Case in Point
Hacktivists the 'Yes Men' put together this fake website, in conjunction with a fake press release, fake ads, and other fake content, in order to 'punk' Chevron. They bragged about their success on a website entitled 'We Punked Chevron,' at chevronthinkswerestupid.org/weagree. ( chevron-weagree.com / Yes Men)
Why the hacktivists are winning
How do you hijack corporate culture, demoralize employees and derail multi-million dollar marketing campaigns? All too easily, it turns out.
Fueled by the internet and the public’s growing distain for corporate greed, hacktivism is a trend on the rise. Today’s hacktivists use increasingly clever tactics in order to elevate public debate about the way corporations do business. In more cases than not, they succeed.
“What we do—and what you can do too—is impersonate captains of industry, infiltrate corporate events, give absurd and revealing presentations, and then escape to tell the story in the press, hopefully to the great embarrassment of the target,” say the Yes Men, a group of hacktivists that recently punked the likes of Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Halliburton, Dow, The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the United Nations, among others. “You don’t have to be a James Bond for this. But what you might need is a fake email address and a business card.”
Armed with little other than a fake business card, letterhead and a masterfully worded news release, the Yes Men made a big point 2009 after a U.S. Chamber of Commerce “representative” dramatically announced during a National Press Club event that the Chamber would be changing its position on climate change policy.
“We believe that climate legislation currently being considered by the U.S. Senate is a great start towards a bill that will spur American innovation, create jobs, and give us all a good chance of survival,” the forged news release said. “We at the Chamber have tried to keep climate science from interfering with business. But without a stable climate, there will be no business.”
The hoax circulated virally on You Tube and mainstream television, calling public attention to the growing number of corporations – including Nike, Apple, Exelon, PNM Resources, PG&E, PSEG and Levi Strauss & Co – that had distanced themselves from the Chamber as a result of its conservative stance on climate change. But rather than publicly confront deeper issues and heed to the demands of its forward-thinking members, the Chamber filed a lawsuit against Yes Men and insisted that all videos of the hoax event be suppressed.
Perhaps Chevron will decide go the same way. Just last week the Yes Men targeted the company’s glossy new “We Agree” ad campaign with a satirical version of their own. Whereas Chevron’s campaign asks rhetorical questions like: “Should oil companies support the communities they work in?” and “Do oil companies need to get real?” Yes Men’s questions dig deeper and call attention to the company’s controversial past.
“Chevron’s super-expensive fake street art is a cynical attempt to gloss over the human rights abuses and environmental degradation that is the legacy of Chevron’s operations in Ecuador, Nigeria, Burma and throughout the world,” says Ginger Cassady, a campaigner at Rainforest Action Network, which collaborated with the Yes Men on the Chevron campaign. “They must think we’re stupid.”
Judging from Chevron’s own issued statement about the hoax, Cassady might be right. “There are some who are not interested in engaging in a constructive dialogue, and instead have resorted to rhetoric and stunts,” the company says, in full-blown denial of its own use of rhetoric and, yes, stunts.
Federal courts are now beginning to raise questions regarding Chevron’s persistent efforts to manipulate the U.S. legal system for its own gain. In an apparent effort to derail a potential multi-billion dollar environmental lawsuit against it, Chevron has filed discovery lawsuits against 23 people in the United States, including several lawyers associated with the ongoing Ecuador case. Chevron is also accused of submitting inaccurate and misleading translations to U.S. federal courts.
Wrong Answer
Legal antics aside, it is all too commonplace for corporations to respond to hacktivists in a gruff and humorless manner. But very often, such responses backfire. That’s because hacktivists are a persistent bunch. They are a professional and tactical force that leverages real data, overtakes live airwaves and mobilizes the masses. Corporate dissidence just furthers their resolve.
In response to Chevron’s issued statement, the Yes Men recently stepped up their campaign with a mock statement of their own and a plea to followers to post additional spoof print, web and TV ads online. “It’s been working,” the group says. “Search Chevron in the news and all you get is our spoof. Fifty million spent to keep our eyes off Chevron’s dirt… and it all just went down the drain!”
Lost advertising revenues are hard enough to recuperate. But what about lost corporate reputation? Some of the hardest hit companies of late leverage wholesome values, providing an easy target for hacktivists on a mission to elevate standards.
For instance, last month Hershey released its first CSR Report. Less than 24-hours later, labor rights groups Global Exchange, Green America, the International Labor Rights Forum and Oasis USA launched a counter report (convincingly titled “Raising the Bar: The Real Corporate Social Responsibility Report for the Hershey Company”) and accompanying web campaign.
“In the United States, Hershey conjures up innocent childhood pleasures and enjoyable snacks,” the counter report says. “However, halfway across the globe, there is a dark side to Hershey. In West Africa, where Hershey sources much of its cocoa, the scene is one of child labor, trafficking, and forced labor.”
