Wow! It appears that several decades of progress in workplace atmosphere, sexual harassment policies and general decency just disappeared. Check out the following snippet from an interview Guy Kawasaki conducted with Penolope Trunk [clarification mine]:

“Question [Kawasaki]: Should I sue a boss who is sexually harassing me?

“Answer [Trunk]: In most cases, you will destroy your career if you report sexual harassment. So unless you are in physical danger, you should not report harassment. The laws governing sexual harassment don’t protect women who report. The law protects companies from being sued by the women who report. Human resource professionals are trained to protect the company, not the woman who reports.

“When you report harassment it is usually the case that you lose your job through retaliation. Retaliation is illegal but nearly impossible to prove in court. And, even if you could prove it in court, you would go through emotional hell, with no salary, and high-profile drama that makes you unable to get another job. All this for a settlement that will almost certainly not enable you to retire.

“This is simply how the legal system works. I am not saying this is okay. But I’m saying that if you care about your career, you’ll do everything possible to not report. Most women are not in the position to sacrifice their career—and their earning power—in the name of trying to bring down one harasser. The legal system needs to step in and take care of this.”

Let’s see here… No, no, no and NO! The above is absolutely terrible advice. If you are sexually harassed, report it — end of story.

I could pontificate for pages on why this is such bad advice and so completely off base, but I guess I feel as if the reasons are self-evident. Quite frankly, I find it baffling that the above mentality even exists today, let alone is verbalized. I think the only statement above that has value is the closing one — indeed, the “legal system [does need] to take care of this.”

Sheesh.

TAGS: sexual harassment | ethics | whistleblower | moral | Penelope Trunk

Wall Street’s relation to the horrible events that have been unfolding in Darfur may not be news to some, but for those of you who are unaware of the connection, or of what might be happening in Darfur, check our the following PDF: The Darfur Imperative:Working to End the Crisis.

If it seems like I have been focusing on Calvert a lot lately, it is because I have been. On the one hand, I find Calvert’s socially responsible investment options appealing and promising. On the other hand, I continually wonder if they are not fleshed out enough. For example, why a rating of 3 and above out of 5 to qualify as a potential investment option? Is that too generous (it does equate to a rating of 60% as the minimum bar)? And further, are the ratings according to an absolute measure (say the ideal company receives a 100% rating) vs. a relative rating in comparison to peer companies?

On the latter question, I have thought quite a bit about a more robust rating system and have also had a few interesting conversations regarding the same with friends and colleagues lately. Regardless of the fantastic rating schemes we may or may not have devised, the simple fact is that Calvert is serving a very important role. Here’s an interesting clip from the PDF linked above:

“On February 5, 2007, Calvert announced a new partnership with the Sudan Divestment Task Force (SDTF) and the Save Darfur Coalition (SDC) to mobilize collective pressure on the Sudanese government to stop the mayhem. Calvert will lend analytical expertise and leverage our advocacy network in support of these two organizations at the forefront of the Sudan divestment movement.”

I was not expecting that level of involvement… Continuing on, you’ll probably reach the content that seemed likely to appear:

“As part of our commitment, Calvert took a close look at our social fund portfolios to be sure we have no current investments in companies that are on the targeted divestment list maintained by SDTF.”

And the result? As expected, but still a result to be celebrated…

“Major multinational corporations are beginning to take notice of the divestment movement. For example, in January 2007, two of the world’s largest multinationals — ABB Ltd. and Siemens — announced their intentions to suspend operations in Sudan, with the exception of those consistent with the human rights and humanitarian objectives of the UN Global Compact.”

Also of note, Calvert has also set up a special report dedicated to the issues in Sudan.

And now the money question: What’s in your 401k? What’s in your IRA, or other investment vehicle? Do the funds or securities in your portfolio fit your values? Do they tie you to a company that is directly or indirectly supporting the atrocities occurring in Sudan? How about elsewhere in the world?

Socially responsible investing is important. It is important to consider your personal values when investing, but also the overall impact your investing choices can have. Here’s to Calvert for making the SRI investing process that much more transparent.

