Wednesday, August 18, 2010
CSR Perspective Has MOVED!
CSR Perspective has moved to Wordpress! Please visit CSRperspective.com to see the new & improved site. Thanks for visiting.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Public Trust – The Role of Business in Society?
I have spent some time listening to the discussions between climate change skeptics and proponents. One of my main takeaways is that there is rarely a thorough understanding of the science of the issue. Proponents can quote scientists and so can skeptics. I don’t believe that many of us though (myself included) have really done our own analysis of all the research papers and, even if we had, that we would know how to reach our own judgment on the sensitivity analysis, scenarios and balance of risks.
Most of us, on both sides, reach our conclusions based on whose advice we trust.
I feel the same as I follow the debate about the Gulf oil spill. How much oil is coming from the well? Could this incident have happened to any oil company or was BP more exposed to an accident like this than its competitors? Should we be using more dispersants or less? I hear conflicting opinions. The answers to these questions require a complex analysis and understanding of the issues and I don’t have the time or expertise to research each one for myself. So, I think that, as with climate change, we develop our individual opinions based on whose opinion we trust; a newspaper, a political leader, a company, a friend.
In a recent discussion about consumer purchase decisions at the 2010 Solutions Lab in D.C., I participated in a discussion on how consumers make purchase decisions. Few of us (again, myself included), look at the detailed sustainability credentials of a specific product. At best, we develop a level of trust in certain brands and incorporate that into our buying decisions.
This is why I think the trust in large organizations, government and companies especially, is so important. That is where we develop many of our opinions. And when that trust is low it is very unsettling for civil society. If this is correct, then companies have a responsibility to earn and maintain public trust, not just because their business depends on it, but because it is part of their role in society too.
Most of us, on both sides, reach our conclusions based on whose advice we trust.
I feel the same as I follow the debate about the Gulf oil spill. How much oil is coming from the well? Could this incident have happened to any oil company or was BP more exposed to an accident like this than its competitors? Should we be using more dispersants or less? I hear conflicting opinions. The answers to these questions require a complex analysis and understanding of the issues and I don’t have the time or expertise to research each one for myself. So, I think that, as with climate change, we develop our individual opinions based on whose opinion we trust; a newspaper, a political leader, a company, a friend.
In a recent discussion about consumer purchase decisions at the 2010 Solutions Lab in D.C., I participated in a discussion on how consumers make purchase decisions. Few of us (again, myself included), look at the detailed sustainability credentials of a specific product. At best, we develop a level of trust in certain brands and incorporate that into our buying decisions.
This is why I think the trust in large organizations, government and companies especially, is so important. That is where we develop many of our opinions. And when that trust is low it is very unsettling for civil society. If this is correct, then companies have a responsibility to earn and maintain public trust, not just because their business depends on it, but because it is part of their role in society too.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Gulf Oil Disaster - Reflect or Deflect?
On June 9, 2010, CSRWire Talkback orginally published the guest post below that I wrote to appear on their site.
There is a lot of anger at BP right now resulting from the Gulf oil disaster. Someone told me recently that she was so angry she could think of nothing else and was unable to sleep - and she lives in DC, far from the immediate impact. But I question whether this anger is being harnessed in the right direction.
I watched four fishermen being interviewed on TV last weekend. They were angry at BP for polluting the Gulf and harming the fish stock. They were gassing up their boat and motoring on round to the Texas coast to see if the fishing was better there. What an irony and what better example of allowing anger to deflect attention from one’s own complicity in the event.
I learned recently that 10% of our transport fuel needs are met by oil coming from deep sea drilling. Less gassing up of our boats and cars would go a long way to obviating the need for deep sea drilling. Our pursuit of the lowest priced gas every time we fill up is an incentive for lowest cost exploration and production and for taking short cuts. As consumers we have a share in responsibility for the industry that serves our needs and in how our buying behavior incentivizes it to act.
I have no doubt that in the fullness of time and due process, it will emerge that BP, and perhaps other companies and government, should have done things to avoid the disaster or to respond more effectively. I doubt though there were many, if any, people walking around in BP cognizant of the likelihood of this particular incident and maliciously or even consciously ignoring it. There is absolutely a value in media and public attention to punish ‘bad behavior’ in organizations. But what we must be sure of is that we are not allowing ourselves to blame this on a particular set of circumstances at one company, such that we can isolate this as an aberration and conveniently not reflect on our own organizations.
