• ABOUT THE AUTHOR
  • Sustainability
  • CSR
  • CSR reporting

In Good Company: Singh on CSR

~ Connecting the dots between Business, Society & the Environment

Tag Archives: sustainable business

Rationality is Ruining Us: Mayors, presidents and governors join major businesses in charting way forward on climate change

Featured

Posted by Aman Singh in Capitalism 2.0, ESG, Stakeholder Engagement, Sustainability

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

andrew winston, BT, climate change, climate week nyc, divestment, environment, felipe calderon, fordham, fossil fuels, hannah jones, human rights, hunter lovins, ikea, jo confino, mars, mayor bloomberg, Nike, peter shumlin, philips, pope francis, poverty, prakash javadekar, renewable energy, siemens, Sustainability, sustainable business, world bank


The rationality of business leaders is leading us to complete disaster.

Voicing concern for the continued lack of action on climate change, World Bank President Dr. Jim Yong Kim joined many others at the closing ceremony of Climate Week NYC (CWNYC) 2015 imploring the community to wake up and smell the air (no pun intended).

Referring to the ever maddening chase of the business case across corporate America, Dr. Kim emphasized that we now have enough facts and figures to address a global crisis unraveling in real time in places like California (see: drought and water shortage), island nations (land erosion) and across our depleting oceans and forests.aman 1

“My son will live through a 2, 3 or maybe even 4 degree Celsius warming. We cannot keep apologizing to our children for our lack of action. We must change course now,” he added, vocally seconded in frustration and urgency by many others who took the stage after him, including Former President of Mexico Felipe Calderon.

After more than ten days of events spread across New York City and covering a multitude of topics – from climate data and social justice to poverty, Rule of Law and women empowerment – CWNYC ended with several notable announcements this week, including commitments from Walmart, J&J, P&G and Nike to strive for sourcing 100 percent of their energy needs from renewable sources, six national banks coming together to ask for a climate treaty and divestment numbers reaching $2.6 trillion.

Mayors, Governors and Ministers Urge Urgent Attention

The week also saw the likes of NYC’s celebrated former mayor Michael Bloomberg and India’s Union Minister of Environment Prakash Javadekar taking the podium to ask policymakers globally to agree on a binding climate agreement at the upcoming Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris this December.

Aman 3While Mayor Bloomberg emphasized “you get what you pay for” and that “businesses invest where people live,” citing that New York City continued to be a mecca for business investment because of its early attention to the impact of climate change, the Indian Minister asked policymakers to frame climate change more broadly as a need to shift consumption patterns and lifestyles.

Referring to Pope Francis’ articulation of the “throwaway culture, the minister added, “India is a big country but it is also a poor country…this is about lifestyles and financing a global shift to cleaner sources of energy.”

Poverty is “the biggest pollutant” he said. “Human intentions have led us here and human intellect will help us lead the way out.”

For Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin, climate change is no longer up for debate. Emphasizing that his state’s residents were already living with the impact of climate change and were fully engaged on adaptation, he said:

“We don’t live in the land of denial…a whole generation of Vermonters are learning about climate change the hard way.”

Open for Business: Corporations Show Early Results from Climate Adaptation Efforts

Not too far behind was the corporate contingent including leaders from Ikea, Kellogg’s, Walmart, Nike, BT, DSM, Philips, Siemens and many others as well as the State of New York Comptroller’s Officer, who participated in a plethora of rapidfire discussions, many ably and enthusiastically moderated by UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres, on how they were accounting for climate change risks through various tactics and strategies. Here’s a sample:

  • Product innovation: Siemen’s is rolling out hundreds of windmills, estimated to power 7,000 – 8,000 homes each, Philips and Ikea are leading drive toward LED lighting
  • Advocacy: BT working across sectors on rolling out infrastructure to support the future of clean technology, automation and access for all, Mars joining hands with many other companies through investor advocacy group Ceres asking policymakers to agree on a climate treaty at COP21
  • Value chain mapping: According to Nike’s Chief Sustainability Officer Hannah Jones, the amount of polyester used in one year uses as much fossil fuels as it takes to operate 185 coal plants. Materials matter, she emphasized and therefore, Nike is evaluating its entire ingredient and value chain to understand all points of impact.
  • Circular thinking: IKEA looking ahead at leasing its products, extending their life and helping customers resell, recycle and reuse.
  • Scenario planning: NYS Comptroller’s office increasingly looking at “where we put our money. If companies don’t change their practices, we will move the money.”