According to Global Exchange, despite the fact that Hershey is a brand that both targets and supports youth through its marketing and philanthropy, the company seems unwilling or unable to adequately address the countless children harmed by its supply chain practices. Whereas competitors including Cadbury and Nestlé have at least made tentative steps toward labor reform, Hershey lags behind.
“Maybe Hershey is unaware of how this story has played out before and that some kind of reform is inevitable,” says fair trade chocolate company Equal Exchange’s Rodney North. “Or perhaps they are cynically stalling and trying to put off real reforms for as long as possible.”
Hershey’s real motive for stalled progress is anyone’s guess. The company has done little if anything to publicly acknowledge labor problems, let alone address the burgeoning online crusade against it.
“Hershey has not responded to any part of our campaign,” says Global Exchange’s Adrienne Fitch-Frankel. “We haven’t gotten a response to our repeated requests for meetings either, which is disappointing since this is a company that’s using child labor and child slavery. Their silence is really quite disturbing.”
Hershey might not be talking, but hacktivists, investors, NGO’s, film-makers, journalists, mothers and even children themselves are. Collectively, these stakeholders tell a convincing story.
You can run. But you can’t hide.
Add/view comments on this post.
------------------------------
The Christian Science Monitor has assembled a diverse group of the best economy-related bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. To add or view a comment on a guest blog, please go to the blogger's own site by clicking on the link above.
'Corporate social responsibility' shimmers, mirage-like, at the periphery of corporate America. Do corporations have a responsibility to improve society? Should they? Is this the proper role of business, or should it be left to government or private philanthropy? (Photo illustration / Stuart Corlett / Newscom / File)
'Corporate social responsibility': a wobbly concept
When academics, pundits and corporate heavy hitters take the stage to debate semantics, who wins? That question weighed heavily in my mind during last week’s “Great CSR Debate,” an event hosted by PR Firm Fenton and instigated by Professor Aneel Karnani’s controversial Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, “The Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility.”
As the webcast beamed out live to an audience of over a thousand viewers, thought leaders including The Economist’s Matthew Bishop, ThomsonReuters’ Chrystia Freeland, UN Global Compact’s George Kell, BSR’s Aaron Cramer, Campbell Soup’s Dave Stangis and GE Foundation’s Bob Corcoran argued about concept that evidently means different things to different people. As moderator of the debate, my intent was to “navigate” the conversation to the point where a “side” would “prevail.” But within the first few minutes, I realized why efforts in this direction were futile.
“What do we mean by corporate social responsibility (CSR)?” asked Karnani. “It’s not just that the terminology is clunky. It is also unclear.”
Indeed, it is unclear. According to a study published by Wiley InterScience, there are approximately thirty-seven different definitions of CSR floating about the business world. This problem is compounded by dozens of competing CSR or sustainability-related measurement and certification programs. Do well-meaning corporations adopt Cradle-to-Cradle or B-Corp standards? Should they join the Global Compact or Social Accountability 8000? Do Fair Trade or Ethical Trade models make the bigger difference? Who knows?
What we do know is that the old-school CSR rhetoric utterly fails to resonate. At least that was something both sides could agree on. “The problem with the rhetoric is that it can create confusion about what a business is doing in it’s core, versus what it likes to talk about or claim public credit for,” said Freeland, who pointed to campaigns issued by BP, PepsiCo and Goldman Sachs as examples of marketing hypocrisy.
Beyond the language and clear instances of greenwashing, however, there was a deeper point to be made, particularly by practitioners on the panel. When so-called CSR is most effective – when it generates so much value for stakeholders and shareholders that corporations cannot afford to stop investing in it – then it is no longer regarded as CSR, but good business strategy. GE’s multi-billion dollar investments in clean energy and affordable health care stand as a testament to this.
“If you label CSR or corporate citizenship as purely a philanthropic activity, then I agree that’s misguided,” said GE’s Corcoran. “[Authentic CSR] is about the core of what a business does, how it does that, and what it sells that is of value, that helps to meet unmet needs.”
Campbell’s Soup’s Dave Stangis agreed. “CSR is there [at Campbell’s] not because it’s nice to do, but because it makes the company better. It takes money from the supply chain, makes us more nimble and drives innovation.”
Still, despite the demonstrable move toward CSR-driven business models, Karnani insisted that corporations have no obligation to solve society’s ills. “That is the role of government regulation,” he said. “Governments are a far more effective protector of the public good than any campaign for corporate social responsibility.”
Here is where a second key distinction lies. It is one thing for corporations to conduct business ethically – trading within boundaries set by law. However, it is quite another thing for corporations to use laws as a strategic compass. Those that do will be playing catch up forever.
