Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘CSR’ Category

Can you remember the first time the two of you got together. The stolen looks, the uncomfortable moments of silence, the tripping over your sentences, the sweaty palms, the he-likes-me-he-likes-me-not thoughts, the private meetings when no one was looking, the uncomfortable first meal together. Yes, I am talking about stakeholder engagement. Just as with any relationship in the early wooing and courting stage, stakeholder engagement is never easy at the start.

Most companies just don’t know how to talk to activists and campaigners. Hey, make no mistake, activist hardly knows how to talk to companies either. But they don’t need companies to like them as much as what companies need them to like them. Or at least leave them alone and not target them.

Don’t feel bad when they target you. It happens to the best of companies. Sometimes it makes sense and sometimes not. I remember seeing an anarchist kicking a Nike sign at the battle of Seattle in ’99 – while wearing his Nike shoes and top…

But there are a few tips you should follow if you decide to engage and start courting. This is not an exhaustive list. Just a few tips to get you through those first uncomfortable early stages of stakeholder dating.

Firstly, do your homework and find out a bit more about the NGO and what it regards as its ‘bottom line’ – it is unlikely to be financial! I was invited to speak to the global affairs team of a very large pharmaceutical while I was at Oxfam (I headed up the Access to Medicine Campaign for a while). I was shocked to hear that the majority of people at the company thought that Oxfam only worked on health issues. And this happened when Oxfam was in the middle of their Coffee Campaign! Dig around a bit first and find out what the NGO does and what is their mandate. Most of them are registered with a constitution that states what they should focus on and how they should work. This will help you understand whether there is any potential for a longer term constructive relationship – or just a one night stand. Also a good tip when you start dating – know who you are dating. Except if you like blind dates.

Secondly, respect the differences between NGOs by not lumping them all together in the same room for a consultation exercise – NGOs are proud and competitive too. You wouldn’t want them to call a whole bunch of companies together and still expect special treatment just aimed at you. You should respect their differences and treat each one differently. Rather meet each one separately in an environment that works best to put them at ease. Meet them where they feel most comfortable – maybe at their place. Especially if you want to build the foundation for a long-term relationship. And even this should work best for real dates – don’t bring all your prospective dates together in the same room. They might just start sizing each other and you will be left with no date at all.

Thirdly, don’t make the mistake of thinking that you are the only company that is the target of the NGOs campaigning efforts, or that the NGO hasn’t other programs and projects that may have nothing to do with business. Just as with the large pharmaceutical company I mentioned, most NGOs have numerous focus areas and different programs and projects to try and achieve their overall goals. And most large campaigning NGOs have various campaigns going at the same time. They might have one single broad focus, but it plays out in different campaigns and programs. For instance, Greenpeace might be about the environment, but they focus on climate change, oceans, forests, genetic engineering and nuclear issues. So your company might only be a small part of their focus and interest. Same with real life dating. A friendly smile does not mean they want to date. It might just be a friendly smile.

Fourthly, start by talking, learning about each other and building trust rather than starting by expecting ground-breaking strategic partnerships. There might be a few obstacles to overcome – perceptions of what ‘big business’ is all about and a feeling that you want to ‘clean’ yourself by associating with them. Take it easy and just talk. Let them get to know you. Don’t create expectations. Just listen and learn and see where this might take you. Again a good tip for real life dating as well. Don’t ask them to marry you or expect ‘the commitment’ on the first date – it might just scare them off.

Lastly, remember that cash does not necessarily have the same currency as it does when buying products or services from other companies. First and foremost NGOs want to affect change. But they don’t always see money as the way to achieve change. Yes, some of them have huge budgets and operate like multinationals. But they generally have strict guidelines on receiving money from companies. For instance, Oxfam will not accept money from companies that fall within an industry they target in their campaigning. They might not even accept money for travel – never mind for a program. They would rather see you ‘do the right thing’ than pay them to do something. Okay, this one is less relevant for real life dating. Money generally impress prospective dates!

Okay, one more tip. Don’t expect them to agree with you on everything. And don’t make this a prerequisite for your potential relationship. I love my wife to bits. But we only agree 80% of the time. But we don’t let the 20% of the time we disagree define our relationship. No. Focus the relationship on what you have in common and don’t get stuck on the differences. It’s part of being human – we are all different. And the same for companies and NGOs – we are all different. And I learned that I am wrong 20% of the time in any case. Just ask my wife.

Read Full Post »

I’ve always been sceptical about CSR rankings and ratings. Partly because there are just so many of them. It sometimes feels as if we have a ranking and rating system for every company. Just find the one that fits your needs and away you go! But this also underlines a deeper problem with rankings and ratings – is it even possible to have a ranking or rating system capture all the differences and diversity amongst businesses?

Citizen IBM had a good piece on how CSR Rankings Can Be Improved. They capture some of the key problems I have – from the needs to acknowledge the differences in industries to the need for continuous improvements to full transparency in the criteria used. But I don’t think they went deep enough – and I would like the scratch the surface a little bit more.

Firstly, as Citizen IBM mentions, the differences between industries should be acknowledged. But it goes deeper than purely the differences between those who manufacture and those who offer services. And it’s these differences that makes it even more difficult to take rating systems seriously. Let’s remove the obvious difference for a moment – let’s exclude for the sake of argument services companies and only focus on companies who manufacture.