In my mind, the right channel for our energy is not endless anger at BP. Instead use that energy for everyone in the corporate world, and indeed in non profit and governmental organizations, to be thinking to themselves, what catastrophic event of equivalent consequence, that could be caused by a failure in my organization or in my sector, have I unconsciously overlooked – social, environmental, or economic? Of course it is difficult to know what you don’t know, but if ever there was a motivator for thinking creatively, the Gulf oil spill should be it. It may not even be anything to do with your job, but as employees we have the obligation to create the right culture by raising and addressing those questions.
I recall reading once that identifying sometimes irrelevant circumstances that are different from our own is a psychological method we all use subconsciously to distance ourselves from the personal tragedies we read about in the papers each day. It is tempting to think “that company” is different. But I have friends and colleagues at BP and they are good people.* Wherever you are, by definition the unexpected could happen at your organization too.
None of my comments should in any way be seen as reducing the responsibility of the main parties in this tragedy. The question I ask is how best should we channel our desire to see change? How are you using your frustration and anger from this disaster, to reflect or deflect?
* In the interests of full disclosure I should declare that I worked for BP in a sales engineering role from 1987 to 1989.
Kevin Moss is Head of Corporate Responsibility for BT in North America. He shares his thoughts about the intersection between business and sustainability on his blog, CSR Perspective. The views reflected here are his own and, as such, may not necessarily reflect the views of BT, or of any former or future employer
Readers: Take up Kevin Moss’ challenge. Tell Talkback how your company or sector can prevent catastrophe.
There is a lot of anger at BP right now resulting from the Gulf oil disaster. Someone told me recently that she was so angry she could think of nothing else and was unable to sleep - and she lives in DC, far from the immediate impact. But I question whether this anger is being harnessed in the right direction.
I watched four fishermen being interviewed on TV last weekend. They were angry at BP for polluting the Gulf and harming the fish stock. They were gassing up their boat and motoring on round to the Texas coast to see if the fishing was better there. What an irony and what better example of allowing anger to deflect attention from one’s own complicity in the event.
I learned recently that 10% of our transport fuel needs are met by oil coming from deep sea drilling. Less gassing up of our boats and cars would go a long way to obviating the need for deep sea drilling. Our pursuit of the lowest priced gas every time we fill up is an incentive for lowest cost exploration and production and for taking short cuts. As consumers we have a share in responsibility for the industry that serves our needs and in how our buying behavior incentivizes it to act.
I have no doubt that in the fullness of time and due process, it will emerge that BP, and perhaps other companies and government, should have done things to avoid the disaster or to respond more effectively. I doubt though there were many, if any, people walking around in BP cognizant of the likelihood of this particular incident and maliciously or even consciously ignoring it. There is absolutely a value in media and public attention to punish ‘bad behavior’ in organizations. But what we must be sure of is that we are not allowing ourselves to blame this on a particular set of circumstances at one company, such that we can isolate this as an aberration and conveniently not reflect on our own organizations.
In my mind, the right channel for our energy is not endless anger at BP. Instead use that energy for everyone in the corporate world, and indeed in non profit and governmental organizations, to be thinking to themselves, what catastrophic event of equivalent consequence, that could be caused by a failure in my organization or in my sector, have I unconsciously overlooked – social, environmental, or economic? Of course it is difficult to know what you don’t know, but if ever there was a motivator for thinking creatively, the Gulf oil spill should be it. It may not even be anything to do with your job, but as employees we have the obligation to create the right culture by raising and addressing those questions.
I recall reading once that identifying sometimes irrelevant circumstances that are different from our own is a psychological method we all use subconsciously to distance ourselves from the personal tragedies we read about in the papers each day. It is tempting to think “that company” is different. But I have friends and colleagues at BP and they are good people.* Wherever you are, by definition the unexpected could happen at your organization too.
None of my comments should in any way be seen as reducing the responsibility of the main parties in this tragedy. The question I ask is how best should we channel our desire to see change? How are you using your frustration and anger from this disaster, to reflect or deflect?
* In the interests of full disclosure I should declare that I worked for BP in a sales engineering role from 1987 to 1989.
Kevin Moss is Head of Corporate Responsibility for BT in North America. He shares his thoughts about the intersection between business and sustainability on his blog, CSR Perspective. The views reflected here are his own and, as such, may not necessarily reflect the views of BT, or of any former or future employer
Readers: Take up Kevin Moss’ challenge. Tell Talkback how your company or sector can prevent catastrophe.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Enough Stick Already, Where’s The Carrot?
I hosted a table last week at the DC Solutions Lab 2010 on the topic of corporate stakeholder relationships and whether stakeholders incent corporations to act sustainably.
