Should business leaders speak out more on public issues?

Business leaders are among the most powerful people on the planet. At the helm of huge corporations, with billions of dollars of assets to leverage, their decisions have a profound influence on all of us. At the same time, however, those very same business leaders only very rarely seem to speak out on many of the public issues that actually affect us.

Consider when the former Toronto Mayor Rob Ford was engulfed in a crack-smoking scandal that put the city in the headlines for all the wrong reasons. The response from the city's business elite was a deafening silence. Nonetheless, the scandal must have prompted considerable anxiety among business leaders about its effect on the business and investment climate of Canada's largest city.

Are CEOs right to hold back in such instances or should we expect them to take a more prominent position in public debates? There are no black and white answers to this; it largely depends on context. So here are four things to consider when deciding whether the silence of business leaders in good thing or not. And if you want to dig deeper, check out The Guardian's live chat on "Should business leaders speak out more on public issues such as climate change?" on Wednesday 5 August 2015, 1-2:30pm BST.

1. Some social issues face a leadership vacuum that business leaders can help fill
Earlier this year, a group of 43 CEOs of major multinationals signed a open letter urging governments to strike an ambitious climate deal at COP21 in Paris, Likewise, the CEO of the biggest oil sands producer, Suncor, recently called for more stringent climate regulation, including a high price on carbon.

These announcements, unthinkable even a decade ago, give at least some indication of the kind of muscle that business leaders might be able to flex in filling the great big hole in leadership around climate change. Quite simply, such signalling from the business community helps empower political leaders to do their jobs better.

Of course, if these CEOs had spoken out saying that no action on climate change was needed (despite all the evidence to the contrary), as indeed has happened in the past (most notably from successive Exxon-Mobil leaders), we would be bemoaning the addition of their voices into the debate. So it's a double-edged sword, with substantial risks as well as opportunities.

2. Hypocrisy won't work
There is a tendency to criticize business leaders for making pronouncements like these because their actions do not always match their impressive sounding words. Richard Branson for example, was branded a hypocrite by Naomi Klein for failing to follow through on his promise to divert $3bn of Virgin's revenues to developing biofuels and other clean energy projects.

"Greenwashing", as this is known, can be a major problem when companies and their leaders go public with grandiose plans that they either cannot deliver on, or that they actively undermine behind the scenes with lobbying and back room deals. Business leaders already face a major trust deficit when it comes to their credibility as spokespeople. Survey after survey has confirmed that CEOs and business executives in general are not trusted as a credible source by the public. So any attempt to hoodwink the public is unlikely to work, not least because most of the public don't believe them in the first place.

3. Aspirational talk isn't all bad
For all the problems of greenwashing, business leaders making aspirational statements about social issues shouldn't automatically be criticized. For one thing, in the context of challenging, complex problems, it is often imperative that business leaders do go outside their comfort zones and articulate "stretch" goals that they can not necessarily know if or how they can achieve. Consider Interface Carpet's mission to reduce their waste to zero by 2020. When they started their 'mission zero' journey in 1994, former CEO Ray Anderson did not have a plan for how this would be realized only that he needed to set a vision that was inspiring enough to galvanize the entire company. Since then, Interface has cut waste to landfill by more than 90% and GHG emissions per unit of production are down almost 75%. The company is rightly lauded as a sustainability leader that others should follow. The lesson is that there is scope for business leaders to be aspirational but sooner or later they need to back up their words with sustained action.

4. There is surprisingly little risk attached to CEOs speaking out personally on issues not directly connected to their company. 
Business leaders rarely take the plunge and speak about public issues not directly tied to their business. Despite being smart, influential people used to tackling complex problems, they are usually either too busy or too concerned about prompting a backlash to say publicly what they think about such issues. The silence really is deafening. But according to unpublished research conducted at the Schulich School of Business last year, when CEOs do take the plunge, there is rarely any kind of negative media response. Looking back over a number of years across a range of issues such as Obamacare, same sex marriage, the fiscal cliff, the Rob Ford scandal and the proposed Quebec secular charter, the mainstream press reaction to the rare instances of individual CEOs speaking out has been largely neutral. This suggests that corporate leaders may well be overestimated the risks associated with speaking out on public issues, especially those where their own self-interest is less obvious.

The bottom line is that business leaders could probably be part of the conversation on a whole swathe of public issues. But if they are to participate, it has to be in the right way, and that means three main things: a) transparency about what their company stands to gain or lose with respect to the issue (i.e. is it a matter of self-interest or not?); b) clarity about what they or their company is doing or planning to do to address the issue (i.e. are they open to a charge of hypocrisy?); and c) a willingness to encourage others, especially those without such power and influence, to also participate - and to engage fairly in the unfolding debate rather than seeking to dominate it. It's a tall order. But if nothing else, it might help earn back a bit of that trust in business leaders that is so sorely lacking .

Photo copyright Onewaystock.com. 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

Lessons in politics from Starbucks: sign of the times or storm in a coffee cup?

Drip, latte, cappuccino, espresso, frappuccino; short, tall, grande, venti, trenta. Starbucks, the international coffee chain is great at giving choice in getting our daily dose of java. But what about campaign contributions or no contributions? Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue in the same way, but that is the stark choice that Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is now offering US politicians in the face of the country's ongoing debt crisis. For the past few weeks Schultz has been seeking to build a coalition of US business leaders ready to join him in withholding campaign contributions from Washington until the main political parties start working together and agree a debt deal to turn around the beleaguered economy.

