Megan MacDonald's posts on Justmeans

Girl Effect

Megan MacDonald — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:00:06 GMT

This video came out last year, and you may have already seen it (I've been living under a rock in Kenya, so I just saw it for the first time today). It shows how powerful words, and some well-timed music, can be. I find it's a fantastic example of innovation in the CSR arena. Funded primarly by the Nike Foundation and the NoVo Foundation, the video introduces the Girl Effect - a collaborative effort to publicize the importance of educating girls around the world and the chain reaction such action would cause in terms of improving communities and growing economies. The effort draws on development and policy experts, economists, private citizens and larger community efforts and NGOs to think critically about the role each of us can play in helping girls to reach their potential. I love the pdf download available on the site (www.girleffect.org) which provides facts about girls throughout the world, explains the financials behind the approach and gives targeted ideas for involvement. That's one of my favorite parts - there are checklists and questions to be used in evaluating how you can address the issue - whether "you" are a government or international organization, a private donor, an NGO or a private employer. See page 19 in the doc (I can't figure out how to link to it) for evaluation tools and ideas.One thing I'll say is that as right-on as this is with all the energy, collaboration, facts and figures - I found something missing based on my time in Kenya and local efforts to keep girls in school. I was surprised to see that in 50+ pages of discussion about educating girls and the reasons they're pulled out of school so early (if they go at all) there was not one mention of access to sanitary towels playing a part. According to ZanaA, an organization started in Kenya that mirrors many of the goals of Girl Effect, this is the premier reason why girls aren't staying in school as long as they could - they're simply missing too many days because they don't have the materials they need to be out and about while dealing with their menstrual cycle.It's a well-known problem in many Sub Saharan African countries (and beyond), so I was surprised not to see a mention in the Girl Effect literature. I do see lots of invitations for feedback and partnership - so I hope this is something that can be added to the great framework they've set out.

Would you like a handcrafted fabric bag with your coffee?

Megan MacDonald — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:19:07 GMT

I just got back to the U.S. after close to ten months away, so visits to all-American favorites like Trader Joes and Starbucks have been in order. Perhaps this explains my recent fascination with all things Starbucks related - and, as mentioned in a previous post, it continues to raise complexities so often present in Corporate Social Responsibility debates - namely what's good, what's just a cover for not-entirely-truthful PR, and when has a company truly changed?In the midst of a recent road trip I stopped for my first frappucino and was excited to see the Rwandan cloth bags Starbucks is currently selling as part of their continued partnership with Rwanda. You can read a bit about Starbuck's history in Rwanda here, and decide for yourself what falls under the "prime opportunity to exploit develop business in a devastated country" and what falls under the banner of a "win-win for a country in dire need of economic stimulus and a company willing to partner in responsible ways to mutual benefit." As I've stated in my previous posts, I'm pretty on board with the latter, and especially appreciate the fact that Starbucks and other interested corporations have sought out Rwanda in part because of the qualities they see in President Paul Kagame, described as, "open, honest, business-savvy and, unlike some African leaders, serious about fighting corruption." The relationship is further sweetened by Rwanda's open arms to the corporate community - and this is where you really see the opportunity for corporate actions and development to intersect. In a recent post on their website, Starbucks director of coffee sustainability Peter Torrebiarte noted that the Rwandan cloth bags (one of the newer collaborations between the country and Starbucks) represented the first full container of manufactured goods ever to be exported from Rwanda. That's pretty impressive.In exploring the history of Starbuck's involvement with Rwanda just a bit, I remember reading as one author pondered the role of the CEO in such relationships and whether they bear more responsibility than the rest of us (presumably) as consumers. If you isolate the relationship Starbucks and other corporations are cultivating in Rwanda, the role becomes more evident. Is it possible that the heightened exposure CEOs seek in such markets helps shield them from the relationships their businesses have in developing countries in which they aren't personally as active, in those countries that are a bit further along the development spectrum (and the ensuing corruption, of course)? Nearby Kenya continues to be plagued by corruption - with farmers throwing up their hands and bailing out in search of better incomes. Still, the coffee sector represents a huge part of National income - as do reports in recent years of challenges with global retailers like Starbucks.Starbucks or not, Rwanda faces its own economic challenges - lets hope relationships like that cultivated by President Kagame and Starbucks continue to serve the best interests of all involved.*Apologies for light posting lately. My return to the U.S. has prompted a truly haze-inducing set of allergy issues resulting in zero headspace for blog thoughts. I'll be on vacation next week but would love to hear from JustMeans members with ideas for blogs to share with the community next week.

Staying on the Case

Megan MacDonald — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:08:50 GMT

Today's post comes from JustMeans community member Christopher Cairns, who makes the case for appreciating all positions in the Niger Delta controversy in an attempt to find a solution.Royal Dutch Shell's recent $15.5 million settlement of the Wiwa v. Shell case is a landmark example of a company making a good faith attempt to settle the past. However, one thing is certain - the underlying grievances that caused Wiwa's and others' execution in the Niger Delta will not go away.Three different worldviews converge in the Delta. The government sees its revenue and state security at stake, Shell sees its profitability, the safety of its personnel and its overall reputation connected to the "triple-bottom line" under threat, and the local communities and NGOs see both these actors contributing to their impoverishment through fostering environmental degradation and seizing wealth from the land without enriching the communities.It's important to emphasize that Shell faces very real consequences in Nigeria: the company has come under intense scrutiny for human rights in the past decade and is now the target of an Amnesty International report: Petroleum, Pollution and Poverty in the Niger Delta. And, Nigeria represents a not-insignificant share of Shell's total oil production.But the company, in contrast to local communities, does have the ability to view the conflict in terms of an issue to be improved, not a life-or-death problem, while more desperate terrorist groups like the recently-emerged Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) may wrongly, but understandably, blame Shell for the Ogoni's and other communities' problems and see their violent removal as the only solution. The point is that to satisfy groups like Amnesty and the local communities, companies like Shell, fairly or unfairly, always have to go above and beyond - the more resources and power a given actor has, the higher the bar is set.Shell's recent conference call with JustMeans represents a welcome step in stakeholder engagement. Company External Relations head Nick Welch insists "it's our goal to respond as human beings, not as some big corporate machine." Going beyond this, Shell recently responded to Amnesty's report, through the nonprofit Business and Human Rights Resource Centre by saying "we would be happy to meet to discuss some of the recommendations in the report" and addressing some of its specifics.For their part, campaign groups like Amnesty do tremendously important work in exposing human rights abuses and uniquely combine leverage in "world power centers" like London and New York, with on-the-ground knowledge of what is happening through their local contacts. Yet these groups' existence is also dependent on exposing rights abuses - they would not be who they are if they did not seek to attribute responsibility for violations in every case possible to one actor or another, and to ask probing questions of powerful actors such as companies.So while Shell and other extractive industries companies stand to benefit from dialogue with Amnesty and local communities, NGOs also ultimately serve human rights better by fully appreciating the complex positions and challenges that companies face. The world still demands energy; the question is how.