The breadth and quality of the discussion was impressive. I was struck with a consensus we reached that individuals, in their roles as customers, employees and stakeholder do not, for the most part, act on their declared values in their role as members of civil society. I am sure you could find many people filling up their Memorial Day Weekend gas tanks in a BP station (wearing their customer hat) while proclaiming their anger with BP (wearing their member of civil society hat).
I admitted to having bought a toaster oven on-line the previous night without paying any attention to the sustainability credentials of the various vendors.
There is a clear ‘stick’ incentive for companies not to end up with a disaster on their hands that leads to consumer punishment - the risk component of corporate responsibility. But much less evidence of the ‘carrot’ incentive - reward for good actions.
Participants expressed hope that up and coming generations would do more to reward corporations for being sustainable with their buying, employment and share-ownership behaviors. But we had not reached that tipping point yet.
As a CR practitioner, avoiding risk is important but ultimately it’s a weaker incentive to do better than responding to reward. Risk mitigation sets a baseline, but does not incent leadership. Who knows how many bad things CR departments across the corporate world have helped companies avoid? It’s hard to build a business case to do more based on what didn’t happen. But when customers, investors and prospective employees flock to you because you do good, go above and beyond….that will really accelerate sustainable behavior. Roll on the tipping point.
I am hoping to have someone lead a table on this theme at each Solutions Lab in the program. We have run one in each of DC and New York so far. You can see my full take on the conclusions here and from there track back to the raw notes taken during the meeting itself.
The breadth and quality of the discussion was impressive. I was struck with a consensus we reached that individuals, in their roles as customers, employees and stakeholder do not, for the most part, act on their declared values in their role as members of civil society. I am sure you could find many people filling up their Memorial Day Weekend gas tanks in a BP station (wearing their customer hat) while proclaiming their anger with BP (wearing their member of civil society hat).
I admitted to having bought a toaster oven on-line the previous night without paying any attention to the sustainability credentials of the various vendors.
There is a clear ‘stick’ incentive for companies not to end up with a disaster on their hands that leads to consumer punishment - the risk component of corporate responsibility. But much less evidence of the ‘carrot’ incentive - reward for good actions.
Participants expressed hope that up and coming generations would do more to reward corporations for being sustainable with their buying, employment and share-ownership behaviors. But we had not reached that tipping point yet.
As a CR practitioner, avoiding risk is important but ultimately it’s a weaker incentive to do better than responding to reward. Risk mitigation sets a baseline, but does not incent leadership. Who knows how many bad things CR departments across the corporate world have helped companies avoid? It’s hard to build a business case to do more based on what didn’t happen. But when customers, investors and prospective employees flock to you because you do good, go above and beyond….that will really accelerate sustainable behavior. Roll on the tipping point.
I am hoping to have someone lead a table on this theme at each Solutions Lab in the program. We have run one in each of DC and New York so far. You can see my full take on the conclusions here and from there track back to the raw notes taken during the meeting itself.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Ethics Trumps Sustainability
I posted a blog in January "sustainability is over-rated" in which I posited that sustainability was just one of the principles against which Corporate Responsibility can be judged and practiced. A number of people commented that we should focus on action and not worry too much about terminology. Call me obsessed, but I cannot let it go at that. I believe more and more that ethics underpins sustainability and that we must be able to speak to ethics to be able to resolve some of the most challenging sustainability issues we will face in the future.
The broadly accepted principle of sustainability asks that we use resources in a manner that satisfies current needs without compromising the needs or options of future generations. Who says that the needs of the yet to be conceived, their children and their children’s children ad infinitum, are valued equally highly with the needs of those alive today? The answer is that our predominantly accepted code of ethics tells us that.
If being sustainable turns out to be easy, this might not matter. However, if being sustainable turns out to require behavioral change and perhaps sacrifice, we will need to be able to articulate and defend the ethical foundation on which it is based. To illustrate, I like to look at another view of the world……..
At BSR last year, many others and I listened to an inspiring plenary highlight by Zhang Yue Chairman and CEO of BROAD air conditioning in China. We all felt so good listening to a fantastically successful Chinese businessman talk about all he achieved through his environmentally friendly business approach. But you could hear the sharp intake of Westerners’ breath when he stated that of course he fired any employee who had more than one child, because more than one child per family was not consistent with a sustainable population and planet. This contrast in values is fundamentally an ethics question.