Even within manufacturing the differences are just too steep to make a single standard rating workable. Most rating systems looks at the impact of the manufacturing process – environmental impact, workplace practices, financial performance,  governance etc. Most companies within manufacturing can be judged according to these, right? Well, just hang on for a minute there…

What most of these rating systems focus on, measure and rate are the impact of the process and not the impact of the actual product delivered by the manufacturing process. Let me give you an example, it is possible for a tobacco company to have excellent CSR practices in their manufacturing process and therefore rank better than say a pharmaceutical company. But the actual product delivered by the pharmaceutical company is vastly different than those from a tobacco company – the one contributes to the health of society and the other do the opposite.

Now it will be easy to exclude tobacco companies – and many do. However, the basic principle remains. The extremes are easy to differentiate – and we can exclude tobacco and arms manufacturers. But what about comparing the products of an oil company to a pharmaceutical company? How do we judge the end product and the impact of that end product? Especially when we start bringing in the idea of sustainability – leaving the future world in a better or no worse place. How do you rate a product that positions us better for the future against a company who serves an immediate need but at a high environmental and sustainability cost? How do you rate a software company who connects sustainable solutions to a company whose software is used for warfare? The differences in what the products deliver becomes complicated and makes comparisons complicated and almost impossible.

Even within a single industry it is complicated and problematic – how do you differentiate between an energy company that produces only oil to one that only produces solar or another “green” energy? And what about a traditional oil company spending more and more on alternative energy? How do you judge the future impact and value of the product or service?

The approach to ratings also undermines a key development in CSR over the last few years – finding the opportunity of mutual responsibility or shared value between the company and its stakeholders (or society at large). Companies are increasingly seeing CSR as a way to create new opportunities that will be beneficial to both the business bottom line and the needs of society. But the approach of rating systems doesn’t allow for this to be reflected because they focus on the impact of operations and not the business model and approach to CSR. You can (and will) therefore have companies who practice CSR the old way (ticking boxes, compliance etc) have a higher rating than companies who seek new ways to create product and service solutions that will benefit both society and the business itself. Too many ratings take a “tick the box” approach instead of looking at innovation, opportunity, mutual responsibility, societal benefit etc.

And it goes even deeper than that…

The drive towards a common standard has another unwanted impact – individual criteria might mean a company have excellent rankings on some but fail on others. Especially those areas where their major impacts are. Let’s say a company rates highly on governance, philanthropy, financial performance and the environment but their major impact is actually on human rights. And let’s say this company then operates in countries where child labor or forced labor are fine. The fact that they have great rating in all but one will most likely give them a good rating overall. But they fail in the area that matters most to their specific company as it intersects with society. Again, the standardization of ratings therefore fail to acknowledge the area of major responsibility and impact of the company.

That’s my biggest problem with ratings and rankings. They focus too much on the process and too little on the impact and value of the actual products and/or service delivered and those areas of major impact and responsibility. A single standard rating and ranking to compare all companies cannot capture these differences adequately. Rankings and ratings go for the lowest common denominator and fail to truly rate those who benefit society today and tomorrow and fail to acknowledge the differences in impact between different industries – or even different companies within an industry.

Frankly, I don’t rate ratings and rankings that much…

Read Full Post »

Last week I focused most of my The Mythmakers: The end of CSR. Again. on Porter and Kramer’s shared value  or CSV. I did mention Alberto Andreau’s argument that Shifting From CSR To CSV Isn’t The Solution and that the truth and future lies in Corporate Sustainability. I ran out of space and didn’t really give enough attention to Andreau’s argument. What follows are some parts of the original post that landed on the cutting room floor.

As I stated before, Andreau’s idea of Corporate Sustainability is just another way of practicing CSR. But I also want to focus on the three main points he uses against the use of CSR:

1. CSR sends the wrong message: Firstly, breaking down the individual words of the concept is problematic. But there is nothing wrong with expecting business to have a responsibility. The idea that business have some responsibility is as old as business itself. In some cases this is regulated and in some cases not. And remember – before regulations there was nothing. Those companies who had annual financial reports was seen as “responsible” before it became a requirement. And same for those companies who stopped employing slaves. All of these were early CSR practices and then became requirements. It’s not the wrong message – it’s only the wrong message if we think that business have no responsibility towards society. Regulatory or not. Remember, business is in an unwritten social contract with society – do no harm and at a push try to do some good (where CSR comes in). Business can argue that they should be able to do what they want and how they want to but the truth also lies in the reverse – society need not support you or even allow you to operate if they don’t like you. If you argue that business should be able to do what they want then you should also live with the fact that people should protest and target you because that is their same right. We in CSR believe that it is not an either/or question and that business and society need each other and both share a responsibility towards each other to ensure mutual benefits.

The “corporate” part of CSR tells us that this is about business. It is a business approach – one that should add value to the bottom line. “Social” refers to the societal part of the business. Business operates as part of society and have a social obligation – as stated above. And the “responsibility” part refers to the rest of the argument I make above. The combination of the three concepts tells us that this is about business finding opportunities and areas of co-responsibility in their interactions with society – and that they also have a responsibility towards society to add value. And society includes all stakeholders – shareholders, consumers, employees, communities, suppliers etc. All different parts of society. We so easily focus on the “responsibility” part of the definition and easily forget that it is a “corporate” strategy that includes opportunities to add value (money, returns, increased sales, new product innovations, cost savings etc) to and through values. Don’t get stuck on the last word – see all three and how they interact.