In the last few days Schultz has stepped up the campaign with full-page ads in the US press, including the New York Times, taking the form of an open letter on Starbucks headed paper to his "fellow citizens" to join him in "restoring hope in the American Dream" by sending "the message to today's elected officials in a civil, respectful voice they hear and understand, that the time to put citizenship ahead of partisanship is now".

It's quite a remarkable campaign. Schultz has the support of more than a hundred business leaders joining his pledge. Among those listed as "key supporters" on the campaign website are the CEOs of AOL, BBDO, NYSE, NASDAQ, Wholefoods Market and Zipcar. It is not such a significant coalition yet to cause the main political parties any real loss of sleep - compared with major contributors, most of these individuals and companies are not heavily involved in funding political parties. But for a business leader like Schultz to come out and so explicitly take a stand that effectively seeks to hold his domestic politicians to ransom until they do his bidding represents a fairly unique twist on the growing involvement of business in politics and the claim by corporations to be "good citizens".

In one sense, Schultz should be applauded for seeking to use his own and his company's economic muscle to try and achieve what he sees as a greater public good. Management guru, Rosabeth Moss Kanter, for instance has come out in favor of his "courage and leadership" in attempting to restore confidence. Even the more cynical corporate critics will find it difficult to see a clear-cut corporate self-interest at stake here. Sure it could help reinforce the famous Starbucks brand but at the same time its also going to annoy a lot of people too, especially those in Washington who are being labelled by Schultz and his CEO friends as having a "pervasive failure of leadership".

On the other hand, though, we might also question what's really going on here when we have a company CEO leveraging his company brand in such a way to make a political rather than an economic point, and at the same time claiming to be a "fellow citizen" with the rest of us (who can hardly afford to take out full page ads in the New York Times to present our own views on the current political logjam). This is not just Schultz the individual citizen speaking here but Schultz the corporate CEO and representative of Starbucks. But then, if (and it is a big "if") we accept corporations as political actors, then at least this example represents a fairly good case of building coalitions, providing an arena for free and fair deliberation, and moving beyond mere corporate self-interest.

To our mind the whole situation presents a really interesting insight into the emerging political role of the corporation and the difficult decisions that have to be made when business leaders start increasing their involvement in public debates. According to a McKinsey survey, "almost half of US executives believe they and their peers should play a leadership role in publicly shaping debate and in efforts to address sociopolitical issues such as education, health care, and foreign policy ... yet only one-seventh of survey respondents consider themselves to be playing that role now". Schultz's efforts to restore economic confidence by taking a step into politics gives us a taste of what might happen when these executives really start doing so. We still have a choice about whether and how those steps should be taken.

Photo by Nick Humphries. Reproduced under Creative Commons Licence.

‘Business Schools should be extremely nervous’

One of the benefits of going to big global conferences is that you meet old colleagues and friends. So I was very pleased to bump into Peter Lacy (now Managing Director Accenture, Sustainability Services, Europe, Africa and Latin America). I enjoyed working with Peter while he was Exec. Director at EABIS (an association of businesses and academic institutions to boost CSR in Europe) and built up the organization in the early/mid 2000s.

Peter was here, among other things, to present a Survey on CEO perceptions of the Sustainability topic which I mentioned earlier in another post. I won't bore you with some of the bickering raised here (too small sample of 'converted' companies, CEO rhetoric is no data etc.) since it does not jeopardize the main message of the research: that sustainability is now clearly on the strategic agenda of many major companies and in fact 93% of surveyed CEOs globally see this as a key imperative. No more just an 'issue', a blip on the screen, as it was ten years ago. Though Peter told me, too, that the survey probably just hints at the sheer magnitude of the task ahead, which is implementation. He is a little cautious about some of the statements in the report regarding implementation in these companies as of now, but his main point is well made: what about those non-UNGC members and other companies, who aren't even yet in the strategic stage?
Since Peter knows both worlds, business and academia, I was also interested in his view on what the survey means for us in the ivory tower. Two things emerge. Since one of the findings was, that the investment community cares next to nothing about sustainability, Peter thinks we need to develop tools to make the actual value of sustainability more explicit. This is closely related to performance management as – given current business practices – only if I can give sustainability as a measurable task to my crew, I can reward and assess them on success.
But the main point he made was that in his view, business schools in general have not even entered the first 'issue' stage and are lagging behind their main target audience by – mas o menos- a decade. Of course, he hastened to add - that he is aware that there are a good number of schools out there which have understood the challenge and are able to provide education of managers with regard to sustainability issues. But personally I could not agree more that by and large, business schools are still largely operating within an agency-, efficient markets- and shareholder value-framework. This applies certainly to many of the top North American and European schools. And while this is bad enough I would add that this thinking is still dominating our research by and large – and today's research is the teaching material ten years from now, as Peter put it. He added that from his current work of running a department of 800 staff, in recruitment he finds precious few candidates trained by business schools in sustainability. So Peter's message was that business schools really need to take into account the changing imperatives for business – otherwise business might more and more look for other sources of education (something which came already up in an earlier post).