I recently read Practical Ethics by Peter Singer. It provided me with a structure to step back from my inherited values and look at them from an external perspective. I have not changed my views (that much!), but I understand them and their heritage much better. I also learned that our approach to sustainability is rooted in ethics and that some of our most difficult dilemmas, in particular when two good outcomes compete in a zero sum game, need to be sorted with the help of ethics, before we can apply sustainability correctly.
The broadly accepted principle of sustainability asks that we use resources in a manner that satisfies current needs without compromising the needs or options of future generations. Who says that the needs of the yet to be conceived, their children and their children’s children ad infinitum, are valued equally highly with the needs of those alive today? The answer is that our predominantly accepted code of ethics tells us that.
If being sustainable turns out to be easy, this might not matter. However, if being sustainable turns out to require behavioral change and perhaps sacrifice, we will need to be able to articulate and defend the ethical foundation on which it is based. To illustrate, I like to look at another view of the world……..
At BSR last year, many others and I listened to an inspiring plenary highlight by Zhang Yue Chairman and CEO of BROAD air conditioning in China. We all felt so good listening to a fantastically successful Chinese businessman talk about all he achieved through his environmentally friendly business approach. But you could hear the sharp intake of Westerners’ breath when he stated that of course he fired any employee who had more than one child, because more than one child per family was not consistent with a sustainable population and planet. This contrast in values is fundamentally an ethics question.
I recently read Practical Ethics by Peter Singer. It provided me with a structure to step back from my inherited values and look at them from an external perspective. I have not changed my views (that much!), but I understand them and their heritage much better. I also learned that our approach to sustainability is rooted in ethics and that some of our most difficult dilemmas, in particular when two good outcomes compete in a zero sum game, need to be sorted with the help of ethics, before we can apply sustainability correctly.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Can A Company Acquire Its Way Into Being Sustainable?
Unilever acquired Ben and Jerry’s, Dannon acquired Stoneyfields Yoghurt and more recently Coke acquired 40% of Honest Tea. This morning I had the pleasure of hearing Seth Goldman co-founder of Honest Tea speak at a networking breakfast of the National Capital Chapter of the Association of Corporate Growth (ACG).
Seth is a great speaker with a great sense of humor and plenty of good material. Go hear him if you have the opportunity. And he, or someone at Honest Tea, has the knack for identifying what might go viral. Just for fun, watch this very short video that demonstrates Wall Street is 89% honest!
We need people and companies like this to create a positive image for what sustainability can mean for business and for society. With the acquisition by Coca-Cola of 40% of Honest Tea I wanted to know whether the culture and approach of Honest Tea could help Coca-Cola to further its sustainability achievements. (The popular question is whether a large corporation will squeeze the sustainability out of a much smaller one, but I prefer the half glass full approach!)
I asked Seth this question in the Q&A and he was optimistic in his response, explaining that he felt Coca-Cola had embraced Honest Tea so far. At a worldwide meeting of Coca-Cola execs, announcement of the first Honest Tea production plant inside a Coca-Cola facility received standing applause from the audience. The Honest Tea process is fairly unique in Coca-Cola facilities in that it uses raw agricultural produce (tea leaves) rather than syrup, as its raw material. I can see how this might have a broader influence on a large company.
Seth also described being sought by Coca-Cola execs to input ideas on how they could enhance their existing sustainability efforts using their core resources and capabilities.
Maybe Seth’s enthusiasm is just infectious, but I for one was encouraged. The acquisition delivers continued rebalancing of Coca-Cola’s portfolio and provides alternative and more sustainable routes for growth. I need to find a parallel acquisition in my sector! As long as Honest Tea is nurtured as a catalyst for further change, this acquisition will be a model for another way of enhancing corporate sustainability. As Seth concluded (and as much as it pains me to say it with my British heritage), “the tea party has just begun”.
Seth is a great speaker with a great sense of humor and plenty of good material. Go hear him if you have the opportunity. And he, or someone at Honest Tea, has the knack for identifying what might go viral. Just for fun, watch this very short video that demonstrates Wall Street is 89% honest!
We need people and companies like this to create a positive image for what sustainability can mean for business and for society. With the acquisition by Coca-Cola of 40% of Honest Tea I wanted to know whether the culture and approach of Honest Tea could help Coca-Cola to further its sustainability achievements. (The popular question is whether a large corporation will squeeze the sustainability out of a much smaller one, but I prefer the half glass full approach!)