There is also the matter of our transformed society. “We don’t live in a world where government’s only job is to set and enforce rules and businesses only job is to sell products and services within those boundaries,” said Cramer. “We live in a transparent world, a globally connected world, a world where civil society plays a big role, where global markets exist but global governance does not.” Despite the clunky language, today’s CSR is fundamentally about collaboration, which means getting to optimal solutions faster than if we waited around for regulation or business to advance independently, Cramer explained.
“What is really going on here is a struggle to determine what tomorrow’s markets are going to be in a world that’s changing very fast, where all the old boundaries are breaking down,” said Bishop. “Now we’re all workers, consumers, capitalists and voters. And we’re trying to work out the right institutional arrangements to govern in that new world.”
So where does the “Great CSR Debate” leave divided minds? Perhaps right back where they started, or perhaps pondering the following choice: respond to the new reality, or don’t. Stangis put it this way: “This isn’t a debate about right or wrong, winning or losing. For me, it’s about changing the world, one company at a time – or sitting on the outside describing why that can’t happen.”
Add/view comments on this post.
------------------------------
The Christian Science Monitor has assembled a diverse group of the best economy-related bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. To add or view a comment on a guest blog, please go to the blogger's own site by clicking on the link above.
BP COO of Exploration and Production Doug Suttles walks on a beach that workers have cleaned of oil near the South Pass of the Mississippi River in Plaquemines Parish, La., Aug. 1. Companies that blunder need to be honest about their mistakes to regain public trust. (Patrick Semansky/AP/File)
Corporate disgrace and the magic of candor
Why do some companies win public trust and others lose it? That’s a question more people are asking themselves, as global faith in business remains unfortunately fragile. Turns out the trust deficit, a trend on the rise for ten years now, is more than a mere wrinkle on the face of capitalism. It’s a pressing concern for every shareholder.
When companies lose trust, they often lose capital. Case in point: Gulf disaster stocks BP, Halliburton, Transocean and Anadarko each sank between 25 and 45 percent during the past four months. The Goldman Sachs-SEC debacle pushed company shares down by 15 percent, and the Dow down by 130 points. Massey stock plunged 42 percent following a deadly string of safety failures. Toyota shares dropped 16 percent following its massive recall. And as of today, none of these companies has fully rebounded, indicating the markets grow slower to forgive.
“The last couple of years have provided plenty of reasons for a building sense of mistrust,” says Motley Fool’s Alyce Lomax. “Goldman Sachs and BP have become the most recent high-profile examples of the many big institutions whose highly paid managers seem to be only out for themselves. ”
Indeed, the lost faith Lomax describes seems to be the principle reason why many more investors demand greater honesty, disclosure, transparency, and professionalism from corporations – and flee stocks that don’t deliver. According to a recent Wall Street Journal article on the topic: “Small investors’ faith in stocks, which surged in the 1990s, has collapsed since the technology-stock debacle and the Enron and WorldCom scandals of 2000-2002…Investors talk of a growing disillusionment with big institutions, including corporations, government, banks and political parties.”
The reasons for today’s trust deficit are clear enough. What apparently isn’t as clear, particularly to the large corporations whose stocks are affected, is what to do differently in order to set things straight.
For the most part, the corporations mentioned above used a classic crisis management approach: deny, deflect, spin, repeat. Rather than open up, they withheld information. They denigrated critics, blamed others and refused to answer pertinent questions or engage in meaningful debate. They hid behind the veneer of canned statements and corporate rhetoric – with the occasional blunder thrown in.
There is “no evidence” that huge plumes of oil are suspended undersea, said BP. The charges against us will “hurt America,” said Goldman. The safety-related allegations against us are “a big lie,” said Massey. The independent research from Stanford University was “staged,” said Toyota.
When it comes to rebuilding lost trust, propaganda makes a bad problem worse. What improves situations is candor. Candor conciliates, clarifies and cuts through hype. Candor works. It’s the greed of the Twenty-first Century.
“Candor in business – or in any kind of organization – is a rare and wondrous thing,” write Suzy and Jack Welch in their book, Winning. “Rare because so few companies have it. Wondrous because when they do, everything just operates faster and better.”
Consider the success of online retailer Zappos, which grew its recently acquired, billion dollar business in under five years by forging open and honest relationships with people. From its standing invitation to the general public to come tour Zappos’ headquarters to its progressive use of blogs, videos and books – Zappos gives people outside the company an uncensored look inside the corporate culture. It even goes to so far as to share best practices with competitors.
“A lot of companies feel they need to guard the secret sauce,” said Zappos marketing executive Aaron Magness in a recent interview. “We’re very open to talking about our business model and plans with everyone. We’ve learned a lot along the way and made mistakes that a lot of other companies don’t need to make.”
