Tag Archives: sustainability

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 →

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

07 Monday Nov 2011

Posted by in CSR

≈ 7 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.

REI CEO: Sustainability is a Team Sport…and a Business Enabler

02 Wednesday Nov 2011

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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


My latest post on CSRwire’s Talkback: Sustainability is a Team Sport.

The Story of a Successful Social Entrepreneur: What Is It That You Are Meant To Do?

04 Tuesday Oct 2011

Posted by in CSR

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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


How is a social enterprise born? Is it born out of a recognition that some thing needs to change or is it much more complex than that?

For Sameer Hajee, the decision to give up a lucrative career as a micro-process engineer in Silicon Valley was a simple one. “After working for four years, I needed a change in geography,” he tells me over a recent Skype call. A few months later, he was working for a telecom operator in Afghanistan.

From Silicon Valley to Afghanistan

Six months in the war-torn country offered Hajee a unique perspective on the impact of energy in one of the most impoverished regions of the world. “Afghanistan opened my eyes to how impactful appropriate energy use can be. I decided right then that this is what I would focus on after business school,” he recalls.

Nuru Light: A Winning Solution

Sameer Hajee, Founder and CEO, Nuru LightHajee is the founder and CEO of Nuru Light, one of five winners of this year’s Powering Economic Opportunity: Create a World That Works competition co-hosted by the eBay Foundation and Ashoka Changemakers. Nuru Light is a social enterprise based in East Africa, built on the simple premise of hyper-local economic communities.

But Hajee’s story isn’t as intuitive or linear as it might seem in hindsight. After completing his MBA at INSEAD, Hajee went to work in Kenya as a member of the United Nations Develop Programme (UNDP). Then, in 2005, the social enterprise trend was growing and market-based solutions were becoming the latest tactic for the socially conscious.

In Kenya, my role was of a convener.  A small group based out of the United Nations was trying to work with multinational companies to create pro-poor for-profit businesses and it was my job to see where the opportunities were and to connect the folks.

This not only meant a lot of nuts and bolts groundwork in one of the world’s poorest nations but also skillfully lobbying for regulations, increasing capacity, ensuring quality of local products and much more. “These private public partnerships exposed me to a lot of different business models and industries. I was able to see firsthand what was working and what wasn’t.”

Africa: A Broken Value Chain

Next stop: Free Play Energy. “I was starting to get frustrated with the bureaucracy within the UN. When Free Play approached me to help them market crank radios and other products to the camping market in rural Africa, I decided to jump ship,” he says. Hajee worked for Free Play Energy for two memorable years.

The experience was incredible.

We found out, for example, that these off grid products would be very valuable to the poor but the delivery model was completely ineffective. It was taking $20 to produce something and by the time you got to the consumer, the price had jumped to $50. The value chain is so convoluted in Africa that the end customer is always given a very expensive product.

His team’s solution: A donor model with help from the UNDP. “Free Play became a viable business but we didn’t have control of our products now,” he says.

And he was itching for something new. Again. So in 2008, along with two colleagues, Hajee left Free Play to start Nuru Light.

The Big Idea: Using Energy to Solve Social Problems

“Human power as a hand crank wasn’t going to work for very long. We knew that then, it gets old very quickly.  But the immense power of human energy has been untapped and compared to solar or other alternatives is much more appropriate,” he says.

With initial funding from the World Bank, Hajee spent two months living in Rwanda to understand specifically what “they need energy for what they were currently using.”  “Remember that these are the poorest of the poor populations. Their needs are basic. My research identified four specific needs: Cooking, lighting, mobile phone charging and radio,” he says.

Essentially, what Hajee realized then was that most of us use energy for specific tasks, especially those that don’t have a continual power source. We learn to adapt and make the most of our resources.

“The fact is that the power required to power these things wasn’t a lot. It all came down to tasks: the entire room did not need to be lit up. They just needed enough task light, as long as it was multi-use and multifunctional,” he emphasizes.

What also emerged was a need to pool resources and share. “Some of them said they would like to have room lighting for visitors. So why not have multi-use lights that can be connected for such occasions?”

The Economy of A Sachet

The hyper-local model Hajee discovered has been successful for a long time in India. With a significant percentage of the Indian population still living well below the poverty line, these sachets have gone a long way in helping those with limited disposable income afford basic necessities.

For the African poor, Nuru Light, a basic, rechargeable light, has similar potential and meaning.

But how do you take it to market?

First, you need seed investment. For Nuru Light, this meant a complete initial dependence on grant money to get through the first two-and-a-half years of research and testing. “We were completely funded by grants. It took every penny of the $500,000 we raised to make this work in Africa.”

Africa’s “Green Jobs”

“One of the ways to eradicate poverty is to offer economic opportunity. So we thought, why not put this into the hands of micro entrepreneurs who could set up recharging stations for these single, handheld lights?”

