Top 10 Corporate Responsibility Stories of 2012

This year may have lacked the huge catastrophes that have dominated the corporate responsibility headlines of the last couple of years (such as BP's oil spill in 2010 or TEPCO's nuclear disaster at Fukushima in 2011), but 2012 has probably been more packed with serious incidents than any of the previous years. We had real trouble putting these in any kind of order and even getting down to just a top 10 of big stories was tough  - and meant we had to jettison a few favoured good news stories about corporate responsibility just to be able to capture all of the bad news. So it nearly became the Top 15 Corporate Irresponsibility Stories of 2012. But in keeping with tradition, here's our view of the top 10 of the highlights and lowlights of a jam-packed year of corporate responsibility stories. And if you think we've got it wrong, or want to change up the order a bit, do add your comments below.

1. Apple's supply chain odyssey
If there is one thing that seems to be guaranteed now, it's that the tech giants will be at the forefront of the corporate responsibility agenda for the forseeable future. If nothing else, it's simply a function of their size, power and ubiquity. In 2010 we had Google facing human rights issues in China; last year was Facebook's privacy battles. And this year, Apple's ongoing supply chain issues really exploded into the public consciousness, thanks in part to the New York Times stories that kicked off the year. Worker suicides, factory fires, poor labour conditions - none of this was exactly new, but one way or another 2012 saw Apple take over from Nike (and tech take over apparel) as the poster child of inhumane supply chains. Apple reacted fast once the tide had turned, but for many it was too little, too late. Even their own internal audits provided evidence of widespread breaches of their policy. As the bad news rolled in, the company that so-often seemed immune to criticism started to show signs of serious reform. Instead of secrecy, it started moving towards greater transparency, joined the Fair Labor Association and initiated third party inspections, and now reports monthly on the working hours of over a million workers. In what may turn out to be the most significant move yet, the company has begun manufacturing some of its Macs not in China, but in the US.

2. The LIBOR scandal
2012 was a bad year for a finance sector that seems increasingly incapable of holding onto whatever public trust is left after the financial crisis and its aftermath. Whilst the US regulators' continued clampdown on insider trading gained yet more scalps, most prominently former McKinsey head Rajat Gupta, it was the arcane field of inter-bank lending rates that dominated the financial front pages. Most of us probably didn't even know what a LIBOR was until this year, but revelations of deliberate fixing of interest rates among major banks in Europe during the late 2000s means that we all now know more than we want to. First, the CEO of Barclays was forced to resign in the wake of investigations by UK regulators. Now, the Swiss bank UBS has agreed to pay $1.5bn in fines to the Swiss, UK, and US regulators for manipulation of interest rates that according to Britain’s Financial Service Authority, was so “routine and widespread” that “every LIBOR and EURIBOR submission, in currencies and tenors in which UBS traded during the relevant period, was at risk of having been improperly influenced to benefit derivatives trading positions.” Investigations continue, and it is clear that other banks and possibly brokerages will be drawn into the fray. Perhaps the major legacy of the scandal though will be the startling picture it has provided us of the "horribly rotten, comically stupid" alternate moral universe that traders inhabit.

3. HSBC's money laundering fine
If the LIBOR scandal wasn't enough, HSBC's record breaking $1.9bn settlement with US regulators for money laundering in Mexico really capped a year that demonstrated how readily financial services companies could deliberately flout the rule of law, and bypass their own control systems with impunity. The HSBC settlement followed similar (though smaller) money laundering settlements against foreign banks including ING and Credit Suisse. What was particularly remarkable with HSBC was the fact that despite having strong evidence the authorities elected not to indict the bank out of fears of possible financial collapse.  The message? Four years on from the financial meltdown, some financial institutions are still too big to fail ... but their licence to operate looks increasingly at risk.

4. Bangladesh factory fire
The death of 112 workers in the Tazreen fashions factory fire of November marked probably the saddest moment for corporate responsibility in 2012. It also provided a powerful reminder that the global apparel industry still had not got its house in order regarding working conditions in the product supply chain, despite two decades  of codes of conduct and factory audits. Tazreen was making clothes for global brands such as Wal-Mart and Sears, who remarkably did not even know that their products were being manufactured there. All in all, a devastating wake-up call for the world of supply chain monitoring.

5. Lonmin mine shootings
Described by the BBC as the bleakest moment faced by South Africa since the end of Apartheid, the shooting of 34 striking miners by police at the Lonmin Marikana platinum mine demonstrated the escalating difficulties of doing business in the global mining industry and in an increasingly fractious South Africa in particular. Lonmin tried to remain above the security crisis, which in total claimed some 44 lives, but a company that not so long ago had the highest CEO:average worker pay gap on the FT 100, operating in one of the most unequal countries on the planet was bound to breed resentment.  Unfortunately the more fundamental reform required to significantly ease the tensions at Marikana looks unlikely.

