Posts filed under 'Vision & Values'
Joe Nocera of the The NY Times recently visited the annual Corporate Social Responsibility conference and came away dazzled by the paradoxes. The contradictions would have been hard to miss. For example, what must Joe have wondered as he spoke to Exxon Mobil’s and Chevron’s corporate social responsibility representative the week following the Stern Report catalogue of the catastrophic risks of continuing to treat environmental damage as an externality. Ditto for Pfizer’s ‘do-gooder’ who, as a person undoubtedly seeks to better human kind and cannot be held individually accountable for his company’s maniacal focus on bottom line practices such as kick-back like rewards for doctors who push Pfizer products, research and development trials conducted without objective oversight, campaign funding to politicians who support extending legalized monopoly, product development efforts aimed at minor improvements over fundamental innovation, and marketing campaigns that draw attention away from health risks while misleading consumers about the actual costs of new drugs.
Ditto for Ford Motor Company — whose advertising mantras for years and years (e.g. “No Boundaries”) use the imagery of pristine environmental experiences to push gas guzzling SUVs. Or, how about General Electric? Having fouled the Hudson River for decades, GE poured tens millions of dollars into delaying court-ordered cleanup and miselading the public about it’s actions because, from a shareholder point of view, the costs incurred in delay outweighed the costs of the clean up. McDonalds? The same week it’s representative chatted about the company’s sense of social responsibilty at the NY City confab, McDonalds was also funding the effort to fight a NY City ordinance banning transfats.
The list could go on. Joe could not avoid the paradoxes. When, for example, the McDonald’s rep claimed corporate social responsibility is “core to the way we do business”, Joe noted: “You could wonder about that.”
Nocera picked up this theme again in his conclusion. Having ceaselessly breathed in paradox and contradiction, Joe opined that for companies to become substantively responsible — as opposed to PR-oriented “responsible” — would demand all responsible values become core to those companies’ business models.
Hurrah for Joe! He is dead on correct. Now, Joe, go back, re-read and re-think this declarative statement you make earlier in the article:
“Do shareholders come first — above other stakeholders (another favorite buzzword at the conference… encompassing customers, employees, activists and so on)? Of course.”
Joe, Joe, Joe. There can never — never — be fundamental change to the core business models if shareholders come first and their concerns are the trump card of any discussion. Never.
But, Joe, listen up carefully. This last comment does not reflect today’s either/or orthodoxy. The orthodoxy embedded in your all-too-facile “of course”. The orthodoxy that insists that either the shareholder comes first. Or the shareholder comes last.
No. The shareholder cannot come last. We saw a long run of the poor consequences from the 1950s through the 1980s of what happens when the shareholder came last. We must pursue shareholder value. We must celebrate shareholder value.
But we must not make shareholder value the trump card of all human affairs conducted by business — especially if we, as I think we should, choose capitalism as an essential philosophy for the well being of the planet.
Joe, if you are to help us change the core business models then you’ve got to erase your robocall “Of course” about the primacy of shareholder value. You’ve got to think again and somehow, some way discover the more profound declaration that the shareholder, like other core constituencies, must abide in equivalency of importance. The shareholder does not come first. Nor does the customer come first. Nor does the employee come first.
The shareholder does not come last. Nor does the customer come last. Nor does the employee come last.
Sustainable and ethical corporations must shift their core business models to this formulation: “Shareholders provide opportunities to the people of the enterprise and their partners to deliver both value and values to customers who generate returns to shareholders who provide opportunities to the people of the enterprise and their partners to deliver both value and values to customers who generate returns to shareholders who….. and on and on.”
That is an ethical and sustainable scorecard. And it reflects this unprecedented and undeniable fact of the 21st century human condition: we live in a world of markets, networks, organizations, friends and families in which our organizations are the new communities that determine the fate of our planet. Our primary ethical challenge can only be met when organizations reintegrate our legitimate concern for value with our equally legitimate concern for other values. Failing this, our most dominant organizations — for-profit enterprises — will continue putting value first and, thereby, continue propelling our global society toward social, environmental, political and economic disasters.
Joe, consider only this illogical aspect of your all-too-easy-and-orthodox “of course”: Who are these shareholders who come first? I’m imagining you are a shareholder. But, let me ask this, are you a customer? Are you an employee?
Put differently, does Joe Nocera the human being come first? Or, do your concerns only matter to the extent that you happen to own stock in one more enterprises?
Should we put one of our dominant shared roles (investor) above the other dominant shared roles of our new age of human kind (employee, customer, family member, friend)? And where does that leave the extraordinary number of folks on this planet who are not investors?
Joe, if we wish to take your constructive insight about changing core business models as an essential condition to the fate of this planet, then we must move beyond either/or-ism to both/and. We must not elevate any role to trump card status while also avoiding subordinating any role as a last concern.
We must learn to practice the new golden rule: “As employees do unto others as customers, investors, family members and friends what we would have them do as employees to us as customers, investors, family members and friends.”