Letting go: Corporate dominance gives rise to responsibility

Megan MacDonald — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:07:12 GMT

Corporate Social Responsibility enthusiasts often struggle to balance the indiscretions of a company's past with their current attempts at good works. While die-hard anti-corporate activists will likely never recognize the authenticity behind big-box retailers interested in "greening" themselves, there are more and more whose progress in the responsibility arena deserves recognition. Starbucks is a great example, though I still cringe when I recognize this fact given their history of running small businesses out of town in their meteoric rise to java stardom.For a long time I put companies into very black and white "good" or "bad" quadrants in my head. Starbucks was bad because we'd all watched as they dominated blocks and in a fit of branding genius introduced the coffee "drink" that led to booming business and many a small local coffee shop shutting down. But as the years went by and their drinks became more impossible to ignore or avoid, I began to see signs in their shops I didn't see in other establishments. From the informational displays and selling of Ethos Water to bulletin boards with pictures of baristas doing international service projects, the company was clearly focused on cultivating a responsible image. Still, the pessimist in me held out that it was just that - further gimmicky branding and not enough compensation for the businesses they impacted in the earliest days.Starbucks is far from alone in this category - many of today's most successful businesses left the same RIP trail of mom-and-pop shops in their wake. Like me, I know many people who aren't quite ready to forgive them for it. The truth is, these are the businesses of today - the major employers, the movers of the most products and those who serve the greatest amounts of people. It is thus important to both encourage, support and embrace their efforts at responsibility. Starbucks has recently launched 3 pilot stores of fantastic innovation in regards to sourcing locally, community collaboration and renewable energy. Their partnership with GE to develop a customized lighting system represents the best of private innovation and partnership resulting in new technology and alternatives. And these aren't meant to be single shops of green stardom - they are intended to set the course for operations and building as a whole throughout the company and for future growth.A Starbucks is a hub of activity and the more opportunities a space like that takes to cater to the environment and in any way publicize responsible business, building and energy practices, the better. So, after years of holding a grudge (though I did eventually start partaking in their frappuccinos) I am ready to focus my attention more on the good they're doing now, than the bad they did to get here. I cringe as I write those words, but I know it's the right thing to do for the sake of better business as a whole both now and in the future.

Props to big pharma?

Megan MacDonald — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:01:55 GMT

I was watching an old Boston Legal episode awhile back where a man goes to court to defend the right to his own blood. The legal battle was due to the fact that after acquiring HIV, his body had somehow rid itself of the disease and years later he was HIV/AIDS free. A public health doctor was making the case that if he were granted rights to the man's blood, he could use it to find a cure or a vaccine for the benefit of the public at large. The man on the other hand was trying to protect his ability to work with private companies, both in an effort to profit from his own blood, but also because he felt that private industry had the financing available to actually do the research and deliver a cure faster than the government ever would.I thought of this after reading this article in the Atlantic about pharmaceutical companies and the limits of CSR. With the threat of a global pandemic (H1N1 is of course today's obvious front runner) the article cites the great lengths the pharmaceutical firm Roche has taken to stockpile its Tamiflu vaccine (one of the only drugs that is effective in treating H1N1) and establish global manufacturing schemes, stockpiles and licenses for underdeveloped countries to manufacture generic versions. From the looks of it, Roche is doing whatever it can to share the benefits of the drug they've developed should it be needed on a global scale in the future - and all at their own cost.The article goes on to question whether as a private entity Roche should be responsible for ensuring the ultimate framework is in place to capitalize on their CSR efforts? And perhaps more importantly, how useful is this if the public agencies that would necessarily partner with them in addressing a global epidemic to take advantage of their stockpiles (namely WHO), aren't prepared with the logistical strategy to distribute what Roche has set aside? The article concludes with this statement, "how much corporate responsibility can society demand from a firm like Roche apart from demanding that governments and other non-corporate interests reciprocate?"This brings me back to Boston Legal and a vaguely connected thought about how important it is for CSR initiatives, whether charitable or operational, to have solid public (and sometimes non-profit/NGO) partners in order to maximize the strategy and goodwill that a company is putting forth. Many of us don't expect big pharma to be taking the steps that Roche has in the interest of the greater good, but what a shame if such steps are taken and the public agencies that could maximize their potential aren't in a position to do so on a global scale.