TAGS: Darfur | Sudan | Calvert | SRI

If you are not familiar with Guy Kawasaki, or know of him but have yet to read his blog, be sure to check out his recent post titled, “Lessons for Entrepreneurs: Ignoring Is Bliss and Then Some.” While the post is about lessons learned from listening to or ignoring the opinion of others when pursuing new business ideas, there is a nugget toward the end that really caught my eye (emphasis mine):

“If you believe in something, go for it. This is the only way to really find out. Mathematically, the naysayers are right 95% of the time, but believing you’re in the 5% is what makes entrepreneurs entrepreneurs.”

I’ve highlighted the above for two reasons:

1. In reference to my previous post about why people stay silent about ethical issues at work, I would guess that the above statistical mix may have a lot to do with whether an individual has the confidence to go against the grain or fall in line with it. In fact, after looking at the top four reasons people stay silent (listed in the post), three of the four could be tipped by a firm conviction (the 5%) that what what the individual has to say was important, regardless of the negative pressure (the 95%) to keep it to him/herself.
2. I think it is an excellent principal. I admire Guy Kawasaki a wanted to take an opportunity to point readers to his blog. His message is continually positive and in line with ‘the glass is half full,’ but also on the whole, very useful.

Let’s translate the above into a set of ideals as they pertain to situational ethics:

1. Step 1: Examine your belief about an issue without external input. If after an internal analysis you have formed a firm opinion about whether the issue is ethical or not, go with your gut. Make a note of your opinion and proceed to Step 2.
2. Step 2: If the issue arises at work and you have a Code of Ethics to consult, be sure to vet the opinion you formed in Step 1 against the content of your company’s code. If your company doesn’t have a Code of Ethics, it should get one !
   • If your opinion from Step 1 agrees with your company’s code, fret no more and proceed with conviction.
   • If it disagrees, consider carefully whether the issue is beyond the scope of your company’s code (and therefore not addressed sufficiently) or mishandled. In either case, elevate the issue to the appropriate individual (most likely your company’s ethics officer or an appointed committee).
   • If the issue is not company-specific or you have no Code of Ethics to refer to, perhaps it is time to proceed to Step 3.
3. Step 3: Remind yourself of your decision from Step 1 and reaffirm your commitment to that decision. Then and only then, should you seek the input of others. Weigh their opinions carefully and take them with a grain of salt. In the end, if there is not a consensus with your own opinion, only detract from it if you are absolutely certain that you were wrong.

All of the above hinge on whether you have conviction. Believe in yourself and trust your judgment and analysis.

TAGS: conviction | integrity | ethics | Guy Kawasaki

This should not come as any surprise — apparently there is a correlation between a company’s commitment to corporate social responsibility and its employees’ attitudes.

An article from PersonnelToday.com notes that, “seven in ten employees are positive about their employers’ commitment to corporate social responsibility,” which “has a positive effect on opinions about their employers’ sense of direction, competitiveness, integrity, and employee engagement.” The information in the article is presented in a rather odd way as it is not clear whether the company’s commitment to CSR has to actually create positive results, only that seven in ten employees have to feel positive about the commitment.

Hmmm. I can’t tell if this is a clever way of skirting less than ideal survey results or simply a lack of focus during the editing process. Regardless, I give the author the benefit of the doubt that the employees in the 70% bin are satisfied because of the progress of the company’s CSR efforts in addition to its commitment.

If the above assumption is correct, then it is possible to extrapolate for the employees that the noted “positive effect on opinions about their employers’ sense of direction, competitiveness, integrity, and employee engagement” should lead to greater retention rates. …and since we all know that high employee turnover can do some serious damage to a company’s bottom line (vs. a low turnover rate) I’d say that alone is a pretty good reason to take CSR seriously from a business perspective.

After my previous post I decided to look into a broader date range to determine the overall return of the fund in relation to the most common market indexes. To the right, click on the chart to see the maximum range I was able to produce (thank you Google Finance).

The resulting returns are interesting indeed. Not that any of the listed indexes produced the most phenomenal annualized returns during the period, but the Calvert Social Index, in comparison, did quite well.

Note that the chart range begins in April 2001, however, the Calvert Social Index has been around since late June 2000. If you know of a way to massage Google or Yahoo! Finance to produce the full range from June 30, 2000 to the present day, please let me know.

