I was in Washington D.C. for a few days with my wife and son and saw a bit of CSR in action. No, it didn’t crop up during on of the mid-June sunny jaunts with my son to the Mall or one of the many museums around its perimeter. I found it in the bathroom of our hotel…

If you have stayed in a hotel in the last five or so years, you are likely to have seen the same sign hanging in your room’s bathroom or shower. It typically reads something like:

“Hotel X is concerned about the environment. Every time we wash a towel, a lot of water and detergent is used and poured down the drain into the environment. To help out, please re-use your towel more than once. Please leave a towel you would like washed on the floor and any you intend to re-use on the rack.”

Simple and easy. The likely reduction in towel usage does indeed cut down in water, electricity and detergent usage (rather, the resulting detergent run-off). But it also does something else — it saves the hotel money.

Fancy that. …a business case for CSR…

Every towel that a guest re-uses is one less towel that the hotel has to spend money and resources cleaning. Yes, the information cards hanging in the bathroom cost money and used up resources (I have yet to see one that has been printed on recycled paper, or labeled as such), but probably far less than the resources they save by prompting guests to be laundry thrifty.

Kudos to the hotels that have been implementing CSR in such a manner, and to those looking to extend the “save the towels” campaign to other areas of their operations.

(If the hotel chain is of interest, it was one of the several Embassy Suites properties in the city. The Westin that we spent the latter half of our trip in did not have a similar sign.)

TAGS: CSR | business | social responsibility | environment | Hilton | Embassy Suites

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.

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

A question that I continually hear following reports of company misconduct, fraud, or other illicit activity, especially when the action was too large to possibly go unnoticed, was how the action went unreported for so long. Why don’t people speak up when they know something improper is going on at their organization? There are a host of possible reasons, but a recent article by Ethical Corporation, Workplace Misconduct – Making ‘Speak Up’ Procedures Effective, shares some interesting statistics as well as some practical advice.

First for a few sobering statistics from the article. Here are the top four reasons why people were likely not to speak up:

• 21% - Possible alienation from colleagues
• 19% - That the issue was ‘none of their business’
• 13% - Fear of their job being jeopardized as a result
• 12% - ‘Everybody is doing it’

While the first and third seem like reasonable initial reactions, I find the second and forth as particularly troubling.

The article continues with excellent advice for organizations looking to increase the percentage of individuals willing to speak up when they become aware of any kind of misconduct. In addition, the suggestions are great building blocks for any company wishing to strengthen ethical conduct among its employees and partners. The article details the follow four principles:

1. Create and support an ethical culture;
2. Take swift action when misconduct is identified;
3. Ensure transparency in all communication (hmmm, I wonder if Dell is listening…); and,
4. Provide ethical training and leadership

I think the above list is a great start. Add in a stipulation for ongoing training to maintain the ethical culture, and to ensure the retention of the training and leadership, and I think it would be a fantastic platform for organizations of any size.

TAGS: ethics | ethical | fraud | misconduct | whistleblower | code of ethics

In short, the combination results in a “Whole Trade^TM Guarantee,” or a guarantee of high quality fair trade products (see a recent Whole Foods press release for more info). The guarantee seems like a bit of marketing hype, but should also help push fair trade issues to a broader market. In short, the guarantee should indicate that a product meets the following criteria:

• exceptional product quality,
• more money for producers,
• better wages and working conditions for workers,
• sound environmental production practices that promote biodiversity, and
• support of poverty eradication via donating one percent of product sales to the Whole Planet Foundation^TM.

TAGS: Fair Trade | Whole Trade | Whole Foods | Organic | Coffee | FTC

Continuing with the sustainability theme, here’s an interesting tidbit via ARS Technica about a Google embracing solar power: “It’s Easy Being Green: Google Goes Solar.” I particularly like the idea of using some of the panels as shades in the company’s parking lot. Here’s a clip from the post:

“9,212 Sharp photovoltaic modules now cover the rooftops of the Googleplex, each one capable of pumping out 208W of DC power in full sun. To gain even more solar surface area, Google installed solar panels as “shades” over several of its parking lots, keeping cars cool and generating power at the same time. The installation can generate 30 percent of Google’s peak demand power, or enough to light about 1,000 California homes.”

TAGS: Google | Solar | Sustainability | Sun | Alternative Power | Electricity | Energy | CSR

SustainAbility, Inc. released an interesting report today which, “[demonstrates the] potential for next-generation partnerships to positively impact socio-economic and environmental challenges.” The report, Growing Opportunity: Entrepreneurial Solutions to Insoluble Problems, is available for download on the firm’s website. Though the report is free, you have to register (painlessly fast) in order to complete the download.