2. Information overload: I agree that we have too much information today. But it is this same information that continues to drive new innovation in how we practice CSR, and how we live our lives in a world of information overload. The challenge is rather that CSR is developing so fast as a discipline that we can’t always keep up. Imagine if the concept of business was only started in 1970 and went through all its various changes and implications in 40 years. And really, CSR only took off about 15 years ago. That’s a lot of changes in a short period of time. The information overload is the wheels of CSR spinning at a 1000 miles a minute. It is daunting but it is exciting at the same time. We are in the middle of a new way of doing business – and we are at the center of that. Hang on – this is a wild ride.

3. Absence of global standards: Yes and no. Yes it will help if we have a few more global standards. But there won’t be a global standard for CSR. As I explained earlier – CSR is too complex and you can’t have a single standard for this complexity – only for some of the parts. And, we are finding new and innovative ways to implement CSR each and every day. How do you standardize innovation? Lastly, not even “business” have a single standard out there – only some of its parts and some guidelines at best. We don’t even have a single standard for financial reporting in the world – and that is such as basic business practice. What chance of a global standard for CSR then? Maybe our expectations are just too high on this front.

Of course there are some very specific challenges regarding his proposal to use Corporate Sustainability. Firstly, the addition of “corporate” does not address one of his own problems with the corporate part of CSR – “the term ‘corporate’ serves to instantly exclude every institution outside the realm of corporations.” I don’t think this is much of an issue but Andreau raised it as a concern regarding CSR so the same goes for Corporate Sustainability. Why is it okay for him to use it in Corporate Sustainability but not for us in CSR? Secondly, he argues that we need to widen the meaning of sustainability to ensure it covers everything he wants sustainability to stand for. Why is it acceptable to adapt the meaning of sustainability but somehow not acceptable to do the same with CSR? Actually, I am not asking for a change in the meaning of CSR but only a recognition of its complexity. I agree with his call for simplicity but I don’t think that changing the name will help. The simplicity lies in the earlier definition of CSR I gave and the complexity in the execution. I don’t agree with him that CSR has lost the battle against “philanthropy” and “social action”. Only in the eyes of some who practice it inconsistently or who haven’t kept up with the ever evolving world of CSR practices. Heck, just because some businesses don’t practice business in the right way doesn’t mean we should question business as a whole, does it? There are corrupt business out there; businesses who exploit workers; business who sell snake oil etc. Should we now say that all businesses are bad and should be dropped just because some practice it in the most harmful way? Same goes for CSR – some have practices they call CSR that really isn’t CSR. We should be diligent in raising our concerns with those companies who abuse the term – not abuse the term ourselves. And arguments where we question the concept of CSR only underlines this confusion. Instead of defending CSR against abuse and misunderstanding, we compound the problem by proposing new concepts and terminology and creating even more confusion.

All the additional points made by Andreau is as true of CSR as of Corporate Sustainability: It’s a business approach; it seeks to create long-term value; it embraces opportunity; and it helps manage risk. Thank you Alberto, you described CSR very well – it’s all of the above. Simple but complex at the same time.

To quote Alberto and change it just a little: “This is where the future lies: A unified return to CSR. Not CSR only in terms of philanthropy or compliance only but a sense of CSR related to value, opportunities and risk management.”

Read Full Post »

I can’t help but be on the side of the unions fighting for their rights in Wisconsin and elsewhere. I am pro-union. And I am pro-business. I see no contradiction in this. As a South African (now working in the US) I saw how trade unions helped people and how they led the fight against injustice. And I saw first-hand how good companies partner with trade unions and how they believe in trade unions as much as the unions themselves. I am always fascinated by so many US businesses being anti-unions. It need not be like this.

For the next few days I will tell you about my own experience in becoming a trade unionist in South Africa. I always say I am an ex-unions. But I am not. You can never be an ex-unionist. I am with my brothers and sisters fighting for their rights and protecting those workers who need protection against exploitation. We need them and business need them – sustainable businesses that is…

One note: We unionist in South Africa call each other Comrade. Nothing to do with communism. Just part of the legacy of fighting Apartheid and fighting injustices. So here we go – the first part of my story as a trade unionist. Maybe you’ll understand why I support the unions – I am biase because of my experience. They were my home and made me fit into the new South Africa. I am forever grateful to all my Comrades and what they gave to me.

————————–

I wasn’t born to be an activist or a trade unionist in South Africa. Quite the opposite, really. I was born to be the stereotypical ‘good, racist Afrikaner’ in Apartheid South Africa. My family supported Apartheid and all of them worked for the Apartheid regime at some stage in their lives.

My dad was a Brigadier in the South African Prison Services, and one of his last assignments was to look after political prisoners at Pollsmoor prison during the last few years of Apartheid. Both my sisters worked at the prison services and married guys who worked at the prison services. And my brother worked for the prison services on Robben Island – where Nelson Mandela was jailed.