Ethical Investing One Answer to Corporate Accountability

Megan MacDonald — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:09:11 GMT

This post comes from JustMeans member Christopher Cairns.When looking at unethical investing it's often difficult to trace responsibility down the chain. A recent Wall Street Journal piece by David Weidner, though, does just this and places at least part of the blame for funding genocide in Sudan on two institutional investors: Fidelity, and Vanguard. These two companies invest in Chinese state oil company PetroChina, which in turn pays royalties to a Sudanese government that has funded atrocities in Darfur.In his call on Fidelity and Vanguard to do the right thing, Weidner rejects Vanguard's argument that the companies' "strategy" allows no flexibility for ethical choice, even to drop "genocide" stocks. And so do I. But rather than employing shame tactics against these companies for indirectly funding atrocities, it's better to look at what choice we have as individual employees, investors and consumers.Divestment is one option. Unfortunately, this route in recent years has enjoyed limited success, though this is not to say that shareholder activist campaigns are fruitless. In 2000, Fidelity divested 60% of its holdings in Occidental Petroleum, whom human rights and indigenous activists accused of threatening the way of life of the indigenous U'wa people by intending to drill on their lands in Colombia.Though at the time Fidelity claimed that protests outside its U.S. offices had no impact on its decision to divest, the fact that it did so at a time when Oxy's share price was actually rising hints at the contrary. Still, human rights-related shareholder resolutions, despite occasional media attention, have rarely won more than 5% or 10% of the vote.So if shareholder resolutions still enjoy only sporadic success at best, what else can we do to improve companies' respect for human rights? Ethical investing is looking increasingly promising, and profitable; a 2007 study by Goldman Sachs found that "the market rewards sustainable competitive advantage." The study indicated that companies scoring highest on Economic, Social and Governance factors (e.g. corporate responsibility) also had the best share price performance.*This doesn't imply, of course that companies' strong environmental and social performance actually causes higher share prices. And it's possible that large corporations' size and strength equally enables both higher share prices, and better ESG performance since the wealthiest companies have more money to invest in ESG initiatives.Still, companies, even corporate giants, that do well on both the social/environmental, and the financial bottom line and the investment funds that hold them will help to promote the norm that corporate responsibility and ethical investing are "good for business." The hope is that as this norm spreads and ethical investors reap higher returns, companies will come to realize that incorporating environmental and social responsibility into their core business model is too compelling to ignore.*Global Investment Research, Goldman Sachs. "GS SUSTAIN." Investment analysis, 2007.

Making it Personal: CSR and Development

Megan MacDonald — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:02:08 GMT

Let's not beat around the bush: corporations hold a major key to changing the face of development on an international scale. The producing, buying and selling of goods internationally is both responsible for many of the issues that have suppressed countries' development, but also hold great potential for motivating it in the future. There are a plethora of opportunities for companies to embrace this role, and some are starting to in a truly admirable way. A recent post I submitted regarding Starbuck's new locally-sourced and super green stores prompted a great discussion on how much CSR is actually enough, and whether companies are shirking responsibility when they publicize certain efforts and fail to embrace large scale change in their processes that could truly impact the lives of those who contribute to their product.I recently visited a small coffee producing area in north eastern Kenya (where I photographed this child), and saw just how depressed the local conditions had become due to the coffee buying and selling structure that prevents farmers from maximizing profit of their crops. Most local farmers (part of the estimated 6 million workers employed by the industry) cultivate plots of land around 1 square acre, but because they lack transport, are forced to sell at extremely low prices to coffee middlemen who then sell via the government regulated auction process. More and more farmers are turning away from coffee crops, which used to provide a decent living, in order to provide the bare necessities for their families. In Kenya, it is certainly not just companies who bear responsibility for changing the practices that keep workers and families struggling to survive - the government will necessarily play a large role. But it reminds us that major buyers must be aware of and contribute to making changes as well.As a leading coffee company, Starbucks faces such opportunities. When I lived in Costa Rica a number of years ago I remember Starbucks had a great reputation for identifying the highest quality beans and paying a top price - regardless of the size or scope of the producer. This meant that even small coffee producers, if they created a high quality product, could count on a solid price for their crops. Producers in Kenya and many other regions cannot say the same.In recent discussions JustMeans members have questioned whether Starbucks has truly embraced their responsibility or whether they're overly focused on cause marketing for the sake of building their CSR reputation. One member pointed out that while in the UK they've committed to serving entirely Fair Trade varieties, the commitment hasn't extended to the U.S. However in poking around the website I found the company has set long-term goals to ensure that all their coffee is ethically grown and sourced by 2015 - which speaks to our members' ideals of embracing CSR on an in-depth, company wide scope. We're seeing similar commitments from other previous offenders (JM Editorial member Dean Pflueger recently posted on Walmart's increasing commitment) and let's hope this is just the beginning of an era in which companies interpret CSR in the same way as proponents who recognize that sustainability, environmental stewardship and ethical sourcing are good for business, and good for development as a whole.

This post is about me going bananas.

Megan MacDonald — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:16:21 GMT

I used to think of bananas simply as one of my favorite fruits. I mean come on - it's practically the perfect food: sweet and filling, but good for you and not overly loaded with calories.Then I traveled to Costa Rica and visited some of the world's best-kept plantations. Costa Rica is heads and shoulders above many of its neighbors in terms of fighting corruption, gaining international investment and promoting human rights. You can't get away with human rights abuses in Costa Rica to the extent you can in Ecuador or Nicaragua.And yet as I visited (and later went on to complete my undergraduate research on the topic), I realized that Costa Rican banana plantations were rife with human rights violations, and I was forced to recognize in the most tangible way yet just how responsible I was as a consumer, given my proclivity for bananas in my morning cereal.The history of the fruit is fascinating, entire countries' histories (and some say the entire world's) have been molded, shaped and in some cases hijacked by people's often devastating love of the banana. Some of the very first mega corporations grew from the cultivation and worldwide marketing of the fruit, and therein have sprung some of the greatest examples of corporate irresponsibility in all of human history.Christine Arena recently posted on APEsphere about the pending lawsuit threatened by Dole Food Corporation against a filmmaker who attempted to tell the story of Nicaraguan banana plantation workers who have faced injuries and health effects due to their work (especially due to the pesticides they come in contact with). The case hinges on Dole's stance that they can't be held accountable as a domestic corporation for injuries that occurred in a foreign land. It's the proverbial argument around protecting foreign workers (read CHEAP LABOR) - but the banana companies take it to new levels.Many of the plantations I visited in Costa Rica were labeling and packing recognizable brands of bananas while I visited - Dole, Chiquita etc. But the factories and plantations themselves are not owned directly by the companies - they simply sell their produce to the corporate giants (oh, and take direction from them). This allows these companies to skirt human rights issues and various international laws and regulations geared towards promoting corporate social responsibility. When allegations are made, they simply state, "It's not our factory, it's not our country."I could write a thesis on this topic (oh wait, I did!) - I haven't even touched on how companies have blasted workers' attempts to unionize. For now, I will just say I was dismayed to see this lawsuit almost eight years after I first started looking into this issue. I mean, how long ago did Gabrial Garcia Marquez pen 100 Years of Solitude? How are things like this still happening?Bananas aren't as sexy as a Gap cardigan (or I suppose the model who wears it) - but with all the progress we've made in recent years raising awareness of CSR - how is such a massive industry still so entrenched in the worst sort of practices even after attention has been drawn to them. There has to be a way to tie corporate giants to the factories and farms and governments that supply their profit. There has to be a way to hold them responsible.