Smart companies like Zappos don’t just aim for candor. They leverage it, invest in it, profit from it, and build new communities around it. For instance, Sun Microsystems CEO Jonathan Schwartz blogs freely about what his company and industry does right and wrong, engaging people on all sides of his business. Apparel company Patagonia tracks the social and environmental impact of its products from design through delivery, encouraging customers to buy smarter and contribute to rich discussions. Seventh Generation reveals the full list of ingredients used in its household products, earning customer loyalty and pressuring its industry to follow suit.
Candid companies help restore lost trust and balance to the markets. Rather than telling shareholders or stakeholders what to think, they allow the community to draw its own conclusions, which is precisely why people believe in them. As Seventh Generation’s Jeffrey Hollender said in a recent speech: “You can’t judge yourself to be sustainable or responsible. You can only be judged by others.”
Add/view comments on this post.
------------------------------
The Christian Science Monitor has assembled a diverse group of the best economy-related bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. To add or view a comment on a guest blog, please go to the blogger's own site by clicking on the link above.
Steve Ballmer, shown here at a May press conference in New Delhi, is CEO of Microsoft, which has donated a technology that automatically finds hidden copies of child porn. Microsoft has also started a public awareness campaign about the dangers of online sexual exploitation of children. (AP/File)
Child porn too big for law enforcement? Microsoft steps in.
Child pornography is the Internet’s most severe social problem.
In recent years it has exploded as countless illicit images are circulated online – viewed by pedophiles and passed around from predator to predator. Since 2003, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) has reviewed and analyzed almost 30 million of these images. It projects that an additional nine million images will be examined in the coming year. NCMEC also acknowledges that the scope of the child porn problem is too large for law enforcement, policy makers and child protection groups to handle on their own.
Enter the world’s second biggest technology company.
“We can help make a big dent,” Microsoft SVP and General Counsel Brad Smith told a group of journalists, bloggers and industry influencers at the company’s recent Citizenship Accelerator Summit. “These photos live on the Internet forever and every time they are shared or viewed, the children in them are re-victimized. It’s not enough to stop the perpetrators. The real point is getting these images off the Internet.”
In 2009, Microsoft donated a new technology to the NCMEC that has the potential to make the kind of dent Smith talks about. The technology, called PhotoDNA, was initially created by Microsoft Research and then further developed by Hany Farid, a leading digital-imaging expert and professor of computer science at Dartmouth College. Using a unique digital blueprinting technology that has a 98 percent accuracy rate, PhotoDNA finds hidden copies of the worst images of child sexual exploitation known today.
“The [Photo DNA] project is unique in that it is challenging from a technical and engineering point of view, and has the potential to significantly impact the distribution of the horrifying and troubling trafficking of child porn,” says Farid. “It is rare as an academic to work on something that has both of these properties.”
Although major content hosters such as Yahoo and Google enforce content standards as a matter of practice, the manual and human-intensive processes they rely on to remove inappropriate posts are no match for the sheer volume of child porn online today. That is why a technology like PhotoDNA, which is used by Microsoft’s own Bing search engine, is so necessary. But there are other reasons, too.
“This project is also extremely important because nobody else seems able or willing to publicly address it in a significant way,” Farid says. Indeed, PhotoDNA has received scant attention from the mainstream press, probably because it centers on a problem that no one likes to talk about. Were Microsoft purely motivated by publicity, then their safest bet would probably have been to lay low on the chid porn issue. But to the contrary, Microsoft is moving in the opposite direction. With its A Childhood for Every Child campaign, launched as a complementary effort to PhotoDNA and in conjunction with NCMEC, Microsoft urges the public to take a greater interest in this important cause.
According to Farid and others, this is a case where corporate interests effectively – and perhaps even altruistically – work for the greater good. “I am generally cautious of partnering with corporations,” says Farid. “The Microsoft team, however, has been incredibly committed to working on this problem with no obvious financial benefit.”
Whereas Microsoft’s direct financial incentives are still to be determined, the benefits of leveraging the company’s reach and innovation in order to tackle a pervasive social problem are clear enough. “Very few companies can operate at the same level as Microsoft,” Farid says.
Theoretically PhotoDNA’s underlying technology could be applied to various problems related to Internet content – resulting in social and financial upsides. With respect to child porn, Farid says that PhotoDNA is likely only the first in a series of technologies that he and Microsoft will develop to disrupt the flow of images across the Internet. “We will continually enhance PhotoDNA to contend with counter-measures employed by traffickers. We will also extend this work to analyze video.”
Whatever lies ahead, it isn’t any wonder why Farid characterizes his current collaboration with Microsoft as: “the single most important thing that I have done in my career.” Let’s hope he’s not alone – and that more leaders in the technology space will step up to help make the Internet a safer place.