I skimmed the report this morning and will give it a thorough run-through later today. So far, however, it looks like a great read. Here is a high-level snapshot of the main findings of the report:

1. Social entrepreneurship is on a roll
2. The potential for breakthrough solutions is considerable – and growing
3. The field is growing, but still relatively small
4. Money remains the main headache
5. Financial self-sufficiency is seen as a real prospect within five years
6. There is a real appetite to partner with business
7. Beware blind spots (risk of over-focus)
8. For real system change, we must focus on government and public policy

More thoughts on the report later…

TAGS: Sustainability | Entrepreneur | Business | CSR | Social Enterprise | Ethics

Just a quick post to direct your attention to the current print or online edition of the Economist. The leading article, though covering a somewhat stale topic, is well written and insightful (big surprise there…). Take a gander at the online version: Globalisation and the Rise of Inequality: Rich Man, Poor Man. A few passages I found interesting are noted below.

On wage disparity:

“Since 2001 the pay of the typical worker in the United States has been stuck, with real wages growing less than half as fast as productivity… If you look back 20 years, the total pay of the typical top American manager has increased from roughly 40 times the average—the level for four decades—to 110 times the average now.”

On globalization:

“When the jobs going abroad are not whole assembly lines, but bits of departments, how exactly do you pick out the person who has lost his job to globalisation from the millions of people changing jobs for other reasons? And, hardhearted though it may sound, most of the gains from trade and technology alike come from the way they redeploy investment and labour to activities that create more wealth. That, like all change, can be painful; but it is what makes a country richer. A policy locking people into jobs that could be better done elsewhere is self-defeating.”

A suggested solution:

“Instead, the way to ease globalisation is the same as the way to ease other sorts of economic change, including the impact of technology. The aim is to help people to move jobs as comparative advantage shifts rapidly from one activity to the next.”

TAGS: Globalization | Economy | GDP | Economist | Compensation | Wealth

I tend to shudder at catchy phrases such as “internet bubble,” “web 2.0,” or “Ajaxified,” but I was unable to come up with a better term for how I have begun to visualize the next level of corporate structure than “Corporation 2.0.” This may not be a new concept, just perhaps a bit more concise and repackaged. After chewing on the moniker for a few days, and cycling through dozens of mental and sketched-out diagrams, I’ve simplified the concept down to the rather elementary doughnut diagram that follows:

Out With the Old…

The old corporate model, more or less, revolved around profit maximization. Profits at any cost, it often seemed. More mature corporations would tend to have a fairly solid corporate governance system in place, but typically lacked any kind of corporate social responsibility initiative or a formalized Code of Ethics.

In With the New…

Times are changing and there is a building consensus that corporations and their profits should be held to a higher standard. Corporation 2.0 is at the intersection of business and social responsibility. In short, as I see things, instead of simply pushing to achieve profit maximization, Corporation 2.0 combines a strong showing from each of the following disciplines to instead generate “ethical profits”:

• Business Ethics;
• Corporate Governance; and,
• Corporate Social Responsibility.

This is most likely not a startling concept to anyone that follows the noted issues, but perhaps the visual links between the three and ethical profits is helpful to view in such a manner. What the diagram strongly conveys to me is that without one of the three key pieces, the corporation will not be able to generate ethical profits–it is only through a strong showing from each of the three that ethical profits can be realized.

For instance, imagine a company with strong and consistent corporate governance, but that lacks a formal Code of Ethics. Without the code, how do employees and stakeholders evaluate ethical dilemmas? For that matter, do they have any idea what the company believes is ethical or not? Without such formal ethical guidelines, can the company truly generate ethical profits?

On the other hand, a strong showing from all three guarantees that the company is generating ethical profits. With strong corporate governance, stakeholders and employees are ensured that the proper checks and balances are in place and functioning correctly. A solid foundation of business ethics described by a formal Code of Ethics makes clear what is acceptable or not, and provides a guide for dealing with any ethical breaches. Strong corporate social responsibility initiatives ensure that the company is taking into consideration such issues as the environment, human rights, and community involvement.

I am hopeful that we will see more and more corporations moving toward the pursuit of ethical profits and I look forward to the day that I start pondering what Corporation 3.0 will look like.

TAGS: Corporation 2.0 | Business Ethics | Corporate Social Responsibility | CSR | Corporate Governance | Ethical Profits | Triple Bottom Line