Weekend CSR Wrap Up

Megan MacDonald — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:05:15 GMT

A collection of headlines and posts that caught my eye this week - enjoy!The Hidden Cost of Cause Marketing -Consumption philanthropy individualizes solutions to collective social problems, distracting our attention and resources away from the neediest causes, the most effective interventions, and the act of critical questioning itself. It devalues the moral core of philanthropy by making virtuous action easy and thoughtless. And it obscures the links between marketstheir firms, products, and servicesand the negative impacts they can have on human well-being. For these reasons, consumption philanthropy compromises the potential for charity to better society.- JustMeans member Jonathan Feinstein steered me to this article in response to my post about Starbucks.CEO Engagement a Critical Indicator of Success -When a CEO drives and promotes the CR agenda then all aspects of the business become engaged at an accelerated level. This is the action that truly drives the success of a CR agenda including external recognition. So it's not so much the general question of"Where sustainability lives" but rather "does sustainability live at the CEO level?" that determines success.- I often receive comments about the importance of infusing a company as a whole with the spirit of Corporate Social Responsibility, and not just the CSR division. The report cited in this post reflects on how important a CEO can be in this effort."Back to Petroleum": BP shuts clean energy HQ, slashes renewables budget, dives into tar sands. -Seriously, they gut the program and claim it is "reinforcement" of their commitment. Perhaps BP stands for "Beyond Prevarication" or "Beyond Pinocchio."- How are we getting less when we need more!?Selling Bee: South African Breweries anounce a deal to get more black ownership of capital -Brewing group SAB has announced a major empowerment deal at a time when others are struggling because of the economic downturn. Empowerment will remain a challenge in the current environment, but will also create new opportunities for compliant firms.- Having lived in South Africa I am annoyed with myself for not knowing more about BEE. Learn more here and here.Naked Juice, Earthbound Farms Switch to Recycled Packaging -The two companies' efforts are the first in each of their industries to utilize 100 percent PCR plastic. Some companies like Method have been using 100 percent PCR content, but not in food or drink applications. And few in the food and drink industry have attained high levels of PCR content. Coca cola, for example, has less than 4 percent recycled material in its PET bottles and is trying to work that up to 10 percent.- This is great news - but am I the only one who figured we were further along with PCR materials by now? It never ceases to amaze me how many opportunities companies have to change their practices that could have/should have been made years ago. Still, kudos to Naked Juice and Earthbound Farms for setting a new bar!Forum Empresa launches regional survey regarding the state of CSR in the Americas -Although quantitative studies conducted in Europe and Asia have demonstrated that companies are progressing regarding specific aspects of corporate government, the environment, working with communities, employees, and consumers, such comprehensive information on the Americas is still not available.- Do you agree? What information do JustMeans readers think is available regarding CSR in the west?

This Week's CSR Round-Up

Megan MacDonald — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 05:49:17 GMT

