A film about urban sprawl and peak oil might seem a bit off topic for a business ethics and corporate social responsibility blog, but if you see the connection and/or have an interest in either subject, I highly recommend you check out a fantastic documentary, The End of Suburbia.

If you need some help finding the bridge between this blog and the focus of the film, look no further than the endless forced expansion of the consumer’s appetite for more consumption (homes, cars, clothes, decorations, kitchen gadgets, high-tech gadgets, and so much more) by companies in the pursuit of increasing shareholder return. What’s a homebuilder to do when money is pouring in and competitors are continuing to put up ostentatious and resource-binging skyscraper homes (a.k.a. “McMansions”) at a frantic rate 100 miles out from city centers and lining up 0% down ARMs for the self-delusional nouveau-rich (a.k.a. the negative net-worth and heavily debt-laden soon-to-be or currently former middle class), even if they know deep inside that their business plan is not sustainable long-term (say, when the right crop of inflation and credit turmoil pops up…)? Build more houses of course!

Why not? they ask. Their competitor over at ABC CrazyBig Homes is churning them out like cans of tasty and completely nutritious meat on an assembly line earning a fat bonus each period, and watching their company’s stock price skyrocket. Who cares if the system comes crumbling down later as long as I get mine, they rationalize.

In the off chance that you are not paying attention to what is happening in the US right now, and increasingly around the world, the party is over folks. For those of you who have little adjustment to make when living standards and life styles see a reversion to the mean similar to what is likely to happen in the US housing market, I commend you. For those of you who face a much larger delta, I’d get started on making some adjustments right now.

Even if you are not slightly interested, I say bite the bullet and watch it anyway. Here’s an overview of the film to whet your appetite:

“Since World War II North Americans have invested much of their newfound wealth in suburbia. It has promised a sense of space, affordability, family life and upward mobility. As the population of suburban sprawl has exploded in the past 50 years, so too has the suburban way of life become embedded in the American consciousness.

“Suburbia, and all it promises, has become the American Dream.

“But as we enter the 21st century, serious questions are beginning to emerge about the sustainability of this way of life. With brutal honesty and a touch of irony, The End of Suburbia explores the American Way of Life and its prospects as the planet approaches a critical era, as global demand for fossil fuels begins to outstrip supply. World Oil Peak and the inevitable decline of fossil fuels are upon us now, some scientists and policy makers argue in this documentary.

“The consequences of inaction in the face of this global crisis are enormous. What does Oil Peak mean for North America? As energy prices skyrocket in the coming years, how will the populations of suburbia react to the collapse of their dream? Are today’s suburbs destined to become the slums of tomorrow? And what can be done NOW, individually and collectively, to avoid The End of Suburbia?“

Research and Markets yesterday released a new book called Ethics, Psyche and Social Responsibility. The book explores the employer/employee dynamic and how elements such as the company’s social responsibility impacts that relationship. From the release:

“This important book considers the psychological aspects of organizational life, particularly in the context of firms’ ethical behaviour and its implications for corporate social responsibility. The authors consider the effects of corporate activity and change on individuals, not just in their working lives, but also in their family and social lives. They address a diverse number of topics from a variety of theoretical standpoints in an ongoing attempt to redress this neglected field of research.”

The topic certainly sounds interesting, though I have not had a chance to read or otherwise preview the text. At roughly $99 for the hard cover, I think graduate school courses may be the book’s primary market.

TAGS: CSR | Social Responsibility | HR | Psychology | Organizational Behavior | Retention

My trip to China with my MBA classmates is just around the corner (I suppose they should be called “alumni” now…) and I have another book review to offer. If you are interested in my recommendation regarding Harvard Business Review On Doing Business in China, please feel free to download a PDF of the review.

TAGS: HBR | China | Harvard Business Review | Guo Qing | Book Review

CFO.com has a great article on the varying global interpretations of “corporate governance”: Governance: It’s a Regional Thing. Here’s an interesting clip:

“…34 percent of U.S. institutional investors say ‘enhanced returns’ are the most significant advantage of good corporate governance, about on par with the global average of 37 percent. In China, however, only 7 percent of institutional investors agree; in Japan, the figure is a whopping 80 percent.”