Add/view comments on this post.
------------------------------
The Christian Science Monitor has assembled a diverse group of the best economy-related bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. To add or view a comment on a guest blog, please go to the blogger's own site by clicking on the link above.
Andrew Plepler, global corporate social responsibility executive and consumer policy executive at Bank of America (r.), joined members of the National Park Foundation and 230 Bank of America Student Leaders on July 23, 2009 for a national service activity designed to preserve and revitalize Washington, D.C.'s historic Rock Creek Park. (Bank of America/PRNewsFoto/File)
Are corporate social responsibility rankings irresponsible?
Corporate social and environmental performance is all the rage in today’s investment environment. With increasing frequency, analysts are monitoring, evaluating, and ranking that performance. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) lists – ranging from Corporate Knight’s Global 100 to Ethisphere Institute’s Most Ethical Companies and Corporate Responsibility magazine’s 100 Best Corporate Citizens – grow more plentiful and visible each day. Publishers now vie to position their lists as strategic holy grails for corporations making the cut, and Wall Street has taken notice. Nearly one out of every nine dollars of professionally managed assets in the United States – valued at an estimated $2.71 trillion – has been invested in companies that perform well in CSR rankings.
“Company stakeholders from investors to customers to employees to regulators watch the 100 Best Corporate Citizens List closely, and are using it now more than ever to make important decisions,” said Corporate Responsibility magazine publisher Jay Whitehead in a recent press release. “As a result, making the List is worth millions or even billions in increased shareholder and brand value.”
This should be good news for Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, ExxonMobil, Chevron and Monsanto which, despite their notoriety, have been counted as “Best Citizens” by Corporate Responsibility numerous times. “When someone asks you to define corporate transparency, show them this list,” touts the magazine. But to an increasing number of observers, the transparency seems elusive – as does a clear indication of what the CSR industry stands for.
“Corporate Responsibility magazine’s so-called transparency only extends one layer deep,” observes Sea Change Media executive director Bill Baue. “We can see the categories and weightings, but we can’t see the rationale behind the decisions on actual scoring of company performance.” Baue notes that organizations including Corporate Responsibility collect data from business executives whose names and positions are not revealed, leaving questions about a company’s true impact on society unanswered. “Input from external stakeholders would make the methodology much more robust and credible,” he says.
Baue isn’t the only one questioning the value of CSR performance rankings. As evidenced by blogs and discussion boards across the web, a growing number of people are frustrated by CSR industry lists and the manner in which they are constructed. Some even perceive a pattern of favoritism. “Unlike programs like the Nobel prizes, Macarthur Fellowships, or Economist Innovation awards, the companies that run CSR awards and lists often have an incentive to fix the results,” says Martin Smith, founder and CEO of CSR industry website Just Means. “For instance, Corporate Responsibility magazine makes money from the companies that it rates in its annual list (through sponsorship, registration fees for events, and brand licensing arrangements). This, in any industry, would be seen as a conflict of interest, but in the realm of CSR and business ethics it is purely hypocritical.”
The backlash against CSR industry lists is nothing new. Last year, financial news site 24/7 Wall Street warned global equity investors to take Ethisphere’s results with a grain of salt, indicating: “the basis on which [the list] was put together is a bit naive and it appears to be troubled by several conflicts of interest.” In 2005, green business writer Joel Makower criticized Corporate Knight’s approach, saying: “The rankings only go so far. The whole exercise raises as many questions as it answers.” And when Corporate Responsibility magazine (previously called Ethical Corporation) first released its list, green media company AlterNet complained: “When one looks at this list, it is easy to be baffled at the real meaning of CSR. It is riddled with companies that have significant blemishes on their record when it comes to environmental matters, labor practices or treatment of customers. The likes of Wal-Mart and Big Oil have not yet made the cut, but that may be only a matter of time.”
Clearly the time has come, as many of the world’s most profitable oil, food, agriculture, pharmaceutical and retail companies are featured on the latest “most ethical,” “best citizen,” “greenest,” and “most sustainable” company lists. Given this fact, one has to wonder: Is the CSR industry completely missing the point? And if so, then so what?
Critics see several downsides to the muddle. “CSR is often too hard for the average consumer to grasp when making a purchasing decision, so companies use lists as stamps of approval,” says Smith. “But unfortunately, not only are the lists misleading for consumers, they actually bring an overall lack of credibility to the entire field of sustainable business.”
Given the importance of sustainable business practices to the future of the planet and its people, this lost credibility is a real concern. “The most vital CSR issue to measure is whether a company is operating sustainably, in the scientific sense,” says Baue. “Environmentally, for example, is the company using natural resources at a rate that allows for the planet to regenerate them sufficiently to provide for future generations? Unfortunately, almost no companies [on the lists] fully integrate sustainability into their business models, and almost no CSR industry lists consider the sustainability context.”