Elaine fills in for Megan on the weekend CSR round-up with passion J Energy legislation: green jobs or no jobs ? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090627/ap_on_go_co/us_climate_bill"We cannot be afraid of the future" says President Barack Obama as he urges the Senate to pass the far-reaching energy bill approved by the House of Representatives this week. The bill will curb greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by 83 percent by 2050. 83% is some challenge. But not everyone is happy at the prospect of a clean energy economy. Not everyone wants to drive around in a small hybrid or compost organic waste in their back yards. The major critics are highlighting the great potential for lost jobs as traditional energy-intensive industries decline. So it seems to boil down to lose your job or lose your future. But no-one can deny the bold focus of this new energetic (no pun intended) President and his determination to save the planet. Transitioning to a low-carbon economy - another tool for investorshttp://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/article2725.htmlIn the light of the US energy legislation, perhaps this new family of investment indices which link financial performance to carbon emission levels will gain greater appeal. Transforming the carbon footprint of any business requires long-range vision and near-term action. Sustainability-driven investing is a multi-trillion $ industry. Based on the successful Carbon Disclosure Project and its Leadership Index (http://www.cdproject.net/carbon-disclosure-leadership-index.asp ), these new indices add another set of numbers to the sustainability investor and analyst toolbox. The real question is, who needs more indices? At present, the main challenge seems to be to move beyond rough positive/negative screening based on limited data to a deeper understanding of the way Companies strategically approach environmental risk assessment and impact management. World's First Solar Gas Hybrid Power Plant Launched in Israelhttp://greeneconomypost.com/solar-gas-hybrid-power-plant-3368.htmI couldn't resist including this tidbit from my country, Israel. The main problem with solar power is that you can't guarantee it's always there when you want it, and usually, just when you plan to take a shower, you find that a few clouds have interfered with your hot water supply. So the breakthrough of hybrid technology to create a power stream even when the sun has not provided a consistent flow of energy, by using bio-fuels or natural gas, makes this a relevant cleantech solution for many communities and, possibly industrial units. What do Stephen Spielberg, Zsa Zsa Gabor and Ruth Madoff have in common?http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/29/bernard-madoff-sentenceYes, you guessed it. They all got burned by Bernie. Madoff's 150 year sentence made all the headlines this week. "Legacy of shame", "$65bn fraud", theft, money laundering, victims, lost savings and other such catchphrases were on everybody's lips as 9,000 victims relived the sheer scale of Madoff's deceit and destruction as he was rewarded with a maximum sentence. And now that Bernie is doomed to a future behind bars, the next thing on everyone's lips ought to be the way we prevent such abuses happening again. work for nothing or work for them - employee engagement at its best - or worst http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/telecoms/article6531552.eceSome might say it is the ultimate in Corporate Responsibility, others might say it's an embarrassing and desperate attempt by corporate management to get employees to make unprecedented sacrifices to stay in a job, or get management out of a hole. Both BT, the UK telecoms giant, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1194264/BT-staff-told-temporary-work-bid-battle-redundancies.html and BA, the leading UK airline carrier, http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=487623&in_page_id=2asked employees to work for nothing in order to help their respective Companies ride the storm. And as if this wasn't enough, BT went further by encouraging employees to "volunteer to work in like-minded businesses" (i.e. competitors). BT calls this an innovative way to retain employees and avoid compulsory redundancies. And whilst there are significant upsides to this, the questions remain: how many Company Directors and Senior Execs are themselves going without pay (and bonuses?), at what point does loss of pay or "voluntary" transfer become an abuse of labor rights, and how do these plans fit into the long term business recovery strategy? But on balance, if I worked for BT or BA, I guess I might prefer to have the choice ahead of receiving an invitation to the unemployment office. From CRO to CEO ? Only if you show me the moneyhttp://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/07/01/show-sustainability-sales-success-to-climb-corporate-ranks/Can Corporate Responsibility Officers or Sustainability Executives rise to the ranks of CEO? Chances are slim, it seems, as leadership of sustainability seems to imply lack of business acumen or attention to improving sales charts. Ah well. This too will pass. I am prepared to believe that the CRO's will demonstrate that understanding Triple Bottom Line dynamics places them in a better position to lead corporations than those who have been trained to put profits alone at the top of the agenda. The end of the glossy CR report? http://csr-asia.com/weekly_detail.php?id=11741 3,000 CR reporters every year and the debate about the best ways to report, the ways not to report, and why bother at all to report, continues to rage. An analysis of what is wrong with CR reporting and the fact that they are boring everyone other than those writing them, does not explain the fact that report issues are increasing year on year, report awards and rankings are gaining in popularity, reporting frameworks are continually being developed and the reporting industry is going from strength to strength. Even in these days of credit crunch, the general view is that reporting will stand its ground. CorporateRegister.com shows over 1,000 reports issued already in 2009. So what's the root of all this discomfort? Are reports trying to be all things to everyone and ending up being nothing to no-one? Or is it possible that we are focusing too much on what isn't and forgetting to appreciate what is?Going out for dinner ? Try this new portable restaurant.http://springwise.com/food_beverage/muvbox/The ultimate in eco-dining. A portable restaurant, solar powered, made with recycled or re-used materials and best of all, it just pops up wherever you want to eat. Of course, if you want to go back next week, you had better make sure it's not be portabled off to somewhere else. And to end up this review, a quick look at this week's reporters. A small selection of CR reports published in the last 7 days include:IKEA: http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_GB/about_ikea_new/about/read_our_materials/ikea_se_report_2008.pdfthe Swedish low-price everyday quality furniture retailer, whose CEO feels a bit frustrated.SAB Miller : http://www.sabmiller.com/files/reports/2009_SD_report.pdf the brewery who makes a difference through beer . Marathon Oil: http://www.marathon.com/content/documents/social_responsibility/living_our_values_reports/lov_report_2008_final.pdfthe Texan oil company who lives its values.L'Oreal: http://www.loreal.com/_en/_ww/pdf/LOREAL_RDD_2008.pdf the French cosmetics giant whose report is BBR (bleu, blanc, rouge) (reference to the discriminatory way L'Oreal recruits sales hostesses, for which the corporation was fined 30,000 this week by the French courts) Banco Bradesco: http://www.bradescorsa.com.br/Conteudo_eng/ The Brazilian "Bank of the Planet" Coca Cola Hellenic: http://www.coca-colahellenic.com/sustainability/csrreport/ the Greek Coca Cola bottler who pronounces a clear "no" to abandoning sustainability programs.Verizon: http://responsibility.verizon.com/images/vz_uploads/verizon_cr_report_2008-2009.pdf the US telecoms company who is "doing the work that makes a positive impact on people" Wishing everybody a great week ahead full of good work ! and thanks to Megan for letting me fill her slot this week. elaine cohen

Weekend CSR Wrap Up

Megan MacDonald — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:16:55 GMT

A selection of CSR articles that caught my eye this week. Sorry for the early post - vacation calls! Enjoy the food for thought...Greening the Coffee Capsule Business-Nespresso, which is the fastest-growing division of the Swiss food giant Nestl, is working with its 80,000 coffee farmers to show them how to cut back on fertilizers and increase yield. By 2013, it expects to get 80 percent of its coffee from farmers who meet sustainability requirements set forth by the Rainforest Alliance, an environmental group.-Managers Embrace Sustainability Principles-"What this shows is that investors recognise that responsible investment is going to be core," says James Gifford, executive director of the UN PRI. A steady stream of signatories, about 12 a month, has included many mainstreamorganisations not traditionally known for their ethical approach to investment. Lucy MacDonald, global head of equities at RCM, the equities specialist within Allianz Global Investors, testifies that this kind of thinking has had an impact on her investment processes.-Pandora's CSR Box: The Case for Banning CSR-The problem with boxes is that people often don't think (or act) outside them. If environmental quality, or human rights, or health and safety, or stakeholder engagement is something that gets assigned to the CSR-box, there is a very real danger that everyone else feels they have been absolved of responsibility.-U.S. Companies' Continued Investments in Energy Efficiency Good For Business, Say Corporate Executives on Capital Hill Panel-"As we all work towards a sustainable, healthy economy, it is clear that cost-effective energy efficiency measures are the keys to both improving a company's bottom line and reducing its carbon footprint," said Callahan. "Today's discussion leaves no doubt that lowering energy use and costs are winning strategies for business and for the planet. We commend the companies represented here for their efforts towards long-term sustainability."-Opposition to "cap-and-trade" grows in U.S.-Three-quarters of Americans believe the U.S. government should regulate the release of greenhouse gases from cars and factories to reduce global warming, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.-'Walgreens Opens the Nation's First LEED Certified Drugstore in Mira Mesa, CA.-The Mira Mesa Walgreens offers reserved parking for hybrid vehicles. It also offers bike racks and is located close to public transportation. Inside, skylights and solar tubes allow the sun to light 75 percent of the store. Coolers, freezers and exterior signs all use LED lights, reducing energy use by 50 percent over fluorescent lighting. The store will save enough electricity to power 19.3 homes per year. In addition, the use of native and adaptive plant species will eliminate water usage for landscaping, and 95 percent of construction waste was diverted from landfills and recycled.-

