As someone who is not afraid to speak up (and much to the dismay of those standing around me, I frequently do) I found the following article at HBS’s Working Knowledge quite interesting: Do I Dare Say Something?

I have been burned a few times in the past for saying what is on my mind, however, most of these incidents happened in an academic setting (sadly — I expect more equality from academia, not less). I have been equally vocal in the workplace yet have rarely had a negative experience. What I always find interesting, though, is that more people choose not to speak up, even though they are very vocal privately. Is there an element of personal responsibility or ethics that should compel someone, regardless of the potential backfire, to speak their mind when they feel strongly that something is wrong?

I obviously do feel a strong personal responsibility, but have often wondered if I take things too seriously. I would be curious to hear opinions and arguments against speaking up.

TAGS: HBS | MBA | Integrity | Ethics | Responsibility

In late August 2005 I blogged about the possibility of Google creating a site to compete with Yahoo! Finance, and today the company delivered. SiliconBeat has a great overview of the site (and a very familiar looking graphic — I’m flattered!) and is where I originally heard about the “Google Finance” possibility.

I’ve spent some time with the site and am very impressed. While there is not a great deal more that Google Finance offers over Yahoo! Finance, I am more readily drawn to Google’s simplicity and structure which I would describe as to the point. The charting features are amazing both in function and how they tie into individual news events. I also appreciate how the search field will recognize both “Apple Computer” and “AAPL”, rather than only allowing the ticker to be used without performing a “symbol lookup” as has been required on Yahoo! Finance.

TAGS: Google | Google Finance | Yahoo! | Yahoo! Finance

This one is a bit touchy… In another conversation this morning, John provided the link to a very disturbing article that I wanted to bring to the front in case anyone missed it the first time: Japan’s Rich Buy Organs From Executed Chinese Prisoners [from The Independent Online].

I’ve read articles about China’s organ trade before (although I cannot find my old links for some reason) but am always a bit shaken when I come across a new story. This is a very troubling practice, in my opinion, though I am at a bit of a loss about how to feel about it from a cultural-sensitivity perspective. The Independent article points out how blatant the advertisement of the “service” is throughout China, so I can only presume that such practices have to be culturally acceptable. Yet, my own values are in such conflict with this practice that I’m left feeling completely baffled. Here are a few clips from the article:

“The Chinese government insists it is trying to crack down on the market in illegal organs. According to regulations, even in the case of a donation by a close living relative, both patients and donors must provide legal proof of the relationship by blood or marriage or submit to a DNA test.

“But the signs spray-painted on the walls outside clinics and hospitals in many parts of China tell a different story. Simple and direct, these show a mobile phone number and the character for shen, which means “kidney”, written alongside. Postings on numerous online bulletin boards and other internet sites also offer kidneys for sale.

“The sale of organs for transplants is illegal in China, but the black market is flourishing. And it’s not just the small private hospitals and clinics springing up all over the country - even bigger hospitals in the capital Beijing and the business hub of Shanghai have adverts in toilet cubicles and on the walls of wards.”

From earlier in the article:

“A recovering Mr Hokamura claims he is concerned with where his new kidney came from. ‘My translator said my donor was a young executed prisoner,’ says the businessman. ‘The donor was able to provide a contribution to society so what’s wrong with that?’”

And then at the close of the article, there is a bit that brings the question of cultural acceptance into question:

“Generally, there is a lack of awareness in China about transplants. As in Japan, a cultural taboo, strongly related to Buddhist beliefs, has traditionally been associated with donating organs. The procedure is seen to make the body imperfect and, in some ways, it means the donor is being unfilial, even if the donation is to a family member.”

TAGS: China | Execution | Organ | Transplant | Black Market

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, the New York Times Bestsller (I’m not sure why I felt compelled to throw that in there) by John Perkins, has been available for some time now. I remember seeing it in hardcover and resisting the urge to purchase it after intently reading the book jacket. At the time, I simply had too many books and magazines in my “stack.” The stack hasn’t decreased in altitude, but I managed to convince myself recently to pick the book up anyway.

After reading the preface, I am very glad that I did. Here’s a great clip from the Preface:

“Today we see the results of this system run amok. Executives at our most respected companies hire people at near-slave wages to toil under inhuman conditions in Asian sweatshops. Oil companies wantonly pump toxins down rain forest rivers, consciously killing people, animals, and plants and committing genocide among ancient cultures. The pharmaceutical industry denies life-saving medicines to millions of HIV-infected Africans. Twelve million families in our own United States worry about their next meal. The energy industry creates an Enron. The accounting industry creates an Andersen. The income ratio of the one-fifth of the world’s population in the wealthiest countries to the one-fifth in the poorest went from 30:1 in 1960 to 74:1 in 1995. The United States spends over $87 billion conducting a war in Iraq while the United Nations estimates that for less than half that amount we could provide clean water, adequate diets, sanitation services, and basic education to every person on the planet.

“And we wonder why terrorists attack us?

“Some would blame our current problems on an organized conspiracy. I wish it were so simple. Members of a conspiracy can be rooted out and brought to justice. This system, however, is fueled by something far more dangerous than conspiracy. It is driven not by a small band of men but by a concept that has become accepted as gospel: the idea that all economic growth benefits humankind and that the greater the growth, the more widespread the benefits. This belief also has a corollary: that those people who excel at stoking the fires of economic growth should be exalted and rewarded, while those born at the fringes are available for exploitation.”

The above is just a small snippet of the Preface but more than enough to highly pique my interest. If anyone has read the book I would love to know your opinion.

TAGS: Perkins | Economic Hit Man | Globalization | EHM

During his address to the Chinese parliament, Wen Jiabao made a number of interesting statements that might surprise many who are faithfully bullish about China’s current opportunities and her future. The recent article in the Economist, China: Planning the New Socialist Countryside, is a great read for anyone interested in China.

Here are a few clips from the article:

“Speaking on March 5th, Mr Wen was blunt about China’s many difficulties. His list included continuing overheating of investment in factories, machinery and other fixed assets; rising inventories and falling prices; a decline in corporate profits and mounting losses that were creating ‘greater potential financial risks’.

…”However, spending can only be one part of a solution to the complex woes of the rural areas. …The peasants are at a further disadvantage in that they do not have clear legal title to their fields, making them vulnerable to the whims of developers.

“Given that some 200m rural Chinese have little or no work, one way to spread wealth would be to let them to take more productive jobs in urban areas. But China’s leaders, and many town-dwellers, are already anxious about the numbers flowing into the cities. Such fears would increase if the remaining barriers to migration were suddenly removed.”

TAGS: China | Outsourcing | Economy | MBA

After a bit of digging for more information on ethics I found a fantastic site started by Lawrence M. Hinman, a professor of philosophy at the University of San Diego. The site, Ethics Updates, was started by Hinman in 1994, so I’m a bit late in discovering it. I say better late than never, however, as the site has an incredible amount of information. Geared primarily toward those pursuing ethics in an academic capacity, I would recommend it as a resource for anyone interested in ethics.

TAGS: Ethics | Ethic | Ethical | Moral Theory | Ethical Theory

Fresh on the heels of my post last night, Seventh Generation issued a press release via CSRwire that follows up the discussion perfectly: Haas School of Business Posts Pod Cast Featuring CR Experts Jeffrey Hollender and David Vogel

“Renowned Corporate Responsibility experts debated the business case for Corporate Responsibility in a pod cast posted on www.netimpact.org today, sponsored by Seventh Generation and hosted by the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley. Entitled ‘Corporate Responsibility: Myth or Reality?’ the event featured authors Jeffrey Hollender and Dr.David Vogel.”

Vogel was one of the two authors interviewed for the CFO article (the article appeared in the Dec. 2005 issue of CFO Magazine) in which he makes some interesting points. Contrary to how he was presented in the CFO article, today’s press release states that he, “took neither a pro-CSR nor an anti-CSR stance, but rather advanced a clear-eyed perspective on CSR, exposing its attractions as well as its warts” during the podcast debate. I have yet to listen to the debate but expect it to be very interesting. Here are a few other worthwhile clips from the release:

“During the debate, Hollender referenced his research, defending the need for both small businesses and large corporations to practice social responsibility and offers practical ways to reach this goal.

“Hollender stressed that sustainability must become a foundation of business strategy and not just an afterthought of corporate actions. ‘As responsible companies begin to think about relationships with customers in a very different way, they will create value way beyond the products and services they’re selling.’

“Hollender acknowledged companies that are taking CR to new levels, and criticized those whose efforts are focused on merely reducing what they have done wrong. ‘I envision a world where business can improve, not just make things less bad,’ he said. ‘I am captivated by the idea of taking what many people perceive to be the most evil business on the planet and harnessing them to make change.’”

And then Vogel is cited, in a rather similar manner as the CFO article:

“While acknowledging the movement’s achievements, David Vogel argued that CR’s potential to bring about a significant change in corporate behavior is exaggerated. ‘It really makes sense for companies to do what they need to do to keep people from vilifying them, but beyond that the business case for CR is weak.’”

I also completely agree with the first part of this next statement by Vogel, but take issue with the second:

“‘The pressures on the financial market are relentless and overwhelming and not concerned with Corporate Responsibility. There is space for CR companies, but it’s not going to dominate the American economy.’”

As I hopefully effectively touched on in my last post (Jack Yan also had some great comments that addressed this as well), I think Vogel makes a good point, but is ignoring the power of today’s actions (regardless of whether or not they are widely followed or accepted) to create significant positive forward movement in the future. In Vogel’s defense, I have yet to read his book, The Market For Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility, and wonder if I would have the same criticisms were I to have read it already.

[Update] On the drive down to Santa Barbara this afternoon I had a chance to listen to the podcast and would highly recommend it. Both Hollender and Vogel make a number of excellent points and the debate was both informative and inspiring. I found myself continually agreeing with Hollender but also found many of Vogel’s points to be highly valid, however, I still maintain that a bit of optimism might go a long way for Vogel.

TAGS: CSR | Ethics | Business | Vogel | Hollender

While searching the internet for CSR-related content this morning I saw an article on CFO.com that caught my eye called, Two Views of Virtue: The corporate social responsibility movement is picking up steam. Should you worry about it? The article appears in the December 2005 issue of CFO Magazine, and explores the value of CSR efforts in corporations as well as whether or not they are a waste of time.

“Here and abroad, consumers, nongovernmental organizations, and socially responsible investors are prodding companies to pursue a variety of social and environmental goals.

At the same time, CSR has provoked a backlash. Critics denounce the idea as wrongheaded or worse, and some argue that companies should focus narrowly on maximizing shareholder value.”

Two authors, Steven D. Lydenberg and David Vogel, were interviewed for the article and provided a fairly balanced conversation about where CSR is headed.

Lyndenberg, whose book, Corporations and the Public Interest: Guiding the Invisible Hand, “proposes strategies for making CSR an essential part of corporate management,” is fairly complementary about CSR:

“CSR is ‘a major secular development, driven by a long-term reevaluation of the role of corporations in society.’ This reevaluation, he says, is clearer in Europe, where it is commonly assumed that companies have duties to stakeholders as well as shareholders. U.S. managers may be wary of this assumption, ‘but I think that [the European] influence will be very hard to resist over the long run,’ says Lydenberg.”

I also really like the following passage the article cites from Lyndenberg’s book:

“‘Corporations create long-term wealth,’ he writes in Corporations and the Public Interest, ‘when, in addition to generating productivity gains, they preserve natural resources for future generations, create value in their relationships with their stakeholders, and do not externalize costs onto society.’”

David Vogel, on the other hand, is quite critical of the role CSR plays in various companies as well as the motive for installing them in the first place. I think Vogel makes some interesting and agreeable points though I found myself wishing he had a more positive outlook.

“Companies respond to pressures from the financial markets first and foremost, says Vogel; most of the time, CSR issues will not rank among a company’s top business risks.

“The one time CSR becomes really pressing, he says, is when a company’s brand or reputation is jeopardized — when Nike was assailed for using sweatshop labor, for example, or McDonald’s was criticized on food issues. Both companies made highly visible efforts to change some business practices and mollify their critics.”

Further, Vogel points out that CSR efforts have had a “negligible” impact on brands, claiming that CSR is rarely singled out as an “issue associated with a given brand.” Again, here I wish he were more positive. It is possible to infer that Vogel thinks CSR efforts are pointless because a company’s actions are not routinely recognized. But isn’t there merit in doing the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing?

“Overall, however, the impact of CSR on brands has been negligible, says Vogel. Surveys of the world’s top brands rarely cite CSR as an issue associated with a given brand. And companies that make most-admired lists do so by virtue of other factors — financial performance, customer satisfaction, innovation, and so on. For most investors, CSR does not factor into either their perception or valuation of companies, says Vogel.”

Vogel also makes a statement, which though it is in reference to ISO 26000, resembles the attitudes it seems some companies adopt with CSR initiatives — they are put in place simply to satiate the critics and to gain a bit of positive press:

“‘To the extent companies can figure out ways of complying with the standard at modest cost, they’ll do so,’ he predicts. ‘There are all sorts of ways to get around [such standards], and there are no penalties for noncompliance. It’s not going to be terribly effective in making companies change their policies.’”

While it is somewhat demoralizing to read such a statement, it is quite valid. I am sure many companies will seek out the cheapest and easiest means of complying with ISO 26000, because there are positive advantages to compliance, instead of embracing it as a core part of their overall CSR initiatives because it’s the right thing to do. Similarly, many companies will begin to tout their CSR departments and programs, yet most of the build-up is probably for show.

When I finished the article the first time I was left feeling somewhat frustrated. I think there are plenty of strong examples of companies that are promoting their CSR programs but clearly are not embracing the true meaning of ‘corporate social responsibility’. However, after I read the article a second time and had a moment to think things through, I decided that there is some value in pushing CSR issues in a company, even if compliance is minimal and no further efforts are made.

Some effort is better than complacency. Sure, it would be great if all major corporations immediately stopped everything and overhauled their operations and goals in an effort to be better corporate citizens, but for now, even a little bit of progress should be recognized as an achievement. Complete participation, and a genuine passion for becoming better corporate citizens, has to get its start somewhere. Let’s just make sure this train doesn’t stop.

TAGS: CSR | Corporation | Ethics | Business

I spent quite a bit of time browsing through the articles on CorpWatch earlier this afternoon and pegged about 15 that I wanted to post about. The day got away from me, unfortunately, so I’m listing two of the ones I feel are most important below as a meager attempt to not lose the work I started several hours ago.

At Nike Plant, no Sweatshop, Plenty of Sweat
This article has a lot of great information about the current status of Nike’s shoe manufacturing efforts and also details quite well the situation most apparel workers face. Yes, they are working in better conditions and making more money than they previously did, but their situation is by no means rosy. Here are a few clips from the article:

“Gone are the acrid fumes, the scant protective gear and the foul restrooms evident during past years in plants making Nike products. Workers flocking from poor villages to booming, smog-choked southeast China express eagerness for their jobs here, belying the image of sweatshop exploitation that has plagued the Beaverton-based company for years.

“Yet the Golden Prene factory, which makes about 25,000 bags a day and generates $80 million in annual revenues, is hardly a carefree place. Assembly workers toil long hours at repetitive jobs. Many of them endure separation from families. Their wages are higher than incomes back on the farm, but meager by U.S. standards at an average of $5 a day, including overtime. Workers’ modest dreams reveal difficult lives.

The article shifted to critiquing Nike’s efforts and motives:

“Longtime critics acknowledge progress made by Nike managers, adding that it occurred only due to public pressure. ‘What they’ve eliminated is super exploitation, and now they’re just down to plain exploitation,’ says Medea Benjamin, founding director of Global Exchange, a San Francisco human rights organization.

“Benjamin says Nike, which reported record profits last year, could afford better wages for its contract workers. She says the company should shun China and other nations that ban unions; Nike managers maintain they can do more to support freedom of association by engaging with China.

“Jeff Ballinger, director of Press for Change, a tiny but vocal activist organization in Toronto, says Nike executives should empower workers instead of imposing conveniently crafted initiatives. ‘They’re skating by with some corporate social-responsibility template that’s been hammered out by expensive consultants,’ Ballinger says.”

There is a lot more in this article and I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in fair labor efforts, sweatshop reform, worker exploitation, globalization, or some other topic in that realm.

Charity Wristbands Made in ‘Sweatshop’ Factories
Following the Nike article, I found this one to be quite appropriate but sadly ironic. The headline sets the story up well, but what it doesn’t immediately reveal is that the wristbands were, “made for a coalition of charities as the symbol of their worldwide 2005 campaign to end extreme poverty.” While this may seem like a shocking occurrence, the situation only came to light following an audit. I wonder how many other similar situations have taken place yet have slipped by unnoticed.

Following are a few passages from the article:

“An audit report on Fuzhou Xing Chun Trade Company, in Fujian province, included workers being paid below the local minimum hourly wage of 2.39 yuan (16p), down to 1.39 yuan (9p) in some cases, overtime work not being paid properly and with hours beyond the legal limit, no paid annual leave, no guarantee of a day off per week, and workers being deducted for disciplinary reasons.

“A spokeswoman for Cafod, which bought 120,000 rubber bands from the Tat Shing factory, said today: ‘It was concerned that labour standards weren’t as good as we would have expected especially as we were buying as part of this campaign.’

“…’There were a lot of things which clearly concerned us so we asked them to take corrective action. Health and safety, there was an issue around fire exits, insufficient fire exits. Originally we were told there was no overtime, which we thought was unlikely, so we were concerned people were being asked to work overtime without being paid.’”

TAGS: News | CSR | Ethics | China | India | Sweatshop

I was browsing a great new site I found (via a link on Jack Yan’s blog) called CorpWatch and managed to cross paths with one of my favorite companies that I have been neglecting to write about recently. Yes, I’m talking about Wal*Mart.

If you noticed that I didn’t write about the recent Wal*Mart blog fiasco that the New York Times covered, all I have to say for myself is that sometimes I tire of following companies like Wal*Mart. Being exposed to far too much content that challenges my opinion that there hope for companies like Wal*Mart more or less pushes me to a not so comfortable place. So I have to take periodic breaks in order to regroup in an attempt to maintain some level of optimism for them.

My dry Wal*Mart streak was ended today, however, when I read CorpWatch’s post, “Wal-Mart Waltons Get All Cultural.” It seems the Waltons are developing a museum in Bentonville (which, from a cultural standpoint, is fantastic) yet for a disturbingly high cost. The post, which references an article on Alternet, points out the inane-ness of the move considering the wages that most of Wal*Mart’s employees are paid.

On the surface, I would almost always get behind any effort to build museums, libraries, or other culturally important projects. However, even without pursuing the details of the issue further (I highly recommend that everyone read the Alternet article as well), I find it very difficult to praise the Walton’s efforts as there is such a deep divide between the profits Wal*Mart makes (and thus the gains her major shareholders, the Waltons, subsequently realize) and the compensation it provides the majority of its employees. I won’t rehash the details but would urge anyone who is unfamiliar with this obscene imbalance to do some serious research. There are several previous posts on this blog that will help, but a more general search of the internet will produce an overwhelming amount of information.

Here’s a particularly interesting clip from the Alternet article in reference to the $35 million Alice Walton plopped down for a painting pegged for the museum’s collection:

“It might not even be, as Wal-MartWatch.com points out, that the price of the painting equals what the state of Arkansas spends every two years providing for Wal-Mart’s 3,971 employees on public assistance; or that the average Wal-Mart cashier makes $7.92 an hour and, since Wal Mart likes to keep people on less than full-time schedules, works only 29 hours a week for an annual income of $11,948–so a Wal-Mart cashier would have to work a little under 3,000 years to earn the price of the painting without taking any salary out for food, housing, or other expenses (and a few hundred more years to pay the taxes, if the state legislature didn’t exempt our semi-immortal worker).”

I would be interested to know what some of Wal*Mart’s employees have to say…

TAGS: Wal*Mart | Wal-Mart | CSR | Ethics | Walton