What Next?
If inclusion on a CSR list translates to “millions or even billions in shareholder and brand value” as Corporate Responsibility magazine indicates, then it stands to reason that some investor and consumer wealth is being channeled in the wrong direction – toward companies that, to Baue’s point, may invest a few pennies in CSR, but make millions or billions of dollars in profits by selling things in ways that take a huge toll on society. This isn’t right. But are CSR industry lists entirely wrong? Not according to some profiled companies.
Dave Stangis, vice president of CSR and sustainability at Campbell Soup Company (which ranked number 12 on Corporate Responsibility magazine’s 2010 list) sees both an underlying purpose and a path forward. “No matter how bad a list is, there is something inherently useful about it,” he says. “It is easy to look at a list and poke holes in it, but what I’m trying to do is use the methodology and questions asked to determine what strategic elements I need to improve inside my company.”
Corporate Responsibility’s analysis, conducted by investment firm IW Financial, assesses 360 data points of public information across seven categories, including human rights, philanthropy and environment. But unfortunately, the same breadth of field that helps companies like Campbell’s to identify strategic weaknesses allows controversial companies to slip through the cracks. “People were up in arms this year, wondering how an oil company like Hess could be considered the tenth best corporate citizen,” says Stangis. “But in terms of the questions IW Financial asks, such as: Does the company measure its carbon footprint? What violations occurred? How many people were injured? Hess fared well, since they got credit on the disclosures.”
Disclosures aside, many are wondering when CSR industry lists will get around to rewarding companies for creating positive value rather than merely mitigating risk. “These lists should showcase companies that are helping us innovative away from industries like oil, vertically integrated agriculture, and so forth,” Smith says. Stangis agrees: “I think the lists of the future are going to have to better address the issue of strategic opportunity. The real question is: can we finally come up with a list that rewards companies for producing products and services that meet unmet [social and environmental] needs, rather than just minimizing potential damage?”
Surely, that would be something worth recognizing.
Add/view comments on this post.
------------------------------
The Christian Science Monitor has assembled a diverse group of the best economy-related bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. To add or view a comment on a guest blog, please go to the blogger's own site by clicking on the link above.
How Haiti's earthquake galvanized one US CEO
It was an unusually quiet plane ride home. Timberland CEO Jeff Swartz and Share Our Strength Founder Bill Shore had reached the end of a life-changing journey, after having spent several days in Haiti bearing witness to the unthinkable and helping to address earthquake survivor needs.
“We finally let off our last two passengers, celebrity artist Wyclef Jean and a young orthopedic surgeon from Grand Rapids, a father of four who had been in Haiti since day three performing emergency amputations with borrowed farm equipment,” Swartz recounts. “That gave me thirty-five minutes of one-on-one time with Bill, who I never get to be alone with. But I don’t think we said a word to each other the rest of the trip.”
Swartz and Shore were likely in shock. The full-blown mental processing of what they had just endured in and around Haiti would begin later, as they assimilated back into their previous routines. As part of his re-acclamation process, Swartz wrote a series of downloads to Timberland stakeholders – including a Fast Company blog post, which summarizes his takeaways, and a personal letter to employees entitled: “Bearing Witness to Haiti,” which provides a remarkable play-by-play account of his physical and emotional experience.
“I felt I needed to get this off my chest,” says Swartz. “So I wrote about the heroism of the many doctors we saw, the heartbreak of the destruction, the inspiration I felt with Bill and Wyclef, and the indignation I felt at the world’s well-intended but inept efforts to cope with this disaster.”
Also, Swartz says, he wanted to leave people with a solid indication of why a boot-making CEO would personally venture “to hell and back,” as he puts it, despite the risks involved in doing so. Just prior to his trip, reports of street violence in Haiti had escalated as millions of citizens struggled to survive a series of powerful aftershocks without adequate food, water, shelter, government or emergency support. Given the magnitude of the situation, how could a few individuals – let alone a corporate CEO – possibly make a significant difference? And besides, what would Swartz and the Timberland organization stand to gain from such a venture?
“Before I left for this hastily-planned trip, people – many of them rightfully disgruntled family members – demanded to know what I hoped to accomplish,” Swartz says. “I always replied, honestly, that I didn’t know and wouldn’t know until it happened.”
But Swartz discovered answers in Haiti – several of which hold significance for business leaders interested in blending commerce with conscience. “[What I learned was that] CEO as disaster volunteer is not a good model. But, CEO as witness — that is a different story,” he says. “What my eyes have seen, my heart has felt. And so this voyage is just beginning.”