Take a moment and click on the chart to the right. The resulting enlarged version will display a five-year chart plotting the returns of the Calvert Social Index (CISIX) in comparison to the three leading US indexes (NASDAQ, S&P 500 and the Dow).

Of note, you will find that the Calvert Social Index runs in near lockstep with the S&P 500 and the Dow (the former has a slight 5-year advantage). The tech-heavy NASDAQ trounces the group, though a longer time frame (say 10 or 15 years) might prove otherwise.

So, are there any takeaways? I’d like to say that if you intend to invest in indexes tracking the S&P 500 or the Dow, you may as well invest in the CISIX as your returns will be comparable. Unfortunately, such a simplistic statement is somewhat naive, especially given that it would be solely based on a quick 5-year comparison. That said, the Calvert Social Index is a leading SRI fund and should be given strong consideration by investors seeking social responsibility in their investing activities.

If you are interested in reading more about SRI, here are a few relevant posts:

• SRI Overview & Calvert
• Effectiveness of SRI
• Motley Fool on SRI
• Vice Stocks
• SRI Article

TAGS: Calvert | CISIX | SRI | socially responsible investing

An interesting ethics-related article in Business Week has been available for a few days (Duke MBAs Fail Ethics Test) though I only just now have had a moment to read it. While the information presented is nothing new (cheating among highly competitive graduate students…really?!) the statistics are shocking nonetheless.

“Fifty-six percent of graduate business students admitted to cheating one or more times in the past academic year, compared to 47% of nonbusiness students, according to a study published in September in the journal of the Academy of Management Learning & Education (see BusinessWeek.com, 10/24/06, ‘A Crooked Path Through B-School‘).”

Okay, sweet. And we wonder why there is a distinct lack of ethics in business… Clearly, if today’s business students are tomorrow’s business leaders, it seems as if the future will get worse, not better, as far as business ethics are concerned.

So if the picture is so bleak, what steps can be taken to move the statistics in the other direction? Two of the primary reasons are easy to spot, and are hopefully, by extension, easy to combat:

1. Culture and general consensus
2. Strength and consistency of ethics initiatives

I have posted on both issues in the past (most recently, see Speak Up and The Validity of Ethics Codes) and feel that the corrective mechanisms are straightforward and attainable. Rather than repeat myself regarding solutions, I would emphasize the importance of tackling ethical issues now — the longer they have to fester and grow, the greater the difficulty in getting rid of the issue in the future.

TAGS: MBA | ethics | cheating | fraud | ethics code

This news could not have been more timely, at least on a personal level for me: Advito launches corporate social responsibility service portfolio. Though Spring finally seems to have arrived here in Boston, and indeed, the week-old leaves and flower blossoms on the trees appear to be holding off any last-minute attempt for more winter weather, I still find myself yearning for a trip to a nice sandy beach in the Caribbean.

Advito, it seems, feels that there is a market for corporate travel programs with a focus on corporate social responsibility (CSR). While I think that is great (a wonderful initiative to push, and a potentially fantastic business idea…) I am not so certain that the majority of clients will think twice about whether their travel is CSR-friendly or not. That said, perhaps that dynamic exists because there isn’t greater clarity about the impact of travel on CSR-related concerns.

My feelings aside, Advito, naturally, feels that, “Interest in CSR and corporate travel is growing steadily.” Whether that interest is as strong as Advito implies, the increased interest is positive. Similarly, the reasons the company cites for pushing a CSR-friendly travel agenda are strong:

“‘Contrary to popular belief, taking CSR into account does not mean adding more cost to your programme,’ said Victor van Tol, Advito’s vice president – EMEA. ‘On the contrary, by avoiding governmental fines and making smart travel decisions based on business criticality and preferred supplier usage, you can realise significant cost reductions while meeting your environmental and social responsibilities.’”

As an aside, here’s a hat-tip to you, Mr. Jack Yan — I loved your recent post about Kevin Roberts and found myself struggling with “program,” “programme,”  or “prahgram” (the latter is my best attempt at Boston-English).

TAGS: CSR | travel | ethical | social responsibility