Weekend CSR Wrap Up

Megan MacDonald — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:16:16 GMT

This week's stories that touch on a number of issues at the heart of corporate social responsibility right now. Have a great weekend!Some sensible new proposals for curbing corporate greed-This approach will infuriate pitchfork populists, who were hoping the Obama administration would impose a regulatory straitjacket on corporate pay after an outcry earlier this year over hefty bonuses dished out at firms rescued with taxpayers' cash. But Mr Geithner warned that such an approach would ultimately be "counterproductive". In practice only firms that have been bailed out will face stiff restrictions on bonuses and other forms of pay. Some will have to submit senior managers' compensation for review by a new, government-appointed "special master".-Listen to some of the Harvard MBAs behind the MBA Oath share their thoughts on the endeavor.Social enterprise - the fledgling fourth sector-Although experiencing a huge upsurge in interest and visibility globally, social enterprise is still in its nascent stages. Today it can be characterised as a fragmented sector filled with many small-scale enterprises struggling with scale. Growth and scalability are important concerns for all businesses but maybe more so for social enterprise, in that the scope of the social problem(s) it is trying to solve is so large.-Focus on image excises a fondness for tax havens-More generally, corporate attitudes to tax have shifted in line with broader business trends. Until the 1990s, companies saw paying taxes as part of their "general responsibility to society". But that changed, says Prof Avi-Yonah, as "shareholder profit maximisation [became] the sole legitimate goal of corporate activity".-Greed Layered on Greed, Frosted With Recklessness-In short the current global financial crisis is a story about people who thought they were the smartest guys in the room and who turned out to be remarkably nave, reckless or, in some cases, downright stupid. It's a story - novelistic in its narrative and moral arc - about hubris and greed and heedlessness, about people, as Fitzgerald wrote in "The Great Gatsby," who "smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness" and "let other people clean up the mess they had made."-

Stakeholder Engagement: Who's listening?

Megan MacDonald — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:00:49 GMT

The ongoing discussion regarding the recent Shell settlement I blogged about last week is inspiring to say the least - with Shell executives joining in and a bevy of CSR enthusiasts challenging them to clarify exactly what has been done to both disassociate from corrupt government practices/human rights abuses along with the executives who were calling the shots when Saro-Wiwa and others were killed. It is a unique chance to directly dialogue, and those at the table are doing a great job of framing questions in a direct, but also respectful way.Apparently not all companies are open to receiving such inquisitions, even from their own shareholders. At the recent Exxon Mobil annual meeting shareholders were given precise three minute intervals to voice ideas and concerns, with virtually no response offered by Exxon Mobil executives.The article asks all the right questions so I'll let the original author do the talking: One of the great questions surrounding corporate governance is why the big institutional shareholders, which tend to vote in support of management, go along with such a sham. Why do they not act as responsible owners and insist that management take shareholder democracy more seriously? They typically leave attendance at annual meetings to activists and trade-union shareholders, which in turn gives corporate managers the excuse they need to not take the meetings seriously. The fact that the meetings are dominated by groups pursuing their own obsessions (labour practices in the developing world, say, or disinvestment from dodgy regimes) is also used by management to argue against reforms that would make them more accountablesuch as making it easier to nominate candidates for the board or to force a vote on executive pay.Still, perhaps there's hope: "Yet it does not have to be this way. Last month shareholders flocked, as usual, to the annual meeting of Berkshire Hathaway, an event that has become known as "Woodstock for Capitalists". This year, Warren Buffett, the firm's boss, invited some leading journalists to pose questions to the management for the first timean idea that other companies would do well to copy. Indeed, given the grievous errors many bosses have made, and the public's loss of faith in them, it would do them no harm to pay a bit more attention to what their critics say."JustMeans is an opportunity for us all to be critics, though we're also tasked with taking our opinions far beyond the borders of this website and into the boardrooms that make the world go round. In light of this article I think it's especially significant that Shell executives have joined a discussion hosted by those outside of their fold when their competition appears unwilling to cater even to those that keep their share price up. I have a feeling a fair amount of the JustMeans community's beckoning played a role in Shell's participation - but either way, we'll take it!I also wanted to point out Shell's sustainability report which Bjorn Edlund (Global Head of Communications from Shell) referenced in relation to disassociating with those executives who break the company's codes of conduct. Let me know if you find any of these references, my Kenyan internet is slooooooow tonight.

Weekend CSR Roundup

Megan MacDonald — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:57:00 GMT

These are some of the articles and blogs that jumped out at me this week - food for corporate social responsibility thought...It's an ill wind...-At Unilever, there is no longer even a corporate responsibility budget. "If you're still approaching this with a traditional central budget that is headed 'corporate responsibility', that's very vulnerable to attack," says Mr Neath. Prof Grayson agrees. "Businesses that recognise this isn't about having a project or a programme - it's about how you run the business - are not going to abandon this."-Burden of Proof: The Precautionary Principle-The precautionary principle applies these same ideas more generally. Using the precautionary principle, decision makers can ask whether products or projects are being done in the least-harmful way possible, and they might ask the proponents to reveal who's going to get the benefits and who's going to be saddled with the harm. A side benefit of this approach is that we can assess the fairness of a proposed activity. Conceivably, precaution could lead to a really fundamental question, such as, "Do we need this at all? Does it provide any real benefits to anyone?"-How "CSR" became a codeword for "profit trumps ethics"-If on the other hand the "profit is king" advocates denigrate CSR as a drain on shareholder resources, using that term helps them to avoid being seen to suggest that more ethical paths should routinely come second to maximizing profit. No one wants to be seen to be discussing whether they can afford ethics, but they are happy to debate whether they can afford CSR.-Nigerian CSR Legislation: Good News or Bad?-In actual fact, a recent definition given by the EU states that CSR should consist of "actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law", thus supporting the idea that compliance is the lowest form of contribution towards CSR. On the other hand, it could be said that the bill is offering a chance to get the country's severe infrastructure under greater development. This includes the improvement (and establishment) of education and health systems, the construction of proper roads, and the provision of utilities, such as electricity and gas. Why should it matter that the CSR is only on a level of compliance to begin with, if such good can come from it?-Companies go fishing for a new image-If the film results in the kind of public outcry about unsustainable fishing the film-makers are aiming for, then supermarkets and food manufacturers are going to have to act fast. By tying up with the film, Waitrose has already proved its credentials to its customers, because there is presumably no way the film-makers would have got into bed with the supermarket chain unless it was squeaky clean. This film is the best bit of CSR I have seen for some time.-Don't Sell the Hummer - Scrap It-Determining what products are too hazardous to market fen-phen? bite-size toys? Stinger missiles? should be a matter of public policy, not a series of moral conundrums left to individual companies to resolve. And while it is not the place of government to micromanage a company's lawful operations, it is appropriate for public officials to promote the general welfare; that's the rationale for the G.M. bailout. The collapse of G.M. provides an opportunity to reconsider transportation policy, including from a moral perspective. Such an analysis urges not merely discontinuing the Hummer but also significantly reducing our reliance on the private car.-