World-Changing Leadership
World-changing business leadership requires three things: enhanced perspective – the ability to see clearly issues and patterns of significance that others don’t; personal resolve – the sheer determination to make a positive difference in the world; and formative relationships – the collaborative connections that amplify individual and organizational effectiveness. While in Haiti, Swartz solidified all three.
The experience appears to have permanently bonded Swartz, Shore and Wyclef. Swartz and Shore, who remain dear friends, serve on each other’s boards and recently confirmed their commitment to the Timberland-Share Our Strength cause partnership. Swartz also agreed to serve on Wyclef’s Yéle Haiti Foundation board in an effort to deepen their existing relationship.
The Timberland-Yéle Haiti alliance has resulted in notable innovations since it was formed back in 2009, including a successful line of eco-conscious boots. For every pair of Timberland Earthkeepers™ Yéle Haiti boots sold, Timberland donates $2 to Yéle Haiti to support restoration and environmental education projects in Haiti.
After the earthquake struck, the relationship took a necessary turn. Wyclef was in Haiti helping to deliver aid, collect dead bodies from the streets and, via CNN and other international news sources, broadcast the urgent need for more efficient disaster relief. At the same time, Yéle Haiti was accused of financial impropriety. That was when Swartz realized he needed to stand by Wyclef in a literal sense. In addition to publicly voicing his support, Swartz joined forces with him on the ground.
“Wyclef is a man of many faces,” writes Swartz in his letter to employees. “We know him as a musician and a celebrity, for sure, but if I jump ahead and tell you about [who I saw in] Wyclef by the end of this voyage, I would speak of an immensely gentle, noble, powerful man — one part dreamer, one part prophet, one part revolutionary. And one part real friend.”
In fact, Clef (as Swartz now calls him) proved himself full of surprises during their Haiti voyage. Upon landing in Port-au-Prince, he casually announced that he had arranged for a meeting between their burgeoning convoy – which now included Swartz, Clef, Shore, action movie star Vin Diesel and an armed security detail – and the President of the Dominican Republic, Leonel Fernandez.
“There I am decked out in my disaster duds: Timberland hiking boots, cargo pants, travel shirt, baseball cap, and Smartwool base layer. Not exactly presidential visit attire,” recounts Swartz. “Clef whips out a suit he brought, just in case.”
The meeting proceeds and Swartz is struck by the surreal nature of it all. “There’s Vin and the gun show flexing in one chair, the President looking presidential, Clef suited up, and me in my ‘let’s go hiking’ look.”
Despite his dorky get-up, Swartz, whose Dominican Republic-based boot factory employs approximately 1,800 local citizens and has operated in the country for 25 years, jumped at the opportunity to put his personal resolve into play. He helped do what previous negotiators had failed to: temporarily open the border between the Dominican Republic and Haiti so that vital supplies could flow through.
“What I said was: “Señor Presidente, history is watching. How do you want to be judged? Haitians are dying because aid is not reaching the people, and we can help solve that problem—with your help. From our warehouses in the Dominican Republic, Timberland can consolidate and ship by our trucking network. Yéle Haiti is prepared to receive and distribute the aid. Are you prepared to let the trucks go through without the usual bureaucracy?”
President Fernandez agreed. With that, Swartz turned his attentions to the Timberland team, both in the Dominican Republic and back in New England. Failure to move food and supplies across the boarder was no longer an option, Swartz realized, and so he instructed his staff accordingly: “Don’t tell me that you can’t find a way to get stuff across the border,” he told them. “If stuff gets stuck at the border because you guys can’t figure out an innovative way to get the job done, please understand the consequences. If you have to beg, borrow or steal – just make it happen.”
And they did. Later that day, Swartz’s convoy arrived in Cite Soleil – the City of the Sun – one of the worst slums in Port-au-Prince. In his letter to employees, Swartz portrays a vivid account of his experience handing out 8,000 hot meals to a crowd of starving people. Here is an extended passage:
…Clef says: “Not a lot of blanche (white people) in Cite Soleil. Should be interesting.” Just what I’m looking for – interesting. Because as the convoy weaves through the city, I am reduced to holding the video camera in my lap and filming my knee. I can’t believe the physical destruction. Nor the swarm of humans walking. People walking in the streets — this is one of the overwhelming images of this voyage. Where are they going? What are they seeking? Walking, everywhere. Streets choked with dust and detritus and despair, and folks out walking. Whole blocks just leveled…
We are in the Cite to feed the hungry. We’ve already seen a UN convoy heading from the airport to distribute food and water — white armored personnel carriers, soldiers in body armor and combat gear, turret gunners manning loaded weapons, sirens blaring, trucks roaring through the clogged streets — just to hand out fifty pound bags of rice. Clef reminds me that good intentions don’t feed people. Fifty pound bags of of rice are not all that helpful when there is no pot, no cooking fire, and no clean water anywhere with which to cook the rice.