TAGS: Corporate Governance | China | Japan | Investing | SRI

Dr. Terry F. Yosie wrote an excellent column at GreenBiz.com on corporate social responsibility and how it should fit into a corporation’s business strategy: Corporate Social Responsibility: What the Smart CEO Needs to Know. Dr. Yosie covers five things every CEO should know about CSR and his or her company’s business strategy:

1. Recognize that demands for corporate social responsibility reflect a shift in society’s priorities.
2. Manage social responsibility challenges as part of corporate governance.
3. Look upon corporate social responsibility as a strategic challenge and not as a series of high profile initiatives.
4. Measure society’s expectations as part of the business process.
5. Define success for the company.

TAGS: CSR | Corporate Social Responsibility | Corporate Governance | CEO

Yesterday, and presumably via wire and not on bleached and un-recycled paper, publishing company Random House announced that it will, “increase the proportion of recycled paper it buys for its books to at least 30 percent by 2010, from 3 percent now” (Book Publisher Sets A Goal on Recycling, The New York Times).

While the news is uplifting, I am a bit surprised that their current usage is only 3%. I don’t know all of the in’s and out’s of the publishing industry, but I would have put the percentage much higher by this point in time. 3% sounds more appropriate for the late 80’s to me…

Is the cost of recycled paper really that high to have prevented it from being used more by such a large publishing company? Or perhaps it is a supplier issue, either in volume and reliability, or perhaps a weakness in getting the message out. Either way, in an age when consumers have been using, for some time now, recycled copy paper for their office needs, recycled napkins and paper towels for their messes, and even coffee-cup finger burn preventers for their $28 cup of Starbucks coffee, I would have thought the publishing industry would be further along than 3%.

Are all publishers around the same usage? Is the general shift toward greater concern for paper consumption and its impact on the environment? Is Random House breaking away from its peers, or lagging far behind them in increased recycled paper usage?

TAGS: CSR | Social Enterprise | Paper | Recycling | Books | Publishing | Random House | Printing | Magazines

While I was somewhat disappointed with the last Wal-Mart film I viewed, the greatest criticism I have about Frontline’s segment, Is Wal-Mart Good For America?, is that it was too short. …and I don’t mean to imply that it lacked sufficient content, just that it was so well done that I wanted it to continue beyond 1 hour.

Though the segment aired in 2004, the content is still quite relevant, in regards to Wal-Mart as well as the current state of China-US business relations. In addition to presenting a lot of data, both for and against the company, the segment includes quite a few interviews with Wal-Mart executives. The interviews undoubtedly add more validity than if they were absent, but for me personally, helped also to put a more human face on the corporation. That said, each of the Wal-Mart executives interviewed seemed distant, rehearsed, and well prepped to maintain the corporation’s image. It was kind of like watching an a set of interviews with seasoned politicians…

Here’s a fairly succinct clip from the introduction to the segment:

“FRONTLINE explores the relationship between U.S. job losses and the American consumer’s insatiable desire for bargains in “Is Wal-Mart Good for America?” Through interviews with retail executives, product manufacturers, economists, and trade experts, correspondent Hedrick Smith examines the growing controversy over the Wal-Mart way of doing business and asks whether a single retail giant has changed the American economy.”

Following are the major sections of the program:

• Wal-Mart’s Revoltionary Power: “How Wal-Mart and other giant chains have reversed 100 years of history and made mass global retailers more powerful than manufacturers.”
• Muscling Manufacturers: “Rubbermaid boosted profits with a Wal-Mart account. But when it had to hike prices, Wal-Mart balked and dropped Rubbermaid products.”
• The Strategy: Low Costs and Go Global: “By the late 90’s Wal-Mart was dependent on low-cost Asian imports and begins pushing U.S. suppliers to follow Wal-mart to Asia.”
• China’s View of Wal-Mart — Big Partner: “Wal-Mart’s huge buying operation taps directly into China, the world’s new workshop, fueling its export pipeline and America’s growing trade deficit.”
• Taking the Hits: “The story of TV manufacturers in Ohio and Tennessee faced with low-cost foreign imports and Wal-Mart’s price pressures. Is their story the new model of world capitalism?”

My views about Wal-Mart and its impact on both the US and global economy have not changed since viewing the Frontline segment. If anything, they have grown stronger and more substantiated.

During a particularly interesting portion of the segment, images of Sam Walton were shown, tying together a description of the principles and business strategies upon which the company was founded. I can’t help but wonder if Sam would be proud or ashamed at what has become of his company. While I don’t think it is fair to make assumptions one way or another, I think the the question raises and interesting point about the dynamic nature of a corporation. Whether Sam Walton wanted his five and dime store to turn into one of the most controversial and powerful corporations in recent time or not, that is the progression the business made.

