are these men defining corporate social responsibility? Intentionally or not, I had hit the nail on its head.

VICE Funds: “CSR is Green, And It Isn’t Generating Green”

According to Sullivan, “CSR is embedded into green and green hasn’t generated green for most companies.” Also blaming the government for supporting “and pumping a ton of money into green jobs,” which many say has been a failed effort at reviving the economy, Sullivan continued:

The internet bubble taught us that having pool tables and kegs doesn’t make the companies money. If the jury is still out on whether good companies will do good things, I say they’re smart enough to treat their employees well. You don’t need CSR for that.”

“I would like the companies I invest in to not be socially responsible but responsible to their shareholders and producing products that the government can use to generate revenue. I certainly hope that these companies think highly of their employees but I’m less inclined to think that they would give up profits over socially responsible activities.

HIP Investor: “CSR is Generating Top Line Growth”

For Paul, the question isn’t about green or management. “You start by asking yourself what social or environmental problem you are solving. Companies who are doing well have a core mission of improving the world in some way and making money while doing so.”

Citing the example of banks, he explained, “Banks were started to help people grow their income and wealth and became more integrated in their communities.”

“Starbucks in the U.S. spends more on the health care of its employees than the coffee beans because they support a better quality of life for employees and a higher labor standard.”

The argument, at least for Herman, isn’t about the validity of CSR anymore. “It’s about generating top-line growth and bottom-line profits. That’s why employees and investor relations teams are key in solving this paradigm,” he concluded.

Karnani: “If CSR is Beyond Making Money, Then It’s Not Making Money”

“CSR is a very confused notion. If you just mean businesses doing good for society, then capitalism is actually good [for society]. If CSR goes beyond ‘making money,’ then it’s not about ‘making money.’ When a company does something socially useful and loses money over it, that’s CSR. And definitionally, CSR loses money,” he concluded.

Confused? Irate? Redeemed?

Want to attend the COMMIT!Forum? Register here or connect with me on Twitter @AmanSinghCSR for a special discount code. The Forum begins on September 26, 2011, at the Javits Center in New York City and offers a full two-day agenda complete with a CSR careers symposium, keynotes and workshops.

And if you cannot make it, stay tuned here for more coverage.

Behind Every Responsible Company Is a PR Agency? A Closer Look @ Ruder Finn’s New CSR Practice

30 Tuesday Aug 2011

Posted by in CSR

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


They say, behind every successful brand, is a PR agency.

How about: Behind every responsible brand, is a PR agency?

Now, what is the first thought that comes to your mind when you hear that a public relations agency has decided to roll its “CSR experience” into a new division offering clients the opportunity to use their PR capabilities and budget more responsibly, more strategically?

  1. You condemn them as a reactionary, out-to-make-money business;
  2. You think: CSR is not PR, how many times do we have to say it?
  3. Wonder how long this will last.
  4. That’s interesting. Yet another way we can help businesses create shared value

That last statement was the main driver behind Ruder Finn’s new CSR practice, which officially launched two months ago, according to Senior Vice President Sarah Coles. “We had already been doing CSR work with clients like Novartis and Gerber. It felt like a natural next step [for the firm],” she says.

The communications industry is abuzz with the notion of creating shared value and the professional services sector especially, is in the center of all the activity.

Of course, Ruder Finn is not the first PR company to offer CSR strategy and solutions. Edelman has a robust CSR and sustainability solutions practice, as do Burson-Marsteller, Ketchum, Golin Harris, Cone, and many others.

http://www.ruderfinnasia.com/files/csr-index-fmcg-and-auto-in-china-appendix.pdf

In fact, a quick search revealed that CRO Magazine even released a Top 10 list of “Corporate Responsibility PR firms” back in 2008, that placed Ruder Finn at No. 5. But how do you decipher such a ranking? If Ruder Finn was already being lauded for “CSR PR (?)” in 2008, what propelled them to create a new division now three years later?

And the big question: What is the differentiator in this burgeoning industry? 