The Yéle model is a little different — we brought food from the Dominican Republic, food that Yéle purchased, and somehow, in this destroyed city, Clef’s team cooked 8,000 hot meals of Haitian cuisines (goat stew). Someone “found” 8,000 styrofoam takeout trays from one of the destroyed restaurants somewhere in town. And found a truck. Here’s the truck, here’s the meals, here’s Clef with a bullhorn shouting in Creole, and here is a mighty river of the hungry, lining up to be fed. With sweat pouring off of everyone, we began to hand out the meals.
It started “OK,” meaning I’m handing meals to human beings, little kids in Creole or French saying “thanks.” I am trying to say something in French for encouragement, we are working hard in the sunny version of hell, but despite everyone’s best efforts, all of a sudden, it starts to get tense. The Yéle volunteers are shouting at the folks in line in Creole: “don’t push, don’t push,” but you could see in the eyes of the mothers and the fathers and the children, everyone watching the pile of cooked meals in the back of the truck get smaller and smaller and a sense of despair and maybe even panic: “Will I get a meal for my child before they run out?” And so all of a sudden, the business of Sunday lunch heads in the wrong direction — the river of hungry humans becomes a raging river, pressing forward, starting to crush each other and us. And so the security guys – with good intentions – shove themselves in front of us, and everyone started taking out their weapons. I heard safeties being taken off and I knew we were not far from a really bad situation.
At this point I was kinda crushed behind a wall of security people, up against the open back of the truck. In front of me, not three humans deep away, there was a little girl. And someone must have stepped on her or something – she started to cry. In the raging ocean of human suffering—her tears and her fear was too much for me. So I reached between two security guys and put my hand on her and shouted in French: “It’s OK, I’m gonna get you.” I couldn’t lift her up; I was wedged too tightly. But now I was back in CEO mode and so I said to the security guy in front of me: “get me that little girl.” And he did. Lifted her up and passed her back to me and I held her tight, in my arms, and she was sobbing and so was I. I held onto her, maybe eight years old, talking to her in French, and after about 30 seconds she stopped crying. Because the crushing that was hurting her—that’s gone now. I’m holding her and we’re behind a security guy and so she’s not going to get crushed. So she stopped crying.
Kills me. My view of the world says, she should have still been crying. But her view of the world is: “No. I may not have a home, I may be hungry, I may be living in hell – but that’s normal. That isn’t worth crying over. If someone is hurting me on top of all that, then I’ll cry.” I handed her a meal and off she went – as if to say: “I’m going back to the normal despair of my day and I can handle that, don’t need your help, thanks a million and have a good day.”
We went back to handing out the food. The crush didn’t go away, but the fear of a bad scene did. Everyone got their heads around the fact that we had 8,000 meals — not 8,001. So if you get one, great, if you don’t…I don’t know what. Clef exhorting the crowd; people shouting, crying, waiting…I’m still kinda pinned against the truck when, from under the truck, a little brown hand reaches out and grabs my cargo calf. Scared the hell out of me. I look down, and there is a little hand clutching my leg. Can’t see the child — he or she has crawled through the densest crush of people I’ve ever seen, wriggled under the truck, and grabbed me — signaling: “I beat the line, now give me a meal.” I slipped one down to the hand; the hand grabbed it and vanished. My heart still has not come back — a child, figuring out how to get a meal…
This is just one of a series of intense experiences that left Swartz traumatized, and yet focused on what needed to be done. “How am I feeling today? I don’t know. I don’t feel so good,” he says. “I still haven’t yet got my mind around the question: How can we let this happen?”
Swartz admits to being far less patient today than he was before his trip, particularly toward those who perceive insurmountable challenges. “If a small-scale boot maker from New Hampshire, a prophet dreamer called Wyclef and a social justice guru like Bill Shore can take a field trip to Haiti and as a consequence, 8,000 people get served and a [border opens], you can’t tell me it can’t be done,” he says. “This isn’t in my, Clef’s or Billy’s job description – and yet I’ve got the pictures, and I can show you the faces of the people we helped. So when folks say it’s an impossible situation, that’s just not true. We have the intellectual capital. We have the resources. The question is: do we have the will to make the hard choices?”
The will is alive and present at Timberland. As an outdoor company with a direct connection to the environment and local population, Timberland promises to pursue both reforestation projects that repopulate Haiti’s more desolate areas with newly planted trees, as well as broader initiatives that help struggling citizens to help themselves. “We have a strength to share,” Swartz says, “and we are going to share it.”
Become part of the Monitor community
36K on Facebook | 12K on Twitter | 2,250 on YouTube