None of His Business: Finding the Way Forward in Pope Francis’ Words

In an equally dramatic setting ahead of Pope Francis’ visit to the U.S. – New York City’s Jesuit University, Fordham – Andrew Winston, author of The Big Pivot, Jo Confino, Executive Editor at The Huffington Post, L. Hunter Lovins, president of the Natural Capitalism Solutions and Michael Pirson, Associate Professor for Management Systems at Fordham took the stage to contextualize why a religious leader was cutting through religious and political clutter to issue an urgent call to action.

Aman 2

Before a packed auditorium of students, professors and others, the three distilled the 80 page Papal encyclical for what this meant for business, for consumers, students and perhaps more overwhelmingly, for humanity. The conversation was variously electric, sarcastic, alarming and deeply touching.

Winston cracked open the discussion by urging the audience to pay attention to what the Pope is saying. “If the Pope is signaling that the end might be nigh, we better sit up and listen. We have serious equity problems and we better start connecting it with environmental challenges quickly.”

Bringing a politically charged topic to life, Lovins alluded to the millions of refugees making their way west from Syria in the hopes of a happier life.

“Are we prepared for what that means for our cities, our local economies?” she asked. “I’ve always said climate change is not a moral issue; it is a business opportunity. But the Pope is starting to make me change my mind… This [climate change, poverty, economics] is not a religious issue. This is a global issue for humanity to confront and address as humans.”

Confino, who recently left The Guardian to lead Huffington Post’s foray into purpose and impact reporting, chose to take a more philosophical point of view advocating that “we need to re-convince ourselves that we need each other; that we don’t have control over everything whether we like it or not.”

On the other hand, Pirson implored education institutions to sit up and take note of what this meant for them.

“Every institution has to ask themselves why they exist and how they are helping the world move forward sustainably. This is a crisis and we need all hands on deck. Everywhere. If we’re not demanding that, we’re wasting our time,” he said.

So where to from here?

When do we shift from call to actions to simply action? While many more companies are stepping up their efforts – General Mills and Kellogg’s serving as great examples as they begin their path toward net zero – on the various threads of climate change, many, many more remain in the shadows waiting and watching.

Regardless of what gets agreed to in December, climate change is already changing our summers and winters (check out WXshift to see for yourself). Changing weather patterns are already impacting farmers’ harvesting timelines and forcing millions to relocate for better proximity to clean water and air. And as this impact spreads beyond the immediate areas under threat, our notions of ordinary and luxury stand to be tested.

We’re going to have to respond. We’re going to have to adapt. Our bottom lines will change.

And we’re going to have to continue to push the leaders and pull the stragglers along. After all, if the future of our children is not worth it, what is?

Advertisement

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

2011 in review @ Singh on CSR: 5 Months, 31 Blog Posts, 9,500 Visits

08 Sunday Jan 2012

Posted by Aman Singh in CSR

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

aman singh, aman singh das, Brand Management, BSR 2011, citizen journalism, corporate citizenship, corporate social responsibility, CSR, CSR communication, CSR journalist, CSR reporting, CSR strategy, economic value, employee engagement, In Good Company, mainstream media, net impact 2011, Occupy Wall Street, shared value, social media, sustainability, sustainable business, sustainable business practices


The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2011 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

The concert hall at the Sydney Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 9,500 times in 2011. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 4 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

While I won’t bore you with the stats, here are the top three winners of 2011:

  1. Net Impact and BSR 2011: 7 Days, 2 Conferences, 5 Trends in CSR & Sustainability
  2. Does Expending Resources on CSR and Sustainability Destroy Economic Value?
  3. CSR and Sustainability in Mainstream Media: Citizen Journalism Or Simply Shared Value?

Thank you to all of you for a tremendous year! I value your support, trust, readership, comments, courage and enthusiasm to say, do and compel others toward the right action.

Here’s to expanding our “small world” of CSR and sustainability slowly but surely, one person at a time in 2012!

– Aman

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

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

02 Wednesday Nov 2011

Posted by Aman Singh in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

aman singh, aman singh das, Brand Management, Business, business case for sustainability, CEO, CEO Network, cooperative, corporate social responsibility, CSR, Events, green, green products, Leadership, leadership, Management, Net Impact, net impact 2011, REI, Sally Jewell, shared value, social responsibility, supply chain, Sustainability, sustainability, sustainable business, sustainable business practices, women CEO


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

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Net Impact 2011: A Sustainable Drink, Finally!