I turned to Coles who will be leading the new practice and has spent 13 years in PR with the last seven at Ruder Finn, for some answers.

Sarah Coles, SVP, Ruder Finn

“When I started working with clients on CSR strategy, it wasn’t called CSR. Many were doing this without realizing it was called CSR. For example, at Novartis, we didn’t see our work in malaria treatment as CSR per se. It was part of their core mission, part of everyday business.”

“My first contact with CSR was when I started working with Gerber on childhood nutrition and later with Novartis. In the five years that followed, I got the chance to really see the effects of giving back to your community. I got to meet some of the patients and really saw firsthand the challenges that we in the western world would otherwise never understand. The whole experience really changed my impression of what needs to get done.”

The Case For CSR: What were the main motivations behind setting up a new practice focusing on CSR?

“There is a demand today to put together more strategic CSR programs; programs that are distinguished, unique to the company, and meaningful.”

“Consumers are pretty smart these days: They can see when something is reactionary and when it has been a longterm commitment. They trust brands that have longterm missions and whose programs are in sync with brand value.”

“A great example is the latest Tide for Hope campaign. It’s a perfect example of how core competencies can help provide value. This builds way more trust than something thrown together in a short-term cycle.”

“Ruder Finn also strongly believes that this is not only an opportunity to grow our practice but also to help define what the industry means by CSR and educate companies the issue to ensure that it continues to build as a best practice.”

The Nature of PR: Aren’t most programs reactionary in nature at first contact?

“It’s certainly a mix. Some companies who have been doing this for a long time are doing well and CSR contributes to that reputation. They build trust. Others are more reactionary but won’t be sustained or provide strategic value in the long run.”

“There is a real business case for CSR and companies are beginning to see that. Companies that have longterm Initiatives don’t have to resort to crisis management and there is value in that.”

Strategizing CSR: What then is the underlining ethos of the new practice?

“We learned a lot from working with PepsiCo on their Dream Machine recycling program. Today, we see a real opportunity in helping clients with cause marketing initiatives that reinforce their business practices and core competencies.”

“We counsel clients to do corporate social responsibility strategically. To build something that looks inside the company…dig around and see what they are already doing, what they stand for, what their core values are, and then create a campaign that captures all of that.”

Implementing CSR: How is implementing a CSR strategy going to differ from PR campaigns?

“We’re moving into pure strategy now. It’s not about short-term projects anymore. CSR is more about what makes sense for the business. How can I create something that my company stands for and does good for our community at the same time?”

“These programs go to the root of what CSR is all about: Good business sense that also provides value.”

Comments? Thoughts? Leave a comment or connect with me @AmanSinghCSR.

CSR and Sustainability in Mainstream Media: Citizen Journalism Or Simply Shared Value?

18 Thursday Aug 2011

Posted by in CSR

≈ 16 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


One of my most common complaints, after “Why Don’t Executives ‘GET’ CSR?” is why mainstream media hasn’t been giving due diligence to sustainability, corporate governance, employee engagement, social responsibility, the confluence of business, society and the environment, and everything else that connotes CSR.

2010: Professor Aneel Karnani’s Case Against CSR and Michael Porter’s Creating Shared Value

In 2010, there were a few noteworthy attempts. Aneel Karnani’s editorial in The Wall Street Journal on The Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility, which evoked numerous blogs, response pieces, live panels and tremendous conversations.

[READ: Why There Is a Case for Corporate Social Responsibility, Despite WSJ’s Obituary]

Then came Michael Porter’s piece on Creating Shared Value in Harvard Business Review. Not only did Porter start a flurry of debates, white papers and panels, the report even introduced new hashtags for Twitter users: #CSV and #sharedvalue; and a new hangtag for consultants.

Everyone understood shared value, they could contextualize the term, even measure it, and therefore, make a better case for business and social responsibility.

Debating Semantics: CSR vs. Sustainability

At Vault and more recently at Forbes, my effort has always been to highlight issues that needed addressing, questioning, cajoling, and analyzing. Soon after Porter’s piece, I asked two experts in the field to take on the debate, which often gets lost as semantics: Henk Campher, SVP for CSR and Sustainability with Edelman, and Alberto Andreu, Chief Reputation and Sustainability Officer with Telefonica accepted the challenge.

Campher took us through the evolution of the term “CSR,” concluding that corporate social responsibility, does indeed, fit best.

Here’s an excerpt:

We should look at the description of CSR itself. Why do we use these very specific three words to describe what we do? I would argue that the concept is actually a very good description of what we do today. Here’s why:

Corporate implies that this is about business.

  • It not only describes that we are busy with a discipline involving business but goes deeper.
  • It is about profits – how we make them and how we can make more of them today and tomorrow.
  • It is not about charity.
  • It is about building a sustainable business model that will continue to deliver business results for stakeholders – especially shareholders.

Social tells us this is about society.

  • It is about the impact business has on society and how we can manage this impact to ensure both business and societal benefit.
  • Even the environmental part of CSR is about society – how we can minimize environmental impact to benefit society in the end of the day.
  • The new developments in CSR – sustainability – further continue to prove that CSR is about a mutually beneficial relationship between product and service development, and societal value chains.

Responsibility reveals that business does carry a responsibility in this world–to do business in a way that benefits both business and society. Further, this responsibility gives business the opportunity to create new solutions to the needs of society. I would even argue that it is their responsibility to develop these new solutions and benefit by capturing new avenues of sustainable profit.

All three concepts—Corporate, Social and Responsibility—tell us exactly what we do today. CSR is also the perfect reminder of the relationship between business and society, and the responsibility they have towards each other. None of the other concepts proposed today actually tell us what we are doing and what we should be doing.

Andreu on the other hand, prefers sustainability over CSR. His key points:

Using CSR as an expression is not an academic problem but one that has very tangible consequences for companies.

Organizational: The classic case of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing. Most of the time, the rest of the company doesn’t know what the CSR team/executives do.

Defined functional areas don’t suffer from the same vagueness. HR is dedicated to people, the finance team crunches numbers, the operations team is in charge of systems and back up, etc. But how do you identify the team dedicated to such a vast array of duties, i.e., diversity and inclusion, environmental management, climate change, ethics, corporate volunteer management, social sponsorships, entrepreneurship, multistakeholder engagement, transparency, SRI, reputation, and human rights?

What we get instead is a big mess.

Structural: If CSR is about philanthropy, management will accordingly participate in sponsorship, PR and communications exercises because their objective is maximizing the return of investment in reputation building, not responsible and ethical business. For most companies, in fact, it is common practice for the CSR manager not be associated with evaluating social and environmental risk.

Budgetary: Let’s be honest. We all know that it is much easier to ask for a budget to implement philanthropic programs than for mapping out a business’ core environmental risks, or implementing an ethics code, or auditing the supply chain. Even in the best case scenarios, other areas of an organization will manage these issues as part of their day-to-day work but the reality is that when something is difficult to communicate, resource allocation becomes a much harder task.

Management: It’s easy to measure the impact your donations are having by stringing out the appropriate key performance indicators (KPI) for any given year. But what KPI efficiently summarizes responsible behavior? The resulting scorecard is usually so large and convoluted that even the most dedicated executives give it up because of its sheer confusion and lack of focus.

His conclusion:

The concept of CSR has been exhausted, we have to expand it for effective impact, and for that, we have to adopt sustainability. And that’s why I say, “It’s sustainability, stupid!”

The reason these debates work is because they compel people to chime in, share from their own experiences and research, and crowd-source solutions that everyone can agree on. While the debate elicited several comments on Vault, the tweets, comments, advice and feedback continued to pour in for weeks after publication.

Citizen Journalism Or Simply Responsible?

At the end of the day, media — and journalists — have a responsibility to business, to society, and to a global audience as well. Back in India when I was making the leap from kindergarten to first grade, it was The Times of India and other newspapers that became my primary sources of reading, grammar, comprehension and GK (a common monicker for ‘general knowledge’ used by school kids, at least in those days!).