I grew up in a home that did everything the Apartheid government wanted us to do. We were part of the Dutch Reformed Church – the Apartheid government in prayer. We watched rugby – then the sport of the white Afrikaner. I went to school at Paarl Gymnasium – one of the best Apartheid schools in South Africa. I attended the University of Stellenbosch – the ‘brain trust’ of the Apartheid policies and politics. We read the Apartheid government approved newspapers and watched their TV. I benefited from the education they provided and the money they paid my dad. I was made for a life supporting and working for the Apartheid government.

Somewhere along the line things didn’t work out the way they planned. I became everything that Apartheid was against – an activist with a social conscience who loves being an ‘African’ on the global stage. Instead of being the man they wanted me to be, I became the man I wanted to be. It hasn’t always been easy. It hasn’t always been fun. But it always felt right. From Stellenbosch to Seattle, Mali to Monterrey, and Lusaka to London – no matter where the road took me, it always felt right, and it always felt as if I belonged.

That’s the beauty of life – you can be who and what you want to be no matter where you come from.

I got my big break – an interview with Gordon Young for a job as Developmental Economist / Researcher at the LRS (Labour Research Services). The LRS was the leading trade union support organization in South Africa. Well respected by overseas donors and at the center of policy making in the trade union movement. And it played a huge role in the anti-Apartheid movement during the struggle years.

Of course I knew nothing about all this when I got the call from Gordon Young. Hey, I applied for a job that was advertised in the wrong newspaper. And I was only a minor player in the anti-Apartheid movement at my university. How was I supposed to know who they were? I would have thought that it had something to do with taxes if someone mentioned the LRS to me.

But I managed to wing it at the interview. Gordon and myself did not hit it off straight away. I think that he thought I was a bit of a lightweight. He was right of course, but he also realized that I knew research methodology inside out. And that, combined with the lack of competition, got me through to the final round of interviews. With the LRS partner – NACTU – that I will be working with.

Again, I knew nothing of NACTU. Absolutely nothing. Thanks to my Apartheid education, I was never taught anything about trade unions in South Africa – not even at university. Never mind the smaller of the three trade union federations.

My initial research also let me down. I thought NACTU stood for the National Azanian Council of Trade Unions. It made sense. NACTU was closely aligned with the black consciousness movement and had close ties with organizations such as the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC) and Azanian People’s Organization (AZAPO) – two of the dominant black consciousness organizations in the fight against Apartheid. But I was wrong – although they were somewhat aligned with the PAC, NACTU stood for the National Council of Trade Unions. And their members had the freedom to choose who they wanted to support politically.

But I didn’t do that much research, thinking that I can wing it again as I did with Gordon. All I knew was that NACTU was a trade union federation and that the job would focus on supporting them with research.

Gordon told me I was to meet Cunningham in Johannesburg. If he liked me I would get the job as he would indirectly be my boss. Hey, they pay my salary – I just work for the LRS.

I started picturing Mr Cunningham. He sounded like a typical middle-aged white English guy – most likely from the ‘old country’ – England.

I got on the plane to Johannesburg from Cape Town to meet Mr Cunningham at the NACTU offices. Grabbed a taxi from the airport and off I went to Fox Street in the center of Jo’burg. I was shitting myself as I have only been to Jo’burg a few times, and the horror stories people told me sounded like something from Gotham City – muggings, car hijacking, stabbings etc. Not the place for a young white boy from a small town. But I made it to the NACTU offices in one piece.

As I entered the NACTU offices I immediately realized that I have never seen so many black people in one office. Everyone was black. It was a bit of a cultural shock – but a pleasant one. At last I found a place that looked like it represented South Africa. Anti-Apartheid slogans and pictures were posted all over the walls – clenched fists and all. I thought it was odd that a white middle-aged English guy would head up all of this, but this is South Africa and anything is possible.

So I sat around and waited for Mr Cunningham to come and call me for my interview. A tall, thin black guy in overalls walked past me and stopped. He looked back at me and said – ‘You must be Henk’. He came over and introduced himself. ‘Hi Comrade, I am Cunningham. Cunningham Ncgukana’. He wasn’t even middle-aged.

Read Full Post »

It feels like 1990 all over again. How many times do we go through these arguments that CSR is dead or CSR isn’t a very good description or that CSR is so yesterday. It seems as if we are back at the drawing board again. First we had Aneel Karnani make his Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility in the WSJ last year. Then we had Michael Porter and Mark Kramer argue in the Harvard Business Review that CSR is an old concept and that the new way forward is CSV – Creating Shared Value. And now we have Alberto Andreau arguing that Shifting From CSR To CSV Isn’t The Solution and that the truth and future lies in Corporate Sustainability. Oh boy, here we go again…

I won’t go into detail into Dr Karnani’s argument. It has been dealt with from all angles and most agree that he missed the point a bit. What he perceives to be CSR isn’t CSR but only what some companies claim to be CSR. He was working with the concept of CSR as practiced maybe 20 odd years ago but CSR and CSR practices today have changed dramatically. His definition and understanding of CSR was wrong and his argument therefore based on the wrong assumption. But what about Porter and Kramer, and Andreau? I would argue that they are making the exact same mistake as Dr Karnani. They are using a definition of CSR that is outdated and their understanding of CSR is based on what CSR was 20 years ago – or maybe even closer to 5 or so years ago.