6. Wal-Mart's Mexican corruption scandal
Wal-Mart wasn't the only company put under the corruption microscope in 2012. Canadian engineering firm SNC Lavalin, among others, was another high profile casualty of increased vigilance among national prosecutors. But the Wal-Mart de Mexico story makes it into our top ten a) because it marked such a sudden reversal of fortune for the company after its much vaunted CSR makeover of the past few years; b) because retail, unlike construction, is rarely a site for major bribery.  Many of the facts are still to come out, but a devastating investigation by the New York Times points to Wal-Mart's Mexican business being a "an aggressive and creative corrupter", systematically using bribery to obtain store permits for its rapid expansion and subverting democratic processes and regulatory safeguards in the process. Critically, the company was also found to have deliberately hushed-up the problem to protect its burgeoning reputation, closing down an internal investigation in 2006, and failing to report any of the illicit payments to the authorities. Suddenly all those nice sustainability initiatives don't look quite so pretty.

7. The BBC's Newsnight sex abuse fiasco
With the fallout of the News International phone hacking scandal still very much a part of the UK media landscape, the last thing the sector needed was a scandal at the most trusted media organization of them all, the BBC. But when the 2011 decision to terminate a Newsnight investigation into sex abuse claims against the recently deceased, former BBC presenter Jimmy Saville came to light this year, it because clear that something was wrong at the redoubtable British media organization. It was left to a rival broadcaster to finally break a story that has since become probably the largest serial sex abuse case in UK history. The BBC then spiraled further into disaster when Newsnight broadcast sex abuse claims against an unnamed senior establishment figure that were very quickly discovered to be untrue. The Director General of the BBC resigned amid the panic and confusion whilst a subsequent report into the BBCs handling of the Saville investigation labelled the organization "incapable and chaotic" with a culture of distrust. It's better than "immoral and deceitful", but hardly a ringing endorsement of responsible management.

8. Starbucks' "voluntary" tax payment.
After bubbling away for a few years, 2012 was really the year that tax justice broke into the mainstream consciousness. Campaigners have targeted various companies over the years, but when the spotlight fell on Starbucks, along with Amazon and Google, for their failure to pay tax on millions of dollars of profits in the UK, activists, politicians and consumers called for change. Not that any one suggested that any of the companies had broken the law, merely that such aggressive tax avoidance didn't align with many people's conceptions of fair play. Starbucks' offer to make a "voluntary" payment of $30m to make up for the shortfall suggested that they could read the message in the coffee grinds about where the debate was headed - towards greater expectations placed on companies to be "good citizens". But clearly the onus is also on politicians to beef up the rules ... rather than just criticize companies who are able to take advantage of their shortcomings.

9.  The Super PAC election
The US election was one of the big news stories of the year, and one of the main corporate responsibility issues swirling around the election was about the role of corporate money in politics. This was the first US national election since the 2010 Citizens United legislation which effectively removed any cap on political donations by companies. No surprise then that the election was the most expensive in history with corporate money aggressively channelled to candidates through super PACs (political action committees). Even though this was expected to benefit former hedge fund boss Mitt Romney, Obama came out ahead, perhaps demonstrating that money can't always buy elections. But when even the Harvard Business Review blog starts carping on about getting corporate money out of politics, you know that a tipping point could be fast approaching.

10. BP oil spill aftershocks
Just because it was our no.1 story two years ago, that doesn't mean the BP oil spill isn't still telling us something new about corporate responsibility. This year, we saw the company slapped with a record $4.5bn fine from the US Justice Department after it admitted to criminal responsibility for the explosion that led to 11 deaths on the Deepwater Horizon well. The company could still face a bigger fine following a civil suit for the damages caused by environmental pollution. But maybe the most significant aftershock of the spill was the decision by the US Environmental Protection Agency to suspend BP from bidding for federal contracts over their "lack of business integrity". Although it's still unclear how long the suspension will last, this suggests a potentially significant shift in the government's strategy for dealing with irresponsible companies. Or maybe it just means that BP didn't get its lobbying strategy right!


Photo copyright meteo. Reproduced under Creative Commons Licence

Four reasons why we're so hard on our leaders' ethical lapses

The list of prominent leaders being turfed out of office for ethics violations seems to be growing at an exponential rate. Here in Canada, Toronto mayor Rob Ford's ouster this week for breaking conflict of interest rules is no less than the third Canadian city major to bite the dust this month due to questions of integrity (the others, Gerald Tremblay of Montreal and Gilles Vaillancourt of Laval both resigned without admitting any guilt in face of corruption investigations).

 In the last month we've also seen the Director of the CIA in the US, David Patreus resign due to an admission of "extremely poor judgement" in conducting an extramarital affair. The same week, the incoming CEO of the multinational defense company Lockheed Martin resigned over "a close personal relationship" with a subordinate. Even Hurricane Sandy took its toll with the resignation of the CEO of the Long Island Power Authority after thousands of its customers were left without electricity. And over in the UK, the Director General of the BBC resigned this month due to the organization's botched child abuse investigations.

But its not just a sudden blip. Earlier in the year, Bob Diamond, the CEO of Barclays Bank, resigned in the wake of the Libor scandal, adding to a CEO head count that already included the CEO of Yahoo (falsified CV), Best Buy (inappropriate relationship with a subordinate), Nomura (insider trading), Restoration Hardware (relationship with a subordinate), Stryker (extramarital affair with subordinate), and Lotus cars (expenses irregularities). And just to stoke the fires even more, the former CEO of SNC Lavalin who resigned in March (corruption scandal), has just been arrested on fraud charges.

Depending on how you look at it, these various resignations, firings, and now arrests could be seen as a sign that leaders' ethical standards are tumbling fast .... or that our standards are tightening and that tolerance for any kind of ethical violations is shrinking. Regardless, it is always a big decision to terminate the boss, especially given the huge costs involved in terms of severance packages, the loss of valued experience, skills, and continuity - and in the context of public officials, the costs of going through another expensive election. To give a sense of what we're talking about here: Mayor Ford's removal may force a new by-election which will cost the city, and therefore Toronto taxpayers, some $7m. The termination of HP CEO Mark Hurd in 2010 for minor financial irregularities cost the firm a huge $37m pay-off, saw the share price tumble by 9%, and led to a period of significant decline for the firm after Hurd's successors failed to match his winning formula.

So why do we do it, especially when the "crimes" don't always seem to be that big: a fabricated qualification here, a few thousand in dodgy expenses there, a little bit of infidelity with a colleague when you should be home with the family. Are these really worth the trouble and expense of ousting the most important person in the organization? Here's four reasons why they might be.

1. Leaders are the chief ethics officers.
Leaders are ultimately responsible for the success or otherwise of their organizations. And that goes for ethics too. Leaders need to be the guardians of the organization's ethics. So if things go wrong, the logic goes, it is the leader that should be held accountable, regardless even of whether they knew what was going on further down their organization. And if its the leader who's actually breaking the rules, then they are putting their organization at risk ... of scandal, of fines, or of ethical culture problems further down the line.

2. Leaders set the tone.
You can't build an ethical culture if the boss breaks the rules with impunity. Many will argue that termination is too strong for relatively minor indiscretions, but they often overlook the knock-on effect of being seen to be too lenient. Employees throughout the organization can get the message that ethics isn't really taken too seriously and that although you may get your wrist slapped, the rewards in terms of bending the rules may outweigh the costs. Termination makes that risk-reward calculation crystal clear.

3. Leaders personify problems
Many ethics problems, especially when they break into the public domain, get associated with the organization's leader who becomes the public face of the scandal - and often the target of approbation. So any strategy for dealing with the problem has to tackle the issue of the leader. That's why organizations sometimes fire their leaders in the face of ethics scandals - its an attempt to demonstrate that the problem has been dealt with. The reality is rarely so simple, but the optics matter.

4. Leaders already have disproportionate power
Even minor indiscretions can gain a greater significance when its the boss who is involved. We all make mistakes from time to time, but when the leader crosses the ethical line, the stakes are immediately raised because he or she is already in a position of such power. Fiddling the expenses or having an affair with a subordinate are not just breaking the rules; when its the boss whose doing it, its an abuse of power - or even worse, its sending a message that leaders are above the rules that govern everyone else.

Of course, individual cases will also bring up unique reasons specific to that case, but the message here is simple. Terminating the leader may not make sense economically, and it may not even solve the problem ... but it still can make sense if you're looking to build a truly ethical organization.

Image by cali.org. Reproduced under Creative Commons Licence.

Who really should resign for the Barclays interest rate scandal?

The banking sector needs another scandal like a hole in the head. Or maybe that's the wrong metaphor. Because a quick death from a headshot might be more preferable to the excruciating, but likely never fatal, torture of interminable crises that we seem to be constantly enduring.

The latest bout of banking misery comes from the UK, where Barclays, the retail and investment banking giant has fallen foul of regulators for manipulating the interbank interest rate over a number of years during the mid 2000s.  It's a huge scandal that looks set to engulf not just Barclays, but potentially also a slew of other banks, and even maybe the Bank of England and the UK Government.

One of the more interesting facets has been the reaction from Barclays. What a week it has been. First a number of senior executives including the CEO Bob Diamond reacted to the media criticism by announcing they would forgo their bonuses. Then, as the scandal escalated, the Barclays Chairman, Marcus Agius announced his resignation. In a dramatic turnaround, the following day Agius was reinstated and CEO Diamond announced his resignation, along with his right hand man, Jerry del Missier.

So the big question is: who really should go in a scandal like this? The Chairman, the CEO, or someone else? The answer, of course, depends on the type of scandal, the level of knowledge of the activity that the senior leadership had (or should of had) as the events unfolded, the likely best route to reform, and of course the likely reaction of stakeholders. With Barclays it seems right that Agius, the Chairman, has (on second thoughts) decided to stay. The Board is unlikely to know about an activity such as the interest rate rigging, and so cannot be held culpable in their overseeing function. It is different from, say, the role of the Board in something like Enron's accounting fraud, which is directly related to the Board's role, and relates to accounts that they must have seen and approved.

With Barclays, you would expect the Board and its Chairman to take a central role in dealing with the problem once it has been revealed to them, which apparently was only days ago. As one member of the House of Lords scathingly remarked upon Agius's resignation: "The board is so hopeless they've just shot the head of the firing squad and missed the prisoner." By resigning Agius was signalling that the Board was unfit to be a "firing squad" and instigate the kind of change necessary at the bank.

Turning to Diamond, one of the main reasons forwarded for his resignation has been the "lightening rod" argument, as in the UK newspaper, The Guardian's analysis: "Diamond, under pressure from the banking regulator and the governor of the Bank of England, Sir Mervyn King, quit after he decided he would be the lightning rod for the scandal at the hearing".

It's not the first time we have heard this argument about the resignation of a prominent CEO in recent times;  News International made exactly the same claim regarding the departure of CEO Rebekah Brooks in July last year in the wake of the phone hacking scandal.

Why the lightening rod argument? Well, it enables the CEO to continue to proclaim their innocence, despite stepping down. Their resignation is not due to guilt but is to save their firm from excessive media and political criticism. The idea is that it is supposed to diffuse the storm of negative publicity - the brave leader falling on their sword to save the company.

The problem, which we saw with News International, and which is already happening with Barclays, is that it doesn't really work.  For a start, no one really believes the argument. So the media is just as likely to respond by digging even deeper expecting there to be more secrets that the company is trying to hide by jettisoning the CEO.  Secondly, even if you get rid of one lightening rod, the critics will readily find another .... or they will simply continue targeting the same one in the hope of more revelations. Barclays found this to their cost last week after lightening rod no.1, Agius quit, only to be replaced by lightening rod no.2, Diamond. As The Telegraph put it: "Mr Agius is thought to have hoped his departure would serve as a lightning rod to conduct anger away from the bank and Mr Diamond". No chance.

It seems in this instance Diamond was responding primarily to pressure from politicians and to a lesser extent shareholders. Numerous influential voices were calling for the CEOs resignation and it is no coincidence that the Barclays share price rose on the announcement of Diamond's departure, despite him being up until recently strongly supported by investors. In other words, Diamond's resignation was primarily a symbolic act to appease stakeholders.

This is all very well, especially at a time when trust in big banks is at an all time low. But it is not necessarily the best course of action for actually dealing with the root problem. Mind you, the root problem is not 100% clear at the moment. Whilst Diamond was blaming "a small minority", others were were laying the blame at the culture at the bank or even of the entire sector. So although Diamond's proposed solution  - to “get to the bottom of what happened”, punish those involved, enhance internal controls, and change the bank's culture - may on the face of it make sense, this scandal has all the hallmarks of a more deep-seated systemic problem.

One bank and one CEO can't change an entire sector, especially when no one, not even the guy that's resigning, seems willing to take personal responsibility. Did he symbolise a culture that needed changing, Diamond was asked today. "I don't think so at all," he replied. Institutions like the banking industry are based on taken for granted assumptions that are highly resistant to change. Symbolic resignations are not the answer. But maybe they are a start.

Photo by SomeDriftwood. Reproduced under Creative Commons Licence