Today, journalists are expected to inform and engage a vocal audience of readers. Bring in social media tools and you have a vocal and ready consumer base willing and confident to discuss, debate and make choices in real time with you. And this is where the CSR debate with Campher and Andreu did well.

For me, as a journalist and a resolute CSR practitioner, it is indeed heartening to see that those small, infrequent attempts are now becoming frequent analogies and commentaries within the circles of mainstream media.

In fact, here are three reports in recent weeks that came to my attention:

While I give kudos to Light, Lahart and Lohr for highlighting these, we — the journalistic community — must evolve to a state of journalism where good and bad business practices and sustainability are part of everyday reporting and dialogue.

The incredible work of Alice Korngold and Ann Charles on Fast Company, my fabulous co-contributors on Forbes’ CSR blog, and Marc Gunther at Fortune must become more commonplace, much more grassroots, more mainstream.

Some call it citizen journalism. For me, it’s just plain professional responsibility. We owe it to our organizations, the economy, future generations, our planet, and at the end of the day, to ourselves.

More:

The 2011 CSR Debate: CSR is an Evolution, Not a Revolution
The 2011 CSR Debate: “It’s Sustainability, Stupid!”

The Convergence Economy: A New Reality For Business (Sustainability) and Nonprofits

10 Wednesday Aug 2011

Posted by in CSR, Guest Author

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


If ever we needed proof that conventional development approaches are failing to address poverty, disease and malnutrition, the 10 year checkpoint for the UN’s Millennium Development Goals provided it.

The shortfalls in achievement in parts of Africa and South Asia cruelly expose the limits of our current efforts. Debate has recently turned to how business, governments and NGOs can work together in ways that align commercial self-interest with societal value. But the emergence of a ‘convergence economy‘ will disrupt incumbent development providers and ask many questions of businesses.

The Good News… and The Bad News

The good news is that the struggle against seemingly intractable problems such as malaria, drought and extreme poverty coincides with a time when global companies are looking for new markets. It’s no surprise, therefore, that NGOs and the private sector are increasingly working together. But all too often this collaboration is for one-off projects and conducted at arm’s length.

Business provides funds and NGOs deliver solutions. This may give business a license to operate in new territories, but it misses a large opportunity to transform communities for the long-term.

What is the Convergence Economy?

It is based on a merging of issues: Water, sanitation, education and disease, for instance, can only be addressed effectively together. It recognizes that the interests of NGOS do not run counter to those of business. And this results in a convergence of solutions, where it no longer matters whose logo is on the product or service that is improving the welfare of communities. 

We are all aware of how leading brands are supporting local communities and farmers, but beyond ethical supply chains and community based business practices, some businesses will have to consider more radical transformations of their operations.

Accenture's New Era of Sustainability 2010 Report

We can expect to see hybrid organizations that genuinely bring together NGOs and businesses in newly formed entities that have joint and flexible value chains at their heart. Danone’s collaboration with Grameen in Bangladesh illustrates this and has resulted in entirely new products to combat infant malnutrition. In some cases, we can expect the private sector to receive grants rather than NGOs.

The ‘convergence economy’ therefore requires businesses to create new business and operating models in local markets and to identify where they may have the best capabilities to ‘touch’ local communities in place of or in partnership with traditional aid providers. These new businesses or subsidiaries may be in joint partnerships with NGOs and other players.

For solutions to be sustainable, they will need to feed back local innovations into the broader business to maximize commercial benefit. To maintain their commitment, they will have to persuade shareholders that these commitments with longer term pay back periods are essential for future growth.

What does the convergence economy mean for NGOs?

According to our survey with the United Nations Global Compact of 766 CEOs, 27 percent of CEOs saw NGOs as key stakeholders in areas of sustainability in 2007. That figure fell to just 15% in 2010.

NGOs will still occupy a vital position in development—indeed they must, as they possess the local knowledge and knowhow, but they will see their role changing.

NGOs will act as coordinators, not just providers.