Let me first say that it is an excellent piece. They capture the latest thinking and practices of CSR very well. Unfortunately they then argue that this is CSV and not CSR. It’s not, it’s still CSR. And what they propose isn’t completely new either. Those of us who have been working at the sharp end of CSR have been working on a similar concept and approach for a few years already but we didn’t call it shared value – we coined mutual or co-responsibility. The idea of mutual or co-responsibility is that (leading) companies should focus their CSR on those areas where they share an impact and opportunity with key stakeholders. Starbucks can focus on the cup when they deal with consumers and on sourcing when they work with farmers – helping consumer have a better impact and helping farmers increase yields, get better prices, be more sustainable etc. Levi’s helping consumer limit the impact of their jeans and working with farmers in farming cotton. Best Buy recycling or even buying back older technology. And many more leading companies share this approach to CSR.

Furthermore, we’ve focused more specifically on key stakeholders and not society as whole. There is a reason why – society is too broad a concept for a company to focus on. Break society into the various stakeholder groups and be specific in who you target – key stakeholders such as consumers or suppliers or investors or regulators or your local communities or even distant communities. The more targeted you are the better the chance of success. Of course you should always target more than one stakeholder but try to be as targeted as possible to know exactly where the shared value or mutual responsibility/opportunity might be. CSR works best when it is targeted.

Back to the meaning of CSR…

CSR has changed it’s meaning and how it is used substantially since the 1970s. It started off as all about compliance and pressure from activists for expand on their philanthropic commitments. But today it is as diverse as the concept of business. Business isn’t a singular description anymore. It describes anything from a large multinational company with a diverse set of products to an informal trader working in the streets of a township in Africa. It’s a bit like pornography – we know it when we see it.

Let’s define CSR quickly to provide some clarity. This isn’t a perfect science as we don’t have a single agreed definition. Mine is simple and I don’t claim this to be the final definition of CSR: CSR is the way an organization manages and communicates its impact on society and the environment. Simple. But it is this simplicity that hides the complexity and diversity of how we practice and implement CSR.

Porter and Kramer make the same mistake that Dr Karnani did by not recognizing the diversity within the CSR field. Some practice CSR in the risk management, compliance and/or philanthropy way they explain it and other practice CSR in the shared value way they explain CSV. It’s the nature of the beast – CSR is not a single discipline that covers every single company in the same way. Each company and industry focus on it in a different way. For example, for pharma it makes sense to focus on philanthropy because it is in the nature of the product(s) they offer. It makes sense to donate products to people who can’t afford it – or else they die. As simple as that. It doesn’t mean they don’t focus on other areas but their priority focus will most likely be around philanthropy – and at the core of their business: finding new drugs to help us deal with our health challenges. For companies such as Starbucks it is very different because they focus on consumers and farmers. They help farmers improve their practices and pay a premium price and help consumers improve their impact by offering recycling and encouraging them to use tumblers. Companies and industries are diverse in how they practice CSR. At best it focuses on those areas where their products or service intersects with society – and where the greatest societal needs intersects with business opportunities (or responsibilities).

(Of course we learn from different practices and improve on it but it is always unique for each company – or should be – as it should focus on the specific value the company offers through it’s unique products and/or services and brand and corporate identity.)

Some companies just do not have a shared value with society – or they have a very difficult case to make. For example, tobacco companies can build a solid case of shared value in their sourcing practices (and some do) but they will have a difficult case to make for shared value with the broader society. And the same goes for arms dealers/manufacturers, some military contractors etc.

Shared value is also limited by the timeframe and current knowledge. If we look at societal needs and shared value today then it makes perfect sense to provide a society suffering economically the cheapest fuel and energy. But we know that this will have a negative long-term impact. Shared value shifts and moves with time. What might be a shared value today is another issue to deal with tomorrow.

The idea of renaming CSR to CSV because of the perceived new way is futile. The debate continues each and every day and was at a height 5-7 years ago when some CSR practitioners (like me) argued that CSR has changed from compliance to differentiator and should therefore be renamed because it is now about business opportunities and not compliance-led responsibility. I was wrong back then. I confused the definition of CSR with the practice of CSR. And this is the fundamental mistake of Porter and Kramer. And Karnani and Andreau. They confuse the definition of CSR with the practice of CSR. The practice of CSR is complex and diverse – adapted to the needs of the complexity of business and flexible enough to continue to adapt and change with time and knowledge.

CSV isn’t the new CSR. It is a way of practicing CSR. I would even go so far as to say that it is the ideal way of practicing CSR – finding the shared value with society (or specific stakeholder groups). But it isn’t something different from CSR. It is how some practice CSR. And a damn good way to implement CSR if it makes sense for a company to do so.

As for Andreau – the same argument holds. Corporate Sustainability is just another way of practicing CSR.

Of course a major flaw of Anfreau’s argument is his argument that we need to widen the meaning of sustainability to ensure it covers everything he wants sustainability to stand for. Why is it acceptable to adapt the meaning of sustainability but somehow not acceptable to do the same with CSR? Actually, I am not asking for a change in the meaning of CSR but only a recognition of its complexity. I agree with his call for simplicity but I don’t think that changing the name will help. The simplicity lies in the earlier definition of CSR I gave and the complexity in the execution.

All the points made by Andreau is as true of CSR as of Corporate Sustainability: It’s a business approach; it seeks to create long-term value; it embraces opportunity; and it helps manage risk. Thank you Alberto, you described CSR very well – it’s all of the above. Simple but complex at the same time.

To quote Alberto and change it just a little: “This is where the future lies: A unified return to CSR. Not CSR only in terms of philanthropy or compliance only but a sense of CSR related to value, opportunities and risk management.”

In conclusion, what is described as CSV and Corporate Sustainability are not new but captures some of the latest developments of how we practice CSR. And they do an excellent job of expanding the thinking of how we (should) practice CSR. But there is a limit to their contribution. Let’s not get distracted by shiny objects and new names – let’s stop this arguing about what we call it as it doesn’t help us do the work we are doing and distract us with discussions about terminology. The value of Porter and Kramer, and Andreau, gets lost in the discussion of terminology. We argue about what we should call it instead of expanding the discipline and practice of CSR. The value of Porter and Kramer lies not in calling it CSV but in strengthening the practice of CSR – shared value, co-responsibility, mutual responsibility etc. I think their description of mutual responsibility is a much better description of my own – shared value describes it better than my idea of mutual or co-responsibility.

By focusing on what we call it we lose the value of Porter and Kramer’s work when they describe the roots of shared value – taking on Friedman, showing how shared value is a traditional part of the best companies, show how reconceiving products and markets can bring new value to business and society, highlight local cluster development as a driver to create shared value, and so much more. None of this is new – Starbucks have been sourcing this way for over 10 years; cluster development is a natural phenomenon and the modern version was started by a history prof and a garage owner in Chihuahua, Mexico; most companies started with a shared value offer – from Walmart bringing cheap food to the poorest Americans as close to their homes as possible to the mom-and-pop shops offering locally produced good. The beauty does not lie in the fact that they create the concept of CSV but rather in their ability bring the latest thinking and practices of CSR into one single place – and drive us further forward in the implementation and practice of CSR. It is a powerful piece and one that should be used to defend CSR and show how CSR has grown instead of using it to divide us even more because of a debate on terminology. Let’s stop arguing what we call it and focus on what we practice and do each and every single day. Let’s advance the discipline of CSR instead of creating more divisions through renaming it. Let’s focus on improving the impact of business on society and identify mutually beneficial opportunities instead of looking at the impact of what we call it. Let’s just do it instead of calling it…

CSR is dead! Long live CSR!

(Disclosure: As promised, I think it is only ethical and right for me to mention when I have worked or work with a company I mention in my post. It’s called transparency. All of the companies mentioned above – Starbucks, Levi’s and Best Buy are clients.)

Read Full Post »

The UK and Europe is so far ahead of the US when it comes to CSR. If I only had a penny for everyone who said this. I hear this almost every single day. And not just from those in England who have a slightly superior attitude when it comes to CSR. I hear it from people here in the US just as often, if not more often. The truth is that we are comparing apples and oranges. Is cricket better than baseball? Only if you are from England. Although you wouldn’t know that from recent results – excluding the Ashes. And you would only like cricket more if you enjoy sitting in the sun and rain for five days and still not get a result. But I digress. They are both ball sports but they are vastly different. They might even share a common history, but that is where it stops.

I’ve noticed small differences as well. In the US companies focus often on what they do in the community – their communities. How you interact and how you support them. Europe tend to focus more on how you run your business in a responsible way – it’s about operations and how you work. The impact is important to both, but in the US you look at your community and their needs first and the way you work in your community might have something to do with the way you operate, but does not have to. In Europe you focus on your role in society through your operations and the impact you have, and then you improve on these. Through these operational changes you will have a more positive impact on society. Both benefits society, but they have slightly different points of departure.

The reason why the community focus is so central in the US is because there is less of a safety net in the US than in most of Europe. People do not expect government to solve their problems or protect them from every single little thing in life. No, people do that themselves and they tend to look after themselves and sometimes after each other. They expect to solve issues themselves. Americans like the idea of less interference by government and more control by themselves in taking responsibility of their own lives. It might have something to do with the open spaces, but Americans do not like people telling them what to do. They want to be masters of their own destiny. Less government and more power to the people.

In the UK and much of Europe there are much more of a reliance on government to interfere in daily life. People expect government to take more control of their daily lives and maintain the rules of how society engage and organize themselves. The rules of engagement. And they want government to identify the common areas of good that will help improve society. Government will tell you what is bad and help you to become better. All that is left for companies to do is ensure they do their best through operations and compliance to government regulations.

That brings me to a second and more important point of difference – regulations and compliance. Corporate behavior is managed through regulations and compliance in the UK and Europe. Everything you do is regulated and not left to the company to try to innovate on their side. Any leadership position you develop is very quickly turned into a government requirement. (Your window of opportunity to show true leadership will stay open for a very short period in this environment). Yes, European companies do some amazingly innovative stuff but just notice carefully how much of that innovation actually takes place outside of their own borders – where they source from or manufacture.

It helps that there is a strong central government in Europe. It makes it easy to push through new regulations. And it is even easier in Europe where the European Commission is hardly held responsible by ‘the people’ and have an almost free ride in bringing in new regulations. No wonder that Europe brought out regulations to define what a banana is – up to the curve needed to be defined as a banana. And I am not joking…

And it is also easy to bring in new regulations in the UK. It is a small island with a central government that runs the rule over everyone. Yes, Scotland and Wales have some autonomy, but the UK is still pretty much ruled from London. It is easy to understand the drive towards more regulations with so much power in the hands of a central government. It is in the nature of government to try to rule their own way. And each new government want to leave behind some kind of legacy. And what is easier than to bring in new regulations that can be sold as ‘for the good of everyone’.

One dynamic that makes this possible in the UK is the level of stakeholder engagement by the government. I was amazed to see how little joint constructive meetings between business, government and NGOs take place in the US. When I lived and worked in the UK it was so different. Regular meetings with all these key stakeholders together – and working together to fight and find solutions. Not over here in the US. It’s about lobbying and individual actions – and at best a few partnerships that will include the usual suspects of progressive companies and engaging NGOs. But not in the same was as over in the UK.

But the regulatory approach is different in the US. States control their own destiny much more than any regional authority in the UK. The federal government does not have the power to control everything. Even taxes are different from state to state. And some states like Massachusetts might regulate more towards the protection of people than those in say Texas, but it is up to each state to decide what is most relevant for their state. Federal government can provide guidelines and try to push through federal laws, but this is generally fought tooth and nail by states. The art of the federal government is to try and keep a balance between inching forward on the regulatory front and encouraging states to take control at a local level. But change happens at state level and not federal level.

This approach allows for companies to take more risk in trying out new practices and to develop a leadership position. They know they can bring in these practices without the danger of it being regulated to death. Yes, it is a fine balance. They still have to tell the truth in advertising and not make claims that can’t be backed, but they can be more risky in taking chances. Over in Europe it is slightly different. The aim of regulations is not to bring best practice into law, but to rather identify the lowest common denominator that could be passed as acceptable behavior by companies. I know, both have a place – best practice and lowest common denominator. In the US they lean more towards the former and in Europe more to the latter. It fits their societal and political needs.

Of course the US does have one thing that ensures that the lowest common denominator is ‘self regulated’. The I-will-sue-you culture. You make one mistake and the consumer will take you to the cleaners. Yes, it is out of control, but it creates an incentive for business to not do something that can harm the public. There are enough lawyers here to ensure that you will get sued. Businesses in Europe can hide behind compliance of law and it is much more difficult to sue someone if they haven’t broken the law instead of suing because they didn’t look after the public interest.

And some of the regulations make the way companies act very different. For instance, both the UK and US have regulations regarding how foundations are run. And these are very, very different. US corporate foundations are not allowed to do any work that can directly benefit the company. This was put in place to ensure that companies do not see this as a way to hide money, and to ensure they spend their foundation money on what is good for society as a whole. Very different in the UK. Much more freedom to be strategic in the way they spend their foundation money. They can spend the money on helping suppliers of the company and still write it off under foundation rules. The unbelievable work the Shell Foundation (UK) has done in development in poorer countries would not be allowed under US rules.

This difference in regulations and the community/operations dynamics also impacts key aspects of CSR – such as stakeholder engagement and CSR reporting. GRI is flourishing in Europe but struggling to find a solid foothold in the US. But it makes perfect sense. Europe is more driven by regulations and compliance and standards such as GRI makes sense. Everyone reports in a structured way following a specific methodology. It makes less sense in the US where there is less regulatory pressure and a greater need to engage their communities and consumers. They target their communications according to the needs of the receiving audience and not the regulatory and NGO audience. And CSR reporting GRI style is not the easiest thing to use when communicating to consumers and communities.

The US also likes rock stars and celebrities more than anything else. Man, their news are pathetic over here – give me the BBC and Guardian please. Every second story is about some celeb and their latest escapade. And that plays out in the way company CEO’s act as well – not empty celebs but the need for visible champions. The CEO and Chairman tend to play a major role in the public view of the company. Bill Gates is Microsoft. Jeff Swartz is Timberland. Howard Schultz is Starbucks. Steve Jobs is Apple. And each one have to make their mark in this world. Not because they want to, but because people expect them to lead from the front – lead the way in how and what they give and the way they run their company. They are the people others look up to and aspire to become. These leaders drive change across all businesses and are needed in a less regulated business environment. They are by default the people who drive real change through their own commitment to making business and society better. Thank God for them.

Less so in Europe. Companies are seen as more important that the individual. A few has made it to the front – Richard Branson as one. But they stand out because they are so different from the rest. The focus tends to be on the company and not the individual who runs it. Yes, they play a role, but the company is seen as less dependent on the CEO and/or Chairman than in the US. Another reason why the UK at least loves splitting this role while the US wants the same person in charge. Two big personalities would be difficult to control in the US.

One area where the US is way ahead of Europe is in communicating their CSR. They tend to focus on the communications part more while Europe tend to focus more on the operational changes. Maybe it is because the European (UK at least) society is more reserved than the US, but it means that Ben and Jerry’s is more respected in the US than Unilever. But in the UK it is the other way around. Of course this can be exploited and can confuse the consumer. A classic example is the current discussions in Washington about ‘green’ advertising and marketing. But the best tend to rise to the top and consumers do know to take things with a pinch of salt.