Skeletons in the closet: can CSR overcome a company's dark past?

Megan MacDonald — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:32:01 GMT

There's a fabulous dialogue going on in the 'updates' section of JustMeans that has sprouted into stakeholder activism at its best (and it's ongoing - I can't keep up with the comments!) It all started when Christine posted about the recent announcement of a settlement in a long-fought case against Shell regarding the executions of a number of Nigerian activists. 14 years after activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and others were executed by a Nigerian military regime Shell has paid $15.5 to settle the lawsuit alleging their involvement. While they haven't admitted involvement, the payout implies guilt, and is providing some closure for the involved families and the Ogoni people and region.But like so much restitution made after the fact, it raises all sorts of complexities regarding whether company policy has truly changed, is it being run responsibly now? The region is still swamped with poverty, and while Shell's indiscretions of the past seem to have calmed down, at what point can a company be let off the hook for downright atrocities, both human and environmental, in its past? It reminded me of another article I read awhile back about a community in Ecuador who, like the Ogoni, continue to deal with the fallout of decades-old oil practices. The portion of the Amazon rain forest they inhabit is now clear of drilling and oil operations, but an existing case is attempting to hold Chevron accountable for the past activities of Texaco (which they acquired in 2001) and the various environmental and health impacts still experienced. Chevron ranked 29th in CRO's 100 Best Corporate Citizens of 2009, but how can that let them off the hook for what happened in the past? Doesn't someone need to be held responsible?The JustMeans dialogue regarding Shell has raised questions of how to balance a company's "irresponsible" actions (of the past or present) with the good (it was suggested that Shell has made great advancements in renewable energy, which was later refuted but can still be used for discussion's sake). It also raises questions about when it is time to "forgive" a company for the past, and support them in current corporate social responsibility efforts to make good choices for business and the communities they both operate in and serve.Take a look at the discussion, and stay tuned for some proposed communication with Shell from the JustMeans community to address these questions and our thoughts on how Shell can move forward while still honoring those who have been harmed by its past.If you'd like to know more about the case, here's a compilation of the various links that have come up in the discussion:Video 1 "The Case Against Shell" Video 2 Democracy Now Interview with Amy GoodmanBlog "I buy gas at Shell; Am I complicit in the terrorism? Probably." ImagesShell Admits Fueling Corruption (2004) Saro-Wiwa's son: Justice is always hard won Shell settlement with Ogoni people stops short of full justice In Shell's own words

Profit: An Antidote to Poverty

Megan MacDonald — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:51:16 GMT

Putting all the benefits of Corporate Social Responsibility aside, my biggest interest in growing the sector is plain and simple to help end poverty. Idealistic? Yes. But the more time I spend immersed in Development studies the more I realize just how important the role of the private sector is in taking developing countries to the next level.It's not blind trust in the market - though many free market enthusiasts and politicos would sell their soul in its defense. That approach has been tried, at great expense, during the years of Structural Adjustment policies in the 80's. As one of my professors recently said, "you can't emphasize the role of markets when you haven't improved people' s ability to cost share." The market can only serve as an agent of change if people have the education, skill and resources to make it work.So addressing poverty through the private sector does not mean standing back and letting it do its thing - though it is about building business, about supporting large-scale industry and manufacturing. The activist in me screams (no!) but the academic has to acknowledge that the greatest service that the private sector can offer in fighting poverty is the creation of jobs and the infusion of investment and tax revenue. Don't worry - this doesn't mean there's no room for the little man - I quote a 2005 World Development Report saying, "private firms - from farmers and micro-entrepreneurs to local manufacturing companies and multinational enterprises - are at the heart of the development process. Driven by the quests for profits, they invest in new ideas and new facilities that strengthen the foundation of economic growth and prosperity. They provide more than 90% of jobs, creating opportunities for people to apply their talents and improve their situations. They provide the goods and services needed to sustain life and improve living standards. They are also the main source of tax revenues, contributing to public funding for health, education, and other services. Firms are thus critical actors in the quest for growth and poverty reduction."This is ultimately where CSR comes in. If we grant the corporate sector the task of going forth and developing business in the name of developing nations and poverty eradication, it can't be done with the blind faith of the power of the market as it has been in the past, but with the understanding that universal wealth creation is the result of responsible, socially conscious business practices. We need businesses to have profit at heart to maximize what they can ultimately contribute through their operations, but with the joint understanding that it is for the benefit of the community at large, and never at its expense.To this end, a past point we've discussed recognizes that none of this is possible without a strong policy framework and government partnership, "It is obvious that without a conducive investment climate, the private sector in developing countries will no doubt under perform and will not have a significant effect on poverty alleviation." As the author of this journal article recognizes, the public private effort to address poverty is entirely symbiotic - with the private sector serving as the engine of growth and the government or state serving as the facilitator/developer of the enabling environment.Hand in hand, a balance of profit and potential for all.All quotes from this journal article.

Call for CSR Case Studies

Megan MacDonald — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 02:49:56 GMT

We're heading into the weekend and I intended to do my first corporate profile today after visiting a sponsored project in the Kibera slum this afternoon. I think I'll save that till next week and take the opportunity instead to draw attention to a call for Corporate Social Responsibility case studies for a special issue of The Case Research Journal that was recently announced here. Some of the many topics being considered include socially responsible or irresponsible actions by business firms, corporate citizenship, corporate social responsibility in a global or comparative context, ethical marketing, social entrepreneurship and m you can see here (or propose your own).The call is for decision or issue-focused original, primary research. There's also a conference in October (29-31 - you could spend Halloween in Santa Cruz!) inviting early submission of the studies for the purpose of feedback and review prior to journal submission. There's plenty of more information at the Green Economy Post and the deadline's not until December 1. So go forward, research and submit! I'm definitely looking forward to reading (and wishing this coincided with my thesis which won't be until 2010).

A Corporate Conundrum

Megan MacDonald — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 08:50:59 GMT

With the various corporate scandals of recent years, Corporate Social Responsibility remains a laughable farce to many. Though many companies are more active than they've ever been both in charitable giving and their attempts to make operations more human and earth friendly, they face an increasingly skeptical audience of spurned stockholders and unemployment-collecting job seekers. Now, a good many of the most irresponsible corporate offenders have had their companies bailed out by the feds, a process that is supposed to protect the economy from further harm and hopefully save what were once some of industry's greatest players.So what happens to corporate social responsibility when it loses its corporate? Granted, the government only steps in as a financial backer of sorts - but the whole bailout process is each of these company's biggest opportunity yet to start acting responsibly. While the feds maintain they aren't interested in running companies, they are pressing them on the issue of executive pay (since many haven't taken it upon themselves) and the sheer magnitude of the loans and shares now held in the name of the government provide plenty of clout to do more, should it be needed.Maybe it's a moot point - any company in as dire straights as AIG, GM or Fannie and Freddie isn't going to have much leeway to devote funds or make choices that may cost more up front simply because they're better for the community. But this strikes at the heart of what CSR is really about - it's not about having funds to give away, but about using what you have in the most responsible way possible. Those companies in the throws of government bailouts have done just the opposite, but in hitting the bottom they have a chance to turn their ship around. It will be interesting to see whether the government's new role in these companies' attempts to keep their heads above water can help infuse a new era of responsibility, or if the hands-off approach will allow for more of the same.

Already at the head of their field

Megan MacDonald — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:27:37 GMT

My fellow JustMeans blogger, Dane, recently posted about the widely publicized MBA Oath put forth by a handful of Harvard MBAs from the class of 2009. While "Green" MBAs and ethics classes do appear to be popping up all over, Dane notes that the overall MBA curriculum is still a far cry from the multi-disciplinary approach that could best prepare a manager for the opportunities they'll face in their career to live up to the Oath's creed.Such contention with MBA curriculums was echoed in a recent write-up on management guru Sumantra Ghoshal in the Economist. The article cites Ghoshal's belief that this decade's struggle with corporate corruption stems from the short-sighted and purely scientific approach business schools take in teaching management (imagine Ghoshal passed away in 2004 - think how much corporate debauchery had yet to come when he made that claim!). By limiting the field in such a way, schools fail to allow any room for morality, let alone to encourage it. Canadian academic Henry Mintzberg recently called Harvard out on this directly (JustMeans member Chris Jarvis blogged about this here), citing an over-dependence on case studies and an exceedingly analytical approach to a profession that is highly dynamic and constantly changing. Mintzberg suggests that once MBAs enter the career field they'll face a host of issues that no case study could adequately prepare them for, and many will have potentially traded common sense and solid problem solving for the management rhetoric they were fed in grad school.In light of such debate, one thing I'm sure of is that the MBA students behind the MBA Oath represent the best of academia and the corporate sector - and it's not because they'll soon have glittering gold MBAs from Harvard and a handful of other top schools. It's because they recognized an element of their education that was lacking, an element in their field as a whole that is lacking, and took steps to establish a new path and model for future students and leaders. The tenants of the MBA Oath attempt to holistically and responsibly address both the challenges and opportunities a manager will face in their attempt to be the best leader they can be. Let's hope MBA programs and the corporate structure as a whole take heed and begin to do the same.

Policy - what's out there?

Megan MacDonald — Sun, 31 May 2009 15:52:29 GMT

Since coming to Kenya and formalizing my interest and study of international development, I find myself from time to time sounding like a carbon copy of a member of the opposite political party (I'll try and keep this general in an effort to keep my personal politics out of the picture). When people ask me about how to "fix" development or what's working/not working, I realize that my thoughts on the subject sound very much like the political rhetoric that so frustrates me when referenced in a different context (say in regards to the public vs. private healthcare debate).I don't think this means the smarter I get, the more I realize I've been duped by my political identity, but rather that there is much more room for a blending of philosophies and political approaches in trying to fix things, whatever sort of things, than any of us like to acknowledge. When it comes to problems solving - there's often no room for politics of any sort - though as people we so appreciate the identity we find in our ideologies that we have to drag them into whatever forum we can - regardless of the global or societal expense. I fear that sometimes this means good solutions and opportunities are bypassed because they carry too much political identity to be looked at simply for what they are.As many of my internal ponderings do, this train of thought led me to the role politics play on a broader scale in regards to CSR - and how little I really know about the direct influence ideologies and policies have on companies' efforts. Of course it is political powers that dictate the various rules and regulations that corporations must follow in terms of the environment, taxes, governance and how some of these act as virtual CSR enforcers. But how do such policies create or discourage a culture in which a company can really embrace an opportunity to do business the right way? Are there enough policies that motivate good works and operations? Are their any that discourage them, that if removed would make it that much easier for corporations to make good, positive choices for the benefit of society at large? And finally, how partisan are these policies - and if they are, is that partisanship getting in the way of their intentions?I'd love to hear from the Justmeans community on these questions and any other thoughts people have regarding the role and influence of politics in CSR.