30 Sunday Oct 2011

Posted by Aman Singh in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Events, Green, green drinks, green living, Net Impact, net impact 2011, pazzo, Portland, Social Enterprise, Sustainability, sustainability, sustainable business


20111030-164635.jpg

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

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

04 Tuesday Oct 2011

Posted by Aman Singh in CSR

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

alternative energy, aman singh, aman singh das, Ashoka Changemakers, brand management, Business, Consumerism, corporate social responsibility, CSR, eBay Foundation, Free Play Energy, INSEAD, Leadership, leadership, microentrepreneur, microfinance, Netflix, Nuru Light, Sameer Hajee, shared value, social enterprise, Social Enterprise, social entrepreneurship, Social Entrepreneurship, social impact, social responsibility, Social Responsibility, Sustainability, sustainability, sustainable business, sustainable business practices, UNDP, Zip Car


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.

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Does Expending Resources on CSR and Sustainability Destroy Economic Value?

13 Tuesday Sep 2011

Posted by Aman Singh in CSR

≈ 11 Comments

Tags

aman singh, aman singh das, Aneel Karnani, BP, brand management, Brand Management, Business, business strategy, Campbell Soup, CEO Network, Commitforum, corporate citizenship, corporate social responsibility, CSR, CSR reporting, CSR strategy, Dave Stangis, Ethics, ethics and compliance, Events, Fenton, Gerry Sullivan, Green, green jobs, Leadership, Management, Paul Herman, risk management, shared value, social enterprise, Social Impact, social responsibility, Social Responsibility, Starbucks, Sustainability, sustainability, sustainable business


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.

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

As Steve Jobs Departs, A Review of Our Love-Hate Relationship With Apple…and Sustainability

24 Wednesday Aug 2011

Posted by Aman Singh in CSR

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

aman singh, aman singh das, Apple, brand management, brands with purpose, BSR Conference, Business, Carol Cone, cause marketing, CEO Network, consumer education, consumerism, corporate social responsibility, CSR, Edelman, Good Purpose Study, Green, In Good Company, Leadership, Management, Matthew Bishop, Performance with Purpose, Steve Jobs, Sustainability, sustainability, sustainable business, sustainable technology, technology, Work culture


As we slowly recover from the stupor of the not completely unexpected news that Steve Jobs has stepped down as Apple’s CEO, here’s a post from recent months that’s worth a retake.

Context: At Business for Social Responsibility’s (BSR) annual conference last year, Edelman’s Managing Director for Corporate Citizenship Carol Cone released the 2010 Good Purpose Study with a dramatic declaration: “Cause marketing is dead.”

The main overarching finding of the study, as regular readers will recall, was this:

87 percent of consumers worldwide believe that business needs to equate at least equal weight on society’s interests as on business interests.

Accompanying Cone at the release were panelists from Levi Strauss, PepsiCo and a personal favorite: The Economist‘s Matthew Bishop, who amid the hype and hoopla of the report, quietly asked: “Are we really going to stop buying Apple because of its crappy environmental policies?”

An excerpt, originally published on Vault’s CSR blog: In Good Company:

The GoodPurpose study by Edelman

“Cause marketing is dead”

That controversial statement is how Cone opened the panel, adding, “That [cause marketing] world is way over. Purpose has replaced cause marketing and branding.” Companies aren’t building marketing plans around a cause anymore, she argued. Rather, “they are infusing their very strategy and business model with purposeful corporate citizenship.”

Defining real purpose

Picking up where Cone left off, the always-entertaining Matthew Bishop began with a prediction: “If we continue the current road toward demanding transparency and corporate social responsibility, within the next five to 10 years, we will begin to see corporate board meetings being live streamed to select people.”

Chuckling about the ambitiousness of his own statement, he went on to note, “Likewise, the real question is how much of this data [in the Good Purpose study] is picking up on aspirations rather than real choices [of consumers].”

PepsiCo: Performance with Purpose

Alleging that PepsiCo’s latest mantra of “Performance with Purpose” was indeed a verification of this shift from cause marketing to purposeful corporate citizenship at companies, Communications Director for PepsiCo Americas Beverages Melisa Tezanos gave high points to CEO Indra Nooyi for pushing for a company-wide cultural change that today drives all their business functions.