So, a lot like the successful domestic business models like Netflix and Zip Car, the Nuru Light micro entrepreneurship model was born. What made the idea instantly sellable were two factors: Setting up the business required minimal funds and the profits would be significantly steep than what the community was making.

The following months began to show concrete results with most of the micro entrepreneurs paying off their initial setup loans within six months. “They were making $1.50 for 20 minutes of charging. That’s what they made earlier by working the whole day,” he explains.

As for customers, the value proposition presented by Nuru Light was equally attractive. According to Hajee, a recharge costs 30 cents, which typically provides for with about 10 days of lighting.

A whole month’s supply? No more than one dollar for most.

Dissecting a Social Enterprise’s Business Model

While the product was an instant success with customers who really felt that their needs had been understood and the solution affordable, things were not as smooth running internally.

Our revenue model really evolved through those initial months. From low margin and a high volume approach we went to carbon credits. In fact, we are the third registered carbon credit company in Africa.

They also needed to figure out how to ensure that Nuru Light was sustainable for and with their team of micro entrepreneurs. “The fee from the recharging stations was a significant third stream of revenue that we had anticipated early on. But turned out, we were spending much more on fielders doing the rounds to collect the money than was worth it,” he says.

Nuru Light is a social enterprise that sought to invent an affordable and clean off-grid lighting system for the world’s poor.

Nuru Light

Next challenge: Automating the process.  The answer, Hajee realized lay in mobile money. A lot like the rechargeable pay-as-you-go mobile phone system, the micro entrepreneurs were set up with prepaid energy credits that could be refilled, by purchasing 20-digit pin numbers. Now, the flow was corrected, in place, much more easily manageable and yet simple.

Scaling a Social Enterprise

The social inequities and empowerment that Nuru Light has been able to demonstrably address aren’t lost on Hajee.

In fact, what caught my eye on the Nuru Light website is the “Impact” section. I asked Hajee to discuss how he believes Nuru Light is helping the African community besides fixing a basic need for light.

Our product helps reduce the use of kerosene, a significant cause for respiratory diseases. We’re helping the local environment by removing the fumes and toxicity of kerosene from the air. We are creating job opportunities for the community. Plus, for the first time the kids in the community now have the ability to complete schoolwork at their leisure, freeing up for time for play and extracurricular!

As a technology, Nuru Light, of course, presents a win for Hajee who recognized a severe need coupled with crippling factors of few resources and economic underdevelopment.

Next Stop: India

Now with new support – financially and otherwise – from the eBay Foundation, Hajee is ready to work on his next venture: The rural population in India.

In fact, Nuru Light has had ground troops in Mumbai and Delhi doing initial research since 200, he told me.

“It took all of the $500,000 we raised for Nuru Light to work in Africa. We now have the same amount to invest in our model in India. And eBay has shown a real commitment to help us scale our business by offering us their resources way beyond the financial support. Their approach has been starkly different from other donors and we’re lucky to have that,” he says.

If Africa took a few months, why was the Indian market proving such a hard nut to crack? “The reason it is taking us so much longer is that no one is working on provided microfinance opportunities in India. So off grid products like ours end up remaining largely, off grid,” he admits.

But the roadblocks in India are more convoluted and will require a whole new round of rethinking and perhaps, even a regurgitating of Nuru Light.

We have learned a lot in the last two years and now know what can work.

The research is complete and the funding is in. That success story is yet to be written for Hajee and Nuru Light, but his recent accomplishments leave me with little doubt.

Passion, a clear sense of business responsibility and market-based solutions drive Sameer Hajee. What will it take to motivate you?

Connect with me @AmanSinghCSR or leave a comment.

Sustainability & Social Media: Trends, Challenges, Solutions

30 Friday Sep 2011

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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


On Monday I was at the Conference Board’s Center for Sustainability annual summit to present on sustainability and social media. I decided to try Prezi after having seen Realized Worth’s Chris Jarvis use it with aplomb at the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship’s annual conference earlier this year.

Here then is my presentation:

Sustainability and Social Media Trends

And while you’re at, why not take this quick survey on the relationship between brand management and social media?

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!

VIDEO: 2degrees Launches Sustainability Quarterly in New York

21 Wednesday Sep 2011

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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


I was recently invited by U.K.-based 2degrees (an online community of over 16,000 sustainability professionals) to participate in their inaugural Sustainability Quarterly in New York City. It was a great panel (co panelists: Mark Serwinowski from Metavu and Roberta Barbieri from Diageo) and my role was to discuss the increasing importance of social media. Not only did I have an interesting task, considering most in the audience did not have a Twitter or Facebook account, they also had some outstanding questions for me.

Take a look:

If you are in the New York area, I highly recommend attending their next quarterly on September 27, 2011. Their working groups methodology and nuts and bolts approach is effective, engaging and immensely productive.

You won’t be disappointed.

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.