I asked Seth this question in the Q&A and he was optimistic in his response, explaining that he felt Coca-Cola had embraced Honest Tea so far. At a worldwide meeting of Coca-Cola execs, announcement of the first Honest Tea production plant inside a Coca-Cola facility received standing applause from the audience. The Honest Tea process is fairly unique in Coca-Cola facilities in that it uses raw agricultural produce (tea leaves) rather than syrup, as its raw material. I can see how this might have a broader influence on a large company.
Seth also described being sought by Coca-Cola execs to input ideas on how they could enhance their existing sustainability efforts using their core resources and capabilities.
Maybe Seth’s enthusiasm is just infectious, but I for one was encouraged. The acquisition delivers continued rebalancing of Coca-Cola’s portfolio and provides alternative and more sustainable routes for growth. I need to find a parallel acquisition in my sector! As long as Honest Tea is nurtured as a catalyst for further change, this acquisition will be a model for another way of enhancing corporate sustainability. As Seth concluded (and as much as it pains me to say it with my British heritage), “the tea party has just begun”.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Guest Post – CA; Less Bad, enable Good, REALLY Well
I was speaking recently with Steve Boston, Chief Sustainability Officer at CA (formally known as Computer Associates) and he articulated to me a three part model he uses to approach sustainability. It is different but I think complementary to my Four Dimensions of Sustainability and I asked Steve if he would contribute a guest post for CSRPerspective.
We view our strategic framework as three very important and distinct components: “Do Less Bad”, “Enable Good” and “Do REALLY Well”. Each of these components must be viewed (and internalized) from both an environmental stewardship perspective and a business perspective.
“Do Less Bad” refers to the efforts a company must take to manage its carbon footprint (includes reduce energy consumption, minimize waste, etc). From a business perspective, this component is also where the majority of operational cost benefits are contained. On the “Do Less Bad” path, there is an incredibly close relationship to saving money and reducing our impact on the environment. For those companies first starting out with their sustainability programs, this is where they should start. It will prove the environmental and fiduciary value to your Board of Directors (which will enable more investment for “Enable Good”).
“Enable Good” refers to creating the technologies, materials and business processes which will allow for paradigm shifts in the way we all interact with the environment. For example, nuclear power generation is a technology which has changed the way we *think* about producing energy. It *enables* us to choose the type of energy we’re willing to consume. “Enable Good” is the area which will enable us to come closer to *eliminating* waste, bad energy and carbon emissions. This is also the strategy component which grows a company’s revenue opportunities in the sustainability space. This component is really cool, because it potentially changes the world. It’s also an opportunity to increase national competitiveness, create exports and help us with our economic concerns.
“Do REALLY Well” is the strategic component which speaks to how well we do the first two components. The better we do them, the more opportunity we have to talk about them and create a leadership positioning for ourselves. If you “Do Less Bad” and “Enable Good” better than your competition does, you immediately increase your ability to attract revenue and investment. Its great business AND it’s great for the world.
Steve Boston, Chief Sustainability Officer,
CA Office of Sustainability
Member, CA Council for Technical Excellence
We view our strategic framework as three very important and distinct components: “Do Less Bad”, “Enable Good” and “Do REALLY Well”. Each of these components must be viewed (and internalized) from both an environmental stewardship perspective and a business perspective.“Do Less Bad” refers to the efforts a company must take to manage its carbon footprint (includes reduce energy consumption, minimize waste, etc). From a business perspective, this component is also where the majority of operational cost benefits are contained. On the “Do Less Bad” path, there is an incredibly close relationship to saving money and reducing our impact on the environment. For those companies first starting out with their sustainability programs, this is where they should start. It will prove the environmental and fiduciary value to your Board of Directors (which will enable more investment for “Enable Good”).
“Enable Good” refers to creating the technologies, materials and business processes which will allow for paradigm shifts in the way we all interact with the environment. For example, nuclear power generation is a technology which has changed the way we *think* about producing energy. It *enables* us to choose the type of energy we’re willing to consume. “Enable Good” is the area which will enable us to come closer to *eliminating* waste, bad energy and carbon emissions. This is also the strategy component which grows a company’s revenue opportunities in the sustainability space. This component is really cool, because it potentially changes the world. It’s also an opportunity to increase national competitiveness, create exports and help us with our economic concerns.
“Do REALLY Well” is the strategic component which speaks to how well we do the first two components. The better we do them, the more opportunity we have to talk about them and create a leadership positioning for ourselves. If you “Do Less Bad” and “Enable Good” better than your competition does, you immediately increase your ability to attract revenue and investment. Its great business AND it’s great for the world.
Steve Boston, Chief Sustainability Officer,
CA Office of Sustainability
Member, CA Council for Technical Excellence
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