They will attract investment finance as well as seeking grants. They will support free markets as a tool for development. This means adopting new capabilities and, to some extent, a new cultural outlook. In the same way private sector companies are used to disaggregating their businesses and outsourcing non-core operations, NGOs will have to redesign their structure and purpose.

They will need a venture capital mentality to create conditions for investment.

The convergence of development and commercial enterprise is not therefore merely about ethical supply chains or profit seekers embracing a broader definition of value.  It is about a far deeper and more fluid operational collaboration across sectors. As multinationals enter new markets, they will have to redesign their models and assist NGOS to do the same.

Then, what could be seen as a marriage of convenience today can become a more committed and productive long-term relationship in the future.

–By Gib Bulloch, Executive Director, Accenture Development Partnerships

Gib is the Founder and Executive Director of Accenture Development Partnerships (ADP), a ring-fenced not-for-profit consulting group within Accenture, whose clients include many of the major international NGOs and development agencies. ADP’s main focus is bringing affordable business and technology expertise to the international development sector and promoting private sector engagement in sustainable development. In 2007, ADP was awarded the Management Consulting Association (MCA)’s CSR Award and in 2008, Gib was named as the Sunday Times sponsored Management Consultant of the Year in the Best Partner/Director category.

Gib has lived and worked extensively in developing countries and is a regular speaker on the role of business in development, corporate social entrepreneurship and cross-sectoral partnerships.

VIDEO: A Test in Corporate Transparency: Winning One for the Blue Shirts

29 Friday Jul 2011

Posted by in CSR reporting, HR

≈ 11 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Last week I was at Best Buy headquarters in Minneapolis to moderate a live webinar with its CSR and sustainability executives. Joining me: Mary Capozzi, senior director of CSR, Leo Raudys, senior director of environmental sustainability and services compliance, and Hamlin Metzger, senior manager of corporate responsibility.

The agenda: To discuss Best Buy’s annual Sustainability Report and offer a live audience on Livestream and Twitter the opportunity to ask questions in real-time.

My job: To question, dig and examine, while moderating questions between the panel and the audience. About 20 minutes into the webinar, which is archived below — well worth a listen whether you are a sustainability nut, a tree hugger, a nonprofit exec, a job seeker or simply an electronics user — questions started streaming in.

From conflict minerals to employee education, every question was fair game.  While @Gchesman asked whether being a well-known company affects the level and degree of time and money spent on CSR and sustainability, @Davidcoethica wanted to know how Best Buy can better balance its role as a promoter of consumption of products against a sustainability ethos, and Robin Cangie wondered how Best Buy can help us all become more responsible consumers?

The conversation, thanks in part to an active and engaged audience, and wonderfully diverse questions, was invigorating, informative and challenging.

Barring the repeated mentions of their recycling efforts — sorry Leo, its a pet peeve — which to be fair is a huge and important undertaking for the global electronics retailer, the panelists were clear, comprehensive in their responses and unapologetically honest about their challenges: That there is a ton of work ahead and that they hadn’t figured it all out yet.

But as David Connor wrote earlier this week, when you’re a global player like Best Buy, expectations are higher as well. Did Best Buy live up to the expectations of CSR activists? Perhaps not.

Flip the coin though for a second.

Did they go on the defensive when I asked them why their retention rates were remarkable (74%) but the diversity of their recruits (12% African-American, 14% Hispanic; 180,000 employees) was quite underwhelming? No.

Did they dodge repeated questions about educating their supply chain, influencing consumer decisions, or the recently drafted UN Guiding Principals on Human Rights? No.

Bottom-line: Capozzi and team did not have all the answers but they didn’t pretend to either.

And that’s where, as an independent journalist, they get points from me for an attempt, however small, at open transparency, willingness to be accountable, and daring to do something new.

Remember the 11 Challenges for Corporate Sustainability? Well, a significant number of those relate to fear. For the Best Buy team, this webinar was a successful exercise in effectively addressing their own fears.

And that is where they just won one for their team of blue shirts.