When the employees and executives of Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Pfizer, Ford, General Electric and McDonalds begin practicing this golden rule in earnest, we’ll all witness social responsibility (as well as environmental, medical, legal, political, technical, family, spiritual and economic responsibility) blended into the daily lives of those who make, sell, distribute and service the many good things we depend on for leading our lives.
We will experience and have good things to have that are truly ‘good’.
February 14th, 2007
StrategyWorld.org is proud to announce that Marshall Goldsmith’s latest book, What Got You Here Won’t Get You There: How Successful People Become Even More Successful, is the #1 best selling business book in the United States (as ranked by both the Wall Street Journal and USA Today).
Congratulations, Marshall! We’re going to have some excerpts from the book here shortly, so stay tuned.
January 31st, 2007
Now that Bob Nardelli is out at the Home Depot the armchair quarterbacks and hindsight pundits are full of theories about “the fatal flaws” and the “mental errors” that caused his sour (albeit lucrative) exit.I think they all (so far) have missed the most significant factor. It wasn’t primarily that Nardelli’s “political” skills were lacking or that his strategy was wrong ( or even the curse of Six Sigma). In fact at the root of his predicament was something that most people would call a strength not a weakness. (And it’s a strength you, Bob, and I probably share).
The big reason Nardelli was, from the beginning, never going to win at Home Depot was that he recognizes the need for change very quickly and acts on it.
I know that seems contradictory so let me explain.
In the late 1990s I spent almost five years writing and researching the reasons that companies move too slow. One of the biggest obstacles I had to address was the powerful urge to hold on to the status quo and the incredible unwillingness among many people to let go.
As a result I, along with a lot of other executives, worked on strategies to open up when hearing new ideas and to embrace change more quickly. From what I’ve read Nardelli had done much the same during his tenure at GE.
But as the experts explain, “good things often have unintended (negative) consequences.”
What unintended consequence comes from learning to recognize the need for change quickly and act without delay? It’s often a huge blind spot.
Many early adapters and fast acting managers have a hard time imagining that others do not see what they see and they therefore radically misinterpret or underestimate what it will take to get the majority of their associates to buy-in.
From the beginning there were signs that Nardelli didn’t have enough buy-in at the Home Depot. People in the stores were whispering, “Nardelli has no retail background” and “The board is paying him too much money.” “He doesn’t get it,” senior executives grumbled, “Everything he’s doing is counter-culture.” Even Wall Street didn’t buy-in. “The market’s getting saturated,” one expert wrote. “I wouldn’t be in a rush to buy it [Home Depot’s stock].” (This was at a time that Nardelli’s turnaround efforts were barely off the drawing board.)
Now as someone who embraced change and acted quickly in the past Nardelli saw these people sitting on their hands and making negative comments and decided that was proof positive that they were the wrong people for the new situation.
And he was partly right. About 20 percent of the average company won’t ever pitch in and try new ideas or innovations.
But that leaves a large group of people who may be right for the job but who stay on the fence longer that the leaders expect. They look like immovable resisters, but they’re not. They are simply more average folks, people who need to see that the change is safe and likely to succeed before they will give a strategy their buy-in.
This is the critical lesson I’ve learned in the last three years as I’ve been researching the art of execution. Not enough buy-in one of the four big reasons why half of all the best laid plans fail. But it’s not callousness or stupidity that causes executives to underestimate the challenge and assume the worst. It’s that many of us have the eyes of the early adapter. We’ve opened our minds to what we see as an obvious need for change. And we assume that resistance is irrational (or sinister). We lose good people and take a big step back. In the end that causes us to miss our announced milestones and disappoint our stakeholders.
So now we have an opportunity to learn from the mistakes of another (a great way to gain experience for cheap). Here’s the lesson: Every well thought out strategy need an equally well thought out plan to get enough buy-in. That plan starts with realizing that everyone isn’t like us. Many are slower to buy-in. But if they see the path is safe and likely to succeed they will (also) follow through.
January 8th, 2007
What do Michael Porter, Bono, and The Gap have in common?
They’re all related to “The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy.” The HBR article, by Michael Porter and Mark Kramer, proposes a fundamentally new way to look at the relationship between business and society that does not treat corporate growth and social welfare as a zero-sum game.
They introduce a framework that individual companies can use to identify the social consequences of their actions; to discover opportunities to benefit society and themselves by strengthening the competitive context in which they operate; to determine which CSR initiatives they should address; and to find the most effective ways of doing so.
Perceiving social responsibility as an opportunity rather than as damage control or a PR campaign requires dramatically different thinking—a mind-set, the authors warn, that will become increasingly important to competitive success.
The framework identifies three ways in which social issues should be prioritized:
- Generic: Social issues that are not significantly affected by a company’s operations nor materially affect its long-term competitiveness.
- Value Chain: Social issues that are significantly affected by a company’s activities in the ordinary course of business.
- Competitive Context: Social issues in the external environment that significantly affect the underlying drivers of a company’s competitiveness in the locations where it operates.
Case studies? Porter gives us a few examples: Whole Foods, Microsoft, GE, Volvo etc. Some of his examples are weak (ExxonMobil building roads is not exactly CSR, or is it?)