[READ: Pepsi Takes Performance with Purpose to Heart: An Interview with Chief Personnel Officer Cynthia Trudell]

“However, Nooyi is completely unapologetic about giving ‘performance’ as much importance as the ‘purpose’ part and she makes no bones about it,” said Tezanos, adding that this helps everyone across the company stay committed to a culture of profitability with purpose. Explaining the drivers behind PepsiCo’s highly successful Refresh project, she further stated, “For millennials, social responsibility is huge. We’ve seen through research again and again that their purchase intent goes up significantly when the brand is associated with a good cause.”

And finally, referring to the findings of the Edelman study—and Cone’s earlier comment, she said, “Marketing used to be blamed for being short-termism. Today, marketers are the biggest defenders of long-termism.”

But would you give up Cola…or Apple?

Bringing the conversation back to a level plain field, Bishop concluded with a sobering thought, “But what is real and what is fake with purpose? Will Pepsi ever move beyond the heart of its products, i.e., increasing obesity? Are we really going to stop buying Apple [products] because they have crappy environmental policies?”

———————————–

Just some food for thought as we go on a whirlwind ride with the media in coming days on the history, the present, and the future of America’s favorite company, Apple. Don’t forget to add your perspective by leaving a comment or connecting with me @AmanSinghCSR.

And if you haven’t already, share your opinion on whether social media engagement make better brands or more effective leaders by taking this new BRANDfog survey on social media and leadership.

More on Edelman’s Good Purpose study: Encompassing 7,259 respondents in 13 countries, the study was conducted by consulting firm StrategyOne with the objective of analyzing whether—and how much—purpose plays into purchase decisions worldwide, and further, how these transform into consumer activism via social media.

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

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

18 Thursday Aug 2011

Posted by Aman Singh in CSR

≈ 16 Comments

Tags

alberto andreu, aman singh, aman singh das, Business, Career advice, cause marketing, corporate governance, corporate social responsibility, creating shared value, CSR, CSR communications, CSR reporting, examples of CSR, henk campher, jobs in CSR, journalism best practices, Leadership, philanthropy, reporting standards, risk management, shared value, Social Media, social media, social responsibility, Stakeholder Engagement, Sustainability, sustainability, sustainability jobs, sustainable business, Work culture


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:

  • Sustainability Jobs Get Green Light At Large Firms: by WSJ’s Careers Reporter Joe Light
  • Doing Good to do Bad? by WSJ‘s Justin Lahart
  • ‘Shared Value’ Gains in Corporate Responsibility Efforts: by NY Times‘ Steve Lohr

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!”

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

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

10 Wednesday Aug 2011

Posted by Aman Singh in CSR, Guest Author

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Accenture, business, CEO Network, consulting, convergence economy, corporate accountability, corporate social entrepreneurship, corporate social responsibility, crisis management, CSR, CSR strategy, ethics and compliance, future of nonprofits, Gib Bulloch, Green, leadership, management, Nonprofits, risk management, social enterprise, social entrepreneurship, Stakeholder Engagement, supply chain, Sustainability, sustainability, sustainable business, UN Millenium Development goals, water, Work culture


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.

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

The American Credit Downgrade and Accenture’s Sector by Sector Report on Sustainability

06 Saturday Aug 2011

Posted by Aman Singh in CSR

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Accenture, aman singh, aman singh das, corporate social responsibility, Credit Downgrade, CSR, CSR blogger, CSR communications, CSR strategy, Ethics, ethics and compliance, Leadership, leadership, management, New Era of Sustainability, shared value, social responsibility, Sustainability, sustainability, sustainability benchmarks, sustainable business, sustainable business practices, UNGC


Last year, Accenture co-produced a report with the United Nations Global Compact titled A New Era of Sustainability: CEO reflections on progress to date, challenges ahead and the impact of the journey toward a sustainable economy. The report focused on examining three main questions with 766 CEOs serving as respondents: 1) Sustainability is changing—how is your company addressing it?; 2) Next step: Taking it from strategy to execution; and 3) What’s ahead: Competing in an era of sustainability.

The BIG finding from the report: 93 percent of 766 CEOs surveyed believe that sustainability will be “important” or “very important” to the future success of their company.

CSR Journalist Aman Singh reports on Accenture's New Era of Sustainability Report

Now, Accenture has produced a followup sector by sector report that offers more clarity — and a wide disparity in this percentage — to the overarching aggregated data by doing a deeper dive by industry.

For example, 100 percent of executives in the automotive and consumer products industries see sustainability as critical to their success but only 68 percent of banking executives see sustainability as “very important” to their future success, and 63 percent reporting that “their company is integrating sustainability ‘much more’ than five years ago.”