Whether we like to think we are in control or not, the businesses we create and are a part of may very well outlive us, and perhaps not according to the principals and standards with which we established them. What would Sam Walton say? What about Bill Hewlett or David Packard? What about the scores of other business leaders that have passed away, leaving the companies they founded to live on, growing and feeding according to an ever-evolving Capitalistic model?

I would highly recommend this program to anyone interested in business, the US or global economy, China, Wal-Mart, or any other giant corporation.

TAGS: Wal-Mart | PBS | Frontline | China

I finally managed to watch Wal*Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices, a documentary I have been very interested in seeing since the moment it was released.

If you follow this blog regularly, I am sure you are familiar with how much I adore Wal*Mart. However, and in spite of my very strong feelings about the company and my excitement about finally having a chance to see the documentary, I found the film to be somewhat flat and not as powerful as I expected. I attribute some of my lackluster reaction to my high expectations, but the remaining majority to how the film was made.

I am not sure what would constitute an “avid documentary fan,” but the moniker sounds comfortable so I’ll gladly refer to myself as such. Accordingly, I tend to judge documentaries primarily on their ability to convey and present their central message with strong logic, ample support, and an emotional connection to the viewer. I consider a documentary to be great if it manages to present a complex and volatile issue to a skeptical user, and through all of the mechanisms of filmmaking, convince the viewer to strongly consider the filmmaker’s viewpoint. The Corporation sticks out in my mind as film that, despite its strong bias, clearly presented its case and would compel all but the most skeptical to consider its central message.

Bias and an apparent lack of effort at impartiality are where Wal*Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices fall short. The film is highly emotionally charged, containing a number of personal stories and shocking statistics (all of which are quite damning to Wal*Mart), and touches on the many areas Wal*Mart seems to excel at being sleazy: Aggressive business tactics, anti-union efforts, environmental issues, human rights issues, gender and racial discrimination, and more.

To be sure, as someone who loathes Wal*Mart, I found all of the information presented (the “facts”) to be in line with what I already know about the company. In that regard the film is quite effective at reinforcing an existing anti-Wal*Mart view. To the skeptic, though, the film most assuredly presents itself as highly one-sided and unfair. Statistics are presented in a manner to shock (they do, whether they are presented in such a manner or not), just as the personal stories are told to rile up emotions and pull at viewer’s heart strings.

I found myself continually wondering if they were pushing too hard. If the film turns off skeptics before they have a chance to make it to the end, or in a manner as to discount the validity of the whole film (due to its dripping bias), can it truly be called “effective” or labeled a “great documentary”?

Personally, I think not. I think the film could have reached a much larger audience if it were framed with a less obvious bias and far fewer “shock” elements (such as the spinning headlines). I would be interested to hear what staunch Wal*Mart supporters think of the film as I am confident that the majority will quickly brush it off. Likewise, I am similarly interested to hear what the anti-Wal*Mart crowd thinks of the film. Were your reactions similar to mine? Were you obviously disgusted by everything the company has done as the film presented each scenario, yet constantly wondering if the documentary was trying too hard?

Despite my criticisms of the film, I would still recommend that everyone see it. There is the possibility that I was simply in a overly-critical mood last night and would have had the same response to any film, good or bad. Further, the statistics and facts the film presents are both true and shocking. While the film may not do the best job of presenting and disputing the counterpoints critics would raise, that shouldn’t prevent the curious viewer from watching the film.

If you have seen the film (or when you do), I would love to hear your reaction.

TAGS: Wal*Mart | Walmartmovie | Ethics | Documentary | Film

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

Thanks to a heads up from a site visitor in the comments on one of my earlier posts, I learned about a new documentary film that sounds quite interesting called Black Gold. I did a bit of searching and found a good article that gives an overview of the film: Movie Makes Viewers Think Twice About Coffee. Here’s an interesting clip from the article:

“‘Black Gold’ follows coffee’s complex journey from poor farmers in Ethiopia to elitist baristas in the European Union and the United States, ultimately reminding us of the great chasm between our mouths and the sources of our food.

“As we watch commodity traders in New York and London setting coffee prices amidst harsh images of hungry Ethiopian children at therapeutic feeding centers, we see how coffee touches us all.”

If you have seen Black Gold, I’d be interested to hear what you think. I’ll be sure to record my thoughts as soon as I have a chance to see it myself!

TAGS: Coffee | Fair Trade | Ethiopia | Starbucks