What’s truly great about this article is the diagram mapping the societal impact of the value chain ( pp.86-87). In it, Porter shows us how companies can start analyzing it’s “inside-out” linkages to see where it can do the most good — for society and itself.
Which brings us to The Gap. Duke grad-student Jeremy MacNealey writes:
“The apparel retailer has struggled mightily over the past few years, but we learned that the company may have found new hope from the most unlikely of sources — its charitable efforts. Teaming up with (Product) Red and launching a new apparel line called Gap (Product) Red, it has seen an overwhelming response by consumers to the edgier and more premium product. The response by the public has been so strong that the company is now planning to apply a similar look throughout the Gap brand. It just may be that the long-awaited turnaround that investors have anticipated will actually come about in part as a result of Gap’s charitable efforts.”
More about Product Red here >>
December 30th, 2006
At the beginning of this year, the Edelman Trust Barometer assessed the impact on trust of a company’s national origin, industry sector, behaviors and communications policies.
[Ironic, isn’t it, that Edelman itself lost credibility this year when it was revealed that they were behind the fake Wal-Mart blogs… details here>> ]
The findings, which were presented at the World Economic Forum in Davos, included:
Opinion leaders in Europe apply a significant “trust discount” for major U.S. brands, such as Coca-Cola (U.S.= 65% vs. Europe= 41%); McDonalds (51% vs. 30%); P&G (70% vs. 44%); and UPS (84% vs. 53%). There is no “trust discount” for non-American global brands operating in the U.S. or any other market (e.g. Sony = 74% in Japan, and 79% in the U.S.), with the exception of Japanese brands in China.
Western based companies continue to make big strides in winning trust in the Chinese market. Big gainers this year included Citigroup, Procter & Gamble, Shell, Unilever and UPS, all now rated trustworthy by more than 75% of Chinese respondents, and up from under 50% two years ago.
German and Canadian companies are highly regarded by more than 70% of opinion leaders in every market surveyed. Less than 40% of opinion leaders expressed trust in global companies headquartered in emerging markets such as China and India, as well as in Korea. Such companies face particular trust deficits when seeking to buy companies in overseas markets.
Companies in the technology and retail sectors are the most trusted, while energy and media-entertainment are the least-trusted industries. Pharmaceutical concerns face considerable skepticism in the U.S. and Germany, while financial firms fare much better in the U.S. and Asia than in Europe.
Television is the big loser in media trustworthiness with the rise of the Internet. When asked where they turn first for trustworthy information, 29% of respondents in the U.S. still cite TV first, down from 39% three years ago. The Internet is now cited by 19%, up from 10% in 2003. The same trend is evident in the U.K., where television has declined from 42% to 33% as respondents’ first choice, while the Internet has risen from 5% to 15%. Newspapers, which are often thought to be the most serious casualty of the Internet wave, show rankings essentially unchanged in most markets at approximately 20%. Newspapers remain the first trusted medium of choice for respondents in France, Germany, Japan, Brazil, Korea, and Italy.
“Articles in business magazines” is the most credible source of information about a company (US = 66%, Canada = 53%; Brazil = 75% Europe = 60%), followed closely by “friends and family,” which has grown very strongly in the U.S. (‘03=35% vs. ’06=58%); Brazil (‘04=66 vs. ‘06=73%) and Canada (‘05=43% vs. ‘06=58%).
Trust has important bottom-line consequences. In most markets, more than 80% say they would refuse to buy goods or services from a company they do not trust, and more than 70% will “criticize them to people they know,” with one-third sharing their opinions and experiences of a distrusted company on the Web.
Trust in institutions overall is lowest in Germany and France, and highest in China, Brazil and the U.S. Business was trusted by only 33% of respondents in Germany, and only 28% in France, vs. 45% in Spain, 51% in Italy and 53% in the U.K. (Comparable figures for the U.S. and China are 49% and 56%, respectively.) Government is the least-trusted institution in Brazil, Spain, Germany, and South Korea, and remains low in the U.S. (38%), UK (33%), France (32%), and Canada (36%). It has increased in China (83%, up from 63% in ’05) and Japan (66%, up from 43% in ’05). Trust in media is low across all countries except for China (73%) and South Korea (49%).
Trust in Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), which have consistently been the most-trusted institution in Europe during the six years that the survey has been conducted, has steadily increased in the U.S. (‘01=36%, ’06=54%); and increased significantly in the last 12 months in Canada (’05=45%, ‘06=57%) and Japan (’05=43%, ’06=66%). Despite the survey asking for only trusted global companies, many respondents volunteered NGOs such as the Red Cross in France and the UK and Greenpeace in Germany were also frequently mentioned. NGOs are now the most-trusted institution in every market except Japan and Brazil. The widespread rise in trust of NGOs has now extended to Asia, especially in China, where ratings went from 36% to 60% in last 12 months.
So what will the Trust Barometer tell us in 2007? Stay tuned!
December 20th, 2006
Next Posts