In short, the US is different because it fits in with the way their society organizes itself compared to Europe. Both approaches have real value. Both approaches will improve the world little by little. Both approaches will have failures and successes. But the one is not better than the other. Just different. Dealing with their own little peculiarities in their society and political systems. Both work. And both fails. But the US is not in any way behind Europe when it comes to the role of business in society. No. They are just different. An US approach won’t last a second in Europe. And a European approach won’t survive a second in the US. The real challenge for them both is to adapt when they are outside their own borders, culture and comfort zone. For example, neither will last long in China or South Africa if they just try to continue working the way they do in their country of origin. New rules and new ways of operating is needed. They have to bring the best of their world and merge it with the societal and political expectation in these new countries. And that won’t be better either. Just better for that specific country.

But the discipline of business in society benefits from this dynamics – bringing different approaches to the table. And it is when these merge and mingle that we move further ahead in this CSR world of ours. Of course there is one approach that works no matter where you are. The South African approach. But I won’t be giving away our secrets just yet. No, I am way to responsible to do something like that.

And don’t get me started on Europe. I use the term loosely. Although they tend to have regulations that cut across the business sector, each country will have its own little peculiarities. Not in my wildest dream will I ever tell an Englishman that he (or she) is similar to the French. Or German. Or Italians. Or any combination of the above. Each to their own. No one is better. Just different and it is up to us to learn a bit from everyone to help us all be a bit better. That’s how we make CSR work – by making it targeted to the needs of each society and their particular needs and the way they organize themselves.

Read Full Post »

It is election time here in the USA. To state the obvious – It’s an interesting time to be in the US. It’s even more interesting to watch how business behave during these election cycles. This election is especially interesting from that perspective as the two main parties are very divided on a range of social and economic issues. The emergence of the Tea Party and the right-wing in America begs the question – how do business lean during this election? And what does it tell us about their values?

For me this election raises the question of whether business have managed to really live their values through the political support they give to any specific party. The Republican Party is pitched by most as the business friendly party. The one that will look after the interest of business more than the Democratic Party. Of course this judgement is based on the value that the Republican Party will provide business compared to what the Democratic Party has to offer. Lower taxes, less regulations etc are all seen as Republican Party strengths – and all aimed at the value bottom line of business.

 But what about the values bottom line of business? How does their support of one specific party reflect on the values they claim to stand for? A few examples makes me question whether business takes their values as seriously when it comes to politics as their value bottom line.

Firstly, a number of companies are rightly proud of their ranking as good employers. And some of them are very proud that they are constantly ranked  by the Human Rights Campaign as Best Places to Work. The HRC lists the top businesses that support equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees. Now this is where I am slightly concerned that companies overlook these values when it comes to their political support. Do they take into consideration whether a specific political party of group (like the Tea Party) or a specific candidate support these values they uphold as important to their business? I dare say that not all of them do. Too many of the companies listed on the HRC Best Places to Work are also big supporters of candidates and political parties who do not believe in the equal rights for all their employees. I question whether employees are really the “greatest asset” of a company if that company is willing to sell the rights of their employees for a few dollars more to the bottom line.

Secondly, how about climate change? If your company believes that climate change is real and is a real threat to the long-term sustainability of your business – how can you justify supporting an individual or political group who do not believe that climate change is a threat that needs urgent attention?

This second point comes close to the value argument. The first point of equal rights for your employees is mostly a values argument but climate change is about both values and value. It affects your business sustainability and therefore the value you offer as a business. Maybe the world becomes grey because the business makes a decision between short-term value and long-term value. Tax breaks, subsidies, less regulations etc are all perceived as adding short-term value while climate change is something that will starting to hurt the business in 50 years or so. Like a frog being boiled…

I think that some of the support businesses give to Republican Party candidates and the party itself more out of legacy than anything else. They have always done so and will continue to do so out of habit. The truth is that both parties are pretty business friendly compared to most of the world. The value differences are more marginal than people would like us to believe. For example, businesses are cash flush at the moment, profits on Wall Street is up etc – all under Democrat rule. But like anyone who has a long-standing habit or addiction, businesses will support the Republican Party and candidates “because that’s what they’ve always done”. Not a compelling reason but still a reason.

For some businesses it is a clear-cut reason. If they believe that clean energy or a drive for more renewable and alternative energies will hurt their business they will fight against it. Guess who fights renewable energy more than the other when it comes to political parties? But what about that company who believes that the environment is key to who they are as a company? If you are in the outdoor industry then mountains mean a lot to you. People use your products to go and enjoy nature. So how would you feel if someone mines away that mountain top? Not so good. And how about being in an alliance with a company and/or party who supports mining that mountain top? Be careful who you form alliances with even when you don’t mean to be in a formal alliance. You are who you support and who your candidate supports. You can’t shout for greater action on climate change one day and then support a party or candidate who stands for the opposite. Stick with your values or stick with your value – if you believe they are separate. But please don’t claim to have CSR or sustainability in your DNA and then take actions which completely contradicts your statement.

There are many more of these examples. Companies in the construction industry – are you supporting the party who are providing cash to rebuild America or are you supporting those who say that they should never have spent this money in the first place? Retailers – are you supporting those who want to provide continuous tax breaks for the middle class or those who insist that the richest get the biggest cut or no one gets a cut?

Look in the mirror and ask yourself whether you are willing to trade your values in for a perceived value. History is littered with the easy way out – take the money and forget about the rest.

I don’t have a problem with that. Each company will decide what is best for them. Just do me a favor – don’t sell me CSR snake oil stories of “it’s in my DNA”. Embrace who you are and live it. Be true to yourself no matter what that truth might be.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »