I’m not sure why I have been on this big introspective kick lately, perhaps because I’ll be done with my MBA in a little over a month, but I figure I may as well milk it while it is fresh. More recently than in the past, I have noticed how readily people equate your career or profession with who you are. For instance, I recently listened to someone relaying information about a few individuals they met earlier that day and was struck by the fact that only their professions were mentioned. At the time it felt a little odd, but I began to notice in the weeks following that most people truly ’size’ others up in a similar manner.

I’ve worn many hats over the years but most people who have met me in the past five to ten years will call me a photographer. While the moniker may be fitting (I also own a photography company and am a professional photographer), hearing someone say, “This is Peter, he is a photographer,” almost makes me cringe. Sure, I take photographs every once in a while and happen to be paid to do so, but when I think of myself, of who I am, a “photographer” is the last thing that comes to mind.

I’m a father, a husband, a friend, a critic, an entrepreneur, a student, a teacher, a skeptic, an artist, a writer, a thinker, and so much more. When people call me a photographer, they are describing a very small fraction of who I am (and what I do with my time) yet nearly everyone I know compartmentalizes me as such. I don’t think that is to imply that people don’t really know who I am, instead, I think it speaks to how we choose to relate to one another. Professions and careers are simple to understand and communicate. It is far simpler to introduce me as a photographer than it is to provide even a brief overview of what really makes my clock tick.

But is there fault in relating to one another in such a surface manner? I think there is considerable fault if we are not given additional opportunity to see what really lies beneath the descriptors, “doctor,” “lawyer,” “teacher,” “mechanic,” etc.

Shouldn’t we relate to one another based on what we stand for? Isn’t that a more accurate measure of who we are? Isn’t there a deeper connection with another person when you ask the what they believe in, what their passions are, what moves them to tears, and what can pump adrenaline through their body with unbridled conviction?

So, who are you?

TAGS: Life | Career | Profession | Passion

Via CSRwire.com this afternoon: United Nations Secretary-General Launches ‘Principles for Responsible Investment’ Backed by World’s Largest Investors

Here’s a clip from the press release:

“In a historic development for global financial markets, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan was today joined by a group of the world’s largest institutional investors at the international launch of the Principles for Responsible Investment.

“The heads of leading institutions from 16 countries, representing more than $2 trillion in assets owned, officially signed the Principles at a special launch event at the New York Stock Exchange. The Principles were developed during a nearly year-long process convened by the UN Secretary-General and coordinated by the UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI) and the UN Global Compact. “

…and here’s a clip from the PRI site:

“As institutional investors, we have a duty to act in the best long-term interests of our beneficiaries. In this fiduciary role, we believe that environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) issues can affect the performance of investment portfolios (to varying degrees across companies, sectors, regions, asset classes and through time). We also recognise that applying these Principles may better align investors with broader objectives of society.”

Following are the six Principles (ESG — ‘Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance’):

1. We will incorporate ESG issues into investment analysis and decision-making processes.
2. We will be active owners and incorporate ESG issues into our ownership policies and practices.
3. We will seek appropriate disclosure on ESG issues by the entities in which we invest.
4. We will promote acceptance and implementation of the Principles within the investment industry.
5. We will work together to enhance our effectiveness in implementing the Principles.
6. We will each report on our activities and progress towards implementing the Principles.

If you are interested in reading the full Principles overview, download the PDF on this page.

TAGS: CSR | SRI | Principles | PRI | Responsible Investment

I’m headed to New York on a red-eye this coming Friday night and will be there until early Sunday morning. A very good friend of mine is getting married Saturday evening, and it will be refreshing to see friends and have a bit of a vacation, however short and sleep-deprived it may be.

It will be my first time in the city since 2001 and I hope to have enough down-time on Saturday morning to take the subway to Ground Zero. My wife and I were last there in late August 2001 and decided not to visit the World Trade Center because of time constraints. It should be an interesting trip for me and I hope to have enough time to visit the site and to stick around to reflect for a bit.

In thinking about the events leading up to and following September 11, I find that I still get bogged down into a very “heavy” mood, even after so much time has passed. It’s more of a deep pensiveness then anything else, but a fairly unique feeling for me. What keeps flipping around in my mind is the fact that life managed to pick itself up and move on, something that at the time, even in my safe and sunny California office that morning, didn’t seem probable or fair to even consider.

I think it is a strong show of the resilience of the human spirit, but also perhaps of the transient nature of life. Does knowing that there is an “end” make successfully dealing with horrendous tragedy slightly more probable? Is our ability to heal and move on (even partially) a strength or a weakness of humankind? Does it mean that we are selfish and cold, or more intelligent and emotionally secure?

In reflecting on the above questions, I thought I might quote the Mayor of London. Part of his response to the London subway bombings that occurred on July 7, 2005 follows:

“Finally, I wish to speak directly to those who came to London today to take life.

“I know that you personally do not fear giving up your own life in order to take others - that is why you are so dangerous. But I know you fear that you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society and I can show you why you will fail.

“In the days that follow look at our airports, look at our sea ports and look at our railway stations and, even after your cowardly attack, you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will arrive in London to become Londoners and to fulfill their dreams and achieve their potential.

“They choose to come to London, as so many have come before, because they come to be free, they come to live the life they choose, they come to be able to be themselves. They flee you because you tell them how they should live. They don’t want that and nothing you do, however many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.”

TAGS: NYC | WTC | 9/11 | London

In a little less than two months, I will be spending 18 days traveling in China with a group of my MBA classmates. The trip has been in the works for some time, and was one of the main reasons I choose the program early last year. Originally billed as a “business tour” of many different China-based businesses, it has taken on a much broader scope.

We have been spending a considerable amount of time this quarter, and a little less so last quarter, attending lectures and completing homework on top of our regular class schedule. While I originally anticipated the extra workload, I didn’t expect the quality of pre-trip classes to be as high as they have been. While some of the lectures clearly stand out above others, all of them have been informative and very useful. Further, the scope of the lectures has been broad, spanning Chinese history, panel discussions with entrepreneurs, and talks by businesspeople who have experience working in multinationals located or doing business in China.

Candidly, I was concerned that the majority of the trip, as well as the class lectures or discussions, would be dominated by a business-centric ‘get in there now and make as much money as possible’ ideal. This has not been the case, though I feel that the push for deeper content is coming more from the students and professors then from some of the more business-oriented speakers we have heard from. Obviously, this is to be expected from businesses executives and our more academic presenters have certainly imbued us with content other than money, how to finagle your way through the red tape, and… money again.

I am fascinated by China from so many different angles: history, ideology and philosophy, economic, politics, culture, etc. While I have traveled in Asia before (I had a two-week stint in South Korea a few years ago), I still feel very isolated from what to expect. I think the sentiment is due partly to the fact that it feels like the US is more or less holed up in a giant bubble that perceives itself to be the world’s fulcrum (and California seems to be contained in yet another bubble…as is the Central Coast), but perhaps also due to the fact that until a few years ago, China didn’t get the exposure it now commands (at least in the US). It seems improbable today to pick up a newspaper business section and not see at least a handful of stories on China.

Interestingly enough, China’s recent surge is just a drop in the bucket in the country’s rich history. During one of our class lectures, Dr. Morris (history professor) made a very compelling point that has stuck with me: While the US has dominated the global economy for the past 40 years, China did so for over 2000. The past 150 years in China’s long history are kind of like a speed bump, and while the US has enjoyed sitting at the top for a stint, China feels a bit more at home up there. After reflecting for a bit from this new perspective, I think the Western spin on China’s current “surge” is somewhat arrogant. China isn’t, “just getting started,” and while I keep hearing that Chinese businesses could benefit from adopting many of the corporate practices and business standards of the US and Europe, I can’t help but think that we have a much deeper need to learn various things from China.

At the same time, I am very concerned with a slew of issues that seem to run rampant in the name of profits and lack of care, namely sweatshop labor, disregard for the environment, and political oppression. What is difficult, though, is keeping an eye on such concerns while being inundated with pro-China capitalistic jabber. The press is full of it, as are most of the business books that have come out about China in the past few years.

The dichotomy between my fascination with the country and my distaste for her darker realities has created a large number of questions and frustrations for me. As the trip draws nearer, I hope to have found the answers to some of those questions, and similarly have reduced some of my frustrations. I imagine that the trip will really open my eyes to some of the things I am struggling with as well as inevitably creating even more questions. I am truly looking forward to the experience.

TAGS: Business | MBA | Cal Poly | China

I’m wrapping up the end of my latest Father & Son day and have had quite a lot of fun. We’re in Santa Barbara today and I had the distinct pleasure of watching our son while my wife spent the day photographing a wedding. He’s almost eight and a half months and is growing a lot (he’s 20 lbs. now!). He might just be having an early height growth-spurt, but it appears that he is definitely going to be much taller than me. I also think he has more spunk and curiosity then I did, and wonder if that is going to make the “teen” years more or less pleasurable than they were for my parents.

Somewhere in the middle of taking a long walk, climbing the stairs together, napping together, playing with all of his toys, and chasing after our dog all afternoon, I had quite a bit of time to reflect on life, family, and work. I’m a fairly content person, but I haven’t smiled as much as I did today in quite a while. I’m sure any parent can empathize as the littlest things will make your mouth crease.

What I realized today, beyond the fact that I haven’t been smiling as much as I’d like to lately, is that purpose in one’s life and career is not only important for direction and sanity, but perhaps also essential for the happiness and cohesion of your family. Personally, I see every moment that I’m focused on work (physically and mentally) as time I could be spending with my wife and son. And if I’m going to be spending a large chunk of my life focused on work, wouldn’t I want it to be so fulfilling as to warrant the time and emotional commitment?

Accordingly, a lot of my contemplation time today centered on finding more purpose in my professional life. In the process, I came up with a few questions that helped guide me a bit:

• Is my career simply about making money, or does it also adhere and advance what I am passionate about?
• Is there anything else I can be doing professionally, in relation to the things I care deeply about, that I am not already doing?
• Can I incorporate more work with non-profits or more purpose-focused companies?
• Is there anything about my professional life that contradicts my personal beliefs?
• And most importantly: Is the time I spend working worth the time away from my family?

TAGS: Purpose | Work/Life Balance | Career | Family

I had an interesting discussion about Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) with some friends yesterday and wanted to extend the discussion here. I posed the general question, “Is it okay for an SRI mutual fund to hold investments that conflict with the investment objective of the fund?” I used the Calvert Social Investment Equity A (CSIEX) fund holding Cisco as an example, noting the discrepancy between Cisco’s questionable actions in China as a potential violation of human rights, an the fund’s investment objective (emphasis mine):

“The investment seeks growth of capital. The fund normally invests in common stocks of large-cap companies having market capitalization of at least $1 billion. Investment returns will be mostly from changes in the price of the fund’s holdings. The fund invests with the philosophy that long-term rewards to investors will come from those organizations whose products, services, and methods enhance the human condition and the traditional American values of individual initiative, equality of opportunity, and cooperative effort.“

If you are unfamiliar with the Cisco + China situation, here are a few resources that cover it well:

• Shareholders Pressure Internet Companies on Human Rights
• Hearings to Review Human Rights in China
• Business and Human Rights: Censorship in China
• China’s Net Police Should Worry US Firms

Clearly, if Cisco’s actions in China can be linked to human rights violations, and they subsequently continue to do business in the same manner, maintaining 3.19% of CSIEX’s holdings in Cisco would be a direct conflict with the investment objective of the fund. Whether or not that is permissible legally (i.e. the fund manager has some “fudge” room), shouldn’t an SRI fund err on the side of over caution? I pose that question as I wonder what percentage of SRI investors blindly trust the fund manager to stick to the fund’s objective. Shouldn’t you be able to invest your money in an SRI fund and then look the other way, completely confident that your money will be put into companies, “whose products, services, and methods enhance the human condition and the traditional American values of individual initiative, equality of opportunity, and cooperative effort?” And if not, why bother investing in an SRI fund in the first place?

Not to bring the post too far off the original question, but why would a fund manager choose to deviate from the fund’s objective? In the case of Cisco and the company’s recent questionable involvement in China’s internet censorship, it is difficult to argue that a fund manager was unaware of the potential conflict – not only has the issue been well covered in the press, but the fund manager would eventually come across the issue during their regular analysis of the fund’s holdings. If we can eliminate naivete as a possibility, what is left? A personal belief by the manager that Cisco is still an appropriate fit, despite the evidence otherwise? Or is it something more sinister, such as a drive to increase returns for the fund?

As a general note, my intention is not to harp on Cisco, or even this specific Calvert fund (although I think it is a perfect example to use for this dilemma), but to question the effectiveness of SRI investments overall. If they aren’t achieving superior enough returns, the market’s interest in funneling money into them will most likely decline. Additionally, if an investor cannot trust the fund manager to strictly adhere to the fund’s objective, why bother going the SRI route in the first place? There are plenty of other investment vehicles available that offer superior results – if an SRI fund achieves average returns and doesn’t really adhere to its objective, why would investors funnel money into an “average” SRI fund that holds a similar portfolio as an “above average” normal fund?

(Thanks to Dave, Kyle and Nic for the interesting discussion yesterday.)

TAGS: SRI | CSR | Investing | Calvert | Cisco

Ben Cohen and Mal Warwick have joined forces and authored, Values-Driven Business: How to Change the World, Make Money, and Have Fun, which according to the publisher Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., “lays out the roadmap for starting and running a business while staying true to one’s own ethics and values” (tip to CSRwire.com for the press release). I have not had a chance to pick up the book yet but am quite interested in reading it. If anyone has read it already, I’d love to hear what you think.

Even at a quick glance, the book’s subtitle, “How to Change the World, Make Money, and Have Fun,” should be compelling enough to prompt anyone to pick it up. I often wonder what the world would look like if even a small majority of businesses were created and operated based on those three goals (and in that order). It is reasonable to assume that prioritizing “changing the world” over profit might reduce the amount of wealth floating around, but is that necessarily a bad thing? I would like to think that the world would be better off, but it is impossible to tell without experiencing such a reality.

It’s interesting to think about though…

TAGS: CSR | Ethics | Values Driven | Social Enterprise

Wow. If you thought compensation was high for some executives, take a gander at this recent article from the New York Times: Exxon Chairman Got Retirement Package Worth at Least $398 Million. Here’s an interesting clip:

“Exxon’s board also agreed to pick up Mr. Raymond’s country club fees, allow him to use the company aircraft and pay him another $1 million to stay on as a consultant for another year. Mr. Raymond agreed to reimburse Exxon partly when he uses the company jet for personal travel.”

Later this afternoon I might dig through Exxon’s most recent proxy statement to see what else I can find. I’ll be sure to post anything that’s interesting.

TAGS: Executive Compensation | Money | Greed | Salary

Earlier this afternoon I watched Frontline’s internet broadcast of The Tank Man and was quite impacted by the program. I was in my early teens when the incidents surrounding Tiananmen Square took place, but I remember vividly watching the news footage of that solitary individual staring down a column of tanks. I don’t know what my reaction was at the time, but in watching the event this afternoon, I was both moved by the courage of the individual, the humanity of the moment, and the inane pointlessness of man’s need to kill one another.

The program does an excellent job retelling the events surrounding the famous tank standoff, but also delves into more current topics regarding China, Capitalism and business. I highly recommend the program to anyone interested in history or China.

In a few short weeks I will visit many of the locations covered in the program – I hope to both remember the events that took place there such a short time ago and also to hopefully come away with a better understanding of what drives people to such destruction and carnage.

TAGS: China | Tiananmen Square | Democracy | Freedom | PBS | Frontline

A few months ago I made a post about an upcoming Ethics competition that looked interesting. The competition took place this past weekend, and a team of four of my classmates took first place! Congratulations to Adrienne, Jessica, Jim and Sean!

Here’s an article from the local press: Cal Poly Team Wins Business Contest.

TAGS: Cal Poly | MBA | Ethics