As for the communications sector, the percentage of executives seeing sustainability as “very important” to future growth drops to a mere 22 percent.

From Sustainability Strategy to Sustainable Business Practices

As the above-mentioned three questions indicate, however, the 2010 report attempted to be forward-looking in its data. Indicating a wide disconnect between the perceived importance of environmental, social and corporate governance for companies, and how these play in business strategy, the report pointed out that “while the belief in the strategic importance of sustainability issues is widespread among CEOs, executives continue to struggle to approach them as part and parcel of core business strategy.”

The new, follow-up report, adds teeth to this initial observation by showing a disparate practice of sustainable business practices across industries.

While 80 percent of utility industries report embedding sustainability metrics to track performance, 83 percent of CEOs in energy and 81 percent in infrastructure say their “company measures both positive and negative impacts of their activities on sustainability outcomes.”

Is sustainability measurement finally becoming accepted standard practice?

While this aggregated data might indicate so, the reality, according to Accenture’s Managing Director for Sustainability Services for Europe, Middle East, Africa and Latin America Peter Lacy, is that there remain “major gaps remain between CEO ambition and execution.” As evidence, the report offers the automotive industry as an example:

“Ninety-five percent of automotive executives believe that companies should invest in enhanced training of managers to integrate sustainability into strategy and operations, but just 52 percent report that their company already does so.”

Analyzing Sustainability Enthusiasm In a Recession

When Accenture’s New Era of Sustainability report
came out in June last year, I chose to go with a positive headline. I titled my detailed analysis as “Sustainability Moves from Discretionary Choice to Corporate Priority.”

Today, as we deal with a downgraded credit rating for the country of everyone’s dreams, a recession that might never have ended, and businesses once again returning to cautious growth, that optimism is hard to replicate. Troubled by debate after debate (subjects varied from accountability to Wal-mart, upstream recycling to upcycling, compensation limits, and much more) during the recent Sustainable Business Practices workshop held at the University of Vermont, several of the students jested that “Sustainability, after all, is a journey.”

I would add that it is also a mindset: A mindset that understands that business goals (profits, profits, profits) cannot be reached without taking into account the society and the environment you operate in and the human capital that helps you succeed. Will the rest of the sectors detailed in Accenture’s report follow through on their CEOs’ ambitions?

In coming months — and years — with America’s long-term sustainability as an economic power in question, all eyes will be on whether American businesses can pull up their socks and return their operating base to trustworthy status by using sustainability as a guiding principle. Where government fails, business steps in, right fellow #csrchat attendees?

Thoughts? Don’t forget to leave a comment or connect with me @AmanSinghCSR.

Next: Gib Bulloch, Executive Director of Accenture Development Partnerships discusses the report in Capabilities for the Convergence Economy.


Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Let's Talk!

Virtual
732-322-7797
amansinghdas@gmail.com

Connect with me on Twitter

My Tweets

Blogs I Follow

  • Nonprofit Chronicles
  • Learned On by Andrea Learned
  • Angry African on the Loose™
  • csr-reporting
  • The CSR Blog
  • In Good Company: Singh on CSR

My Cloud

Capitalism 2.0 CSR CSR reporting CSRwire ESG Guest Author HR Stakeholder Engagement Sustainability Uncategorized

Recently written…

  • Rationality is Ruining Us: Mayors, presidents and governors join major businesses in charting way forward on climate change
  • 2015: the year businesses recognize that climate change is real – and 4 other themes
  • Hardcore lessons of sustainability – ’10 Words or Less’
  • Brewing a Better Future [#BaBF] with Heineken: Examining the Many Flavors of Local Sourcing
  • From Conflict to Collaboration: Kimberly-Clark and Greenpeace Participate in LIVE Twitter Chat

What others are reading

aman singh aman singh das Brand Management Business corporate social responsibility CSR CSR reporting CSRwire ESG Leadership Stakeholder Engagement supply chain Sustainability sustainability Work culture

Categories

Most Read

  • causecapit…

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Nonprofit Chronicles

Journalism about foundations, nonprofits and their impact

Learned On by Andrea Learned

Angry African on the Loose™

I have opinions. I am from Africa. I live here now. I blog.

csr-reporting

Connecting the dots between Business, Society & the Environment

The CSR Blog

Connecting the dots between Business, Society & the Environment

In Good Company: Singh on CSR

Connecting the dots between Business, Society & the Environment

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • In Good Company: Singh on CSR
    • Join 119 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • In Good Company: Singh on CSR
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: