Who will be the business ethics winners and losers at the London Olympics?

Corporate involvement in the Olympic Games continues to expand in size and significance. This year, the 2012 London Olympics will boast sponsorship on hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate sponsorship and tie-ins. But as the corporate money flooding into the Games increases, so too do the attendant ethical risks. For all the advantages of being associated with one of the world's greatest and most watched sporting events, it also puts you at the mercy of activists and other critics ready to use the Games' huge pulling power to target big brands. Adidas, BP, Dow Chemical, McDonald's and Rio Tinto are all currently in the firing line regarding their involvement in the London Games. So the big question for the companies is: come closing ceremony time, who are going to be seen as the ethics winners and who will be the ethics losers?

 Four years ago, the 2008 Beijing Olympics also brought to the fore some major ethical risks for the Games' sponsors, mainly because of the potential for being tarnished with the human rights and environmental pollution problems facing hosts China. This time around, it is less the hosts than the companies themselves, accused of anything from using their sponsorship to greenwash their more unsavory practices (BP, Dow), to corrupting the ideals of the Games (McDonald's), and exploiting sweatshop labor to produce official Games sportswear (adidas).

The most tangible of these criticisms regards the sweatshop allegations. Over the years, adidas has worked hard on its ethical supply chain practices, and was one of the forces behind the Sustainable Apparel Coalition initiative. But having already dropped off one list of the most ethical companies this year, the accusations of poor labor practice in the factories producing the official kit for the Great Britain Olympic team will no doubt strike a significant reputational blow to the company.

Let's be clear here. It's unlikely that adidas is actually an outlier amongst apparel companies. A decent investigation into pretty much any global brand's supply chain could probably surface some major failures to live up to their impressive sounding codes. Not because they don't want to meet their commitments, but because there are always going to be suppliers that cut corners given the low cost, high flexibility model of production foisted onto them by the big brands. Adidas becomes a useful target though because of it's high profile in the Olympics. That's the risk that comes with the territory these days. Nike got it right 4 years ago when they published their special report on their Chinese operations months before the Olympics took place thereby taking any sting out of any likely exposé.

As for the so-called green washers, they also shouldn't be too surprised about the controversy they have sparked. BP as an official "sustainability partner" for the Olympics? Wouldn't it make sense to get your sustainability reputation back before wrapping yourself in such a cloak? Maybe they think that at rock bottom the only way you can go is up. But public trust needs careful nurturing if you are going to restore it after a major catastrophe. Not symbolic gestures.

If anybody should know how hard it is to rebuild public trust, it's one of the other Olympics sponsors currently in at the losing end of the PR battle, Dow Chemical. The beef with Dow goes back to 1984, and to a company that they didn't even acquire until 2001, Union Carbide. That the compensation question for Union Carbide's role in the Bhopal tragedy should still be rumbling on is testament to the importance of dealing effectively with legacy ethics issues. Here we are nearly 30 years later with Dow's banner role in the Games being the subject of front page news in India, the UK and elsewhere.

There's already been a high profile resignation from the watchdog supposed to monitor the sustainability of the 2012 Games as a result of the company's sponsorship deal, whilst over in India, the Government itself has now launched a diplomatic offensive against the company after it failed to persuade the London Olympics Committee to drop the firm as a sponsor. There has even been talk of a national boycott of the Games by India, but this currently looks unlikely. 

Let's get this one clear too though. Dow is no evil corporate monster, and has been doing some fine work in the sustainability space. But it does have a legacy problem still to deal with. And until it reaches a more easy relationship with key opinion formers in India (which, frankly seems unlikely in the near future given all that has happened ..... and when the response of the CEO to the current troubles is that any opposition to their sponsorship is "beyond belief"), it should just steer clear of huge global events like the Olympics. Any PR firm worth it's salt should know that. The $10m sponsorship money could have been spent in much more effective ways. Why take the risk of stirring up old problems - and more than that, give them a global airing - when you don't need to? Hubris, insensitivity, poor research, or just bad PR? It would be interesting to find out.

The bottom line is that the Olympics offers great opportunities for corporations to connect with a global audience. But those opportunities do not come risk free. Companies need to have their reputations in their best possible condition before they take such a plunge. And they need to have the PR department, the CSR team, risk management, and the senior leadership working together from the get go to minimize any damage.  Just ask any Olympic athlete. Winning at the Games is all about preparation, dedication, commitment, and having the right team in place to get you there. Business should be no different.

Photo by the|G|™. Reproduced under Creative Commons Licence

I selected this post to be featured on Ethics Blogs. Please visit the site and vote for my blog!

Cleaning up the "ethical oil" mess

With Stephen Harper's government getting plenty of heat at the Durban climate conference over its decision to relegate Kyoto to the history books,  there is a lot of discussion back home about the merits or otherwise of presenting the Canadian oil sands as "ethical oil". It's something we discussed in the blog earlier in the year, but the XL pipeline decision process has kept the issue very much on the front burner. Factor in a controversial TV spot by Ethicaloil.org comparing so-called "ethical" Canadian oil to "conflict" oil sourced from Saudi Arabia that funds oppression of women, and its no surprise to wind up in a heated debate

Yesterday, CBC, Canada's national broadcaster, featured a segment on ethical oil in its popular morning radio show The Current, and we were happy to be invited to participate, along with Kathryn Marshall, the spokesperson for Ethicaloil.org and Jody Williams, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, who has publicly come out against the tar sands.  You can hear the lively discussion, led by the impressive host Anna Maria Tremonti on the CBC website.

A colleague of ours in the law school here at York University, Stepan Wood, has blogged about the show and takes the time to expand upon some critical points that there was hardly even enough time to raise in the conversation itself. As he says:

"For one thing,[ethical oil's] narrow focus on human rights and the rule of law distracts attention from the massive environmental damage and energy consumption involved in extraction and processing of tar sands oil. For another, the claim that tar sands operations fully respect human rights is debatable, with numerous First Nations claiming that these operations impair their rights to clean water and a healthful environment. It is also hard to miss the xenophobic undertones of the Ethical Oil message–it is no coincidence that most of the countries targeted by the campaign are ethnically, culturally or religiously distinct from the white Canadian majority"

The bottom line, in which we and Stepan agree, is that Canada is very much not a leader when it comes to handling its responsibilities around oil extraction:

"To be a real leader Canada would have to show that it is genuinely committed to progress toward a post-carbon economy and improvement of the human rights records of Canadian companies overseas. This would include holding Canadian oil companies to the same high standards wherever they do business in the world. It is disingenuous to say that oil companies in Canada are ethical leaders if those very same companies are busily pumping oil and propping up those same repressive foreign regimes that the Ethical Oil campaign vilifies."

We don't expect that to happen any time soon, and in fact Canada has been content to be relegated very much to the margins of the Durban conference. When even China is criticizing you for setting a bad example, any claims that the country is a leader in providing "ethical oil" are only likely to fall on deaf ears.

Graphic by jfeathersmith. Reproduced under Creative Commons Licence

Living proof of the power of capital?

This post comes from one of our occasional guest bloggers, Dr Laura Spence,from Royal Holloway, University of London. She's also the unofficial Crane and Matten photographer having been responsible for our latest profile pic to the right, (as well the one it replaced). Thanks Laura!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While Crane & Matten have been enjoying a well earned break, I had an intriguing and thought-provoking week here in the UK. On Monday I was invited to a talk by Bill and Melinda Gates, the entrepreneur behind Microsoft and his wife. The purpose of their talk was to spread the word on an initiative called the ‘Living Proof project’. They asked the audience to tell the story further, which I am happy to do here.

Akthough focusing only on US investments, Living Proof reminds us of the progress that investment in sustainable development has resulted in over recent decades. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have played a substantial role in these improvements alongside government aid and the work of charities and other institutions globally (though interestingly not much mention was made of the contribution, such as it might be, of business).

Some of the incredibly encouraging facts that Bill and Melinda presented are worth registering: 5.4 million child deaths were averted through immunisation between 2000 and 2009; we are nearing the eradication of polio; 98 million fewer people are going hungry in 2010compared to 2009; in Africa measles deaths dropped by 92% between 2000 and 2008.

No-one is suggesting that poverty and public health are not still critical problems globally, but progress has been made. Aid is a large part of the reason for these wonderful improvements in the lives of the poorest. Highlights of their talk can be seen at: http://www.one.org/international/livingproof/share/?rc=email , or for the full blown version, go to http://www.one.org/international/blog/?p=3988 .

Meantime, I have been pondering what it is that makes people like Bill and Melinda Gates, who have dedicated a large part of their lives to generating vast wealth, switch focus and seek to give it all (indeed, 95% in their case) away. They are not the only ones to take this route (think of James Carnegie, William Hesketh Lever, George Cadbury, Thomas Holloway). And I should say I don’t mean to have a dig at Bill and Melinda. I wish others would take a leaf out of their book. But what is it that motivates such a shift?

It would be easy to assume that in some cases it is to assuage guilt for spectacular financial success by means not always bathed in moral glory. Well, maybe. But there appears to be something more going on. Accepting moral responsibility for the power that wealth delivers must also play a role. Being released from the shackles of complex, large organizations with multiple priorities may be another reason. Or is it a question of the enormous gratification – better surely than any number of diamonds or private jets – that must come with saving lives? Perhaps ensuring a positive social legacy is also a driver. There again, thy may just be in a position to do good, and willing and able so to do. This phenomenon of refocusing on public good post-career is not just a privilege of the private sector. Pop stars, and politicians, all represented ably at the Bill and Melinda Gates talk, have also been known to do this.

You do have to wonder though, if some of the people we deem the most successful in our society have ideas of philanthropy in later life, why don’t they get thinking about what they can do NOW, with the tools at their disposal. Why do many of us fail to adequately ‘do good’ during our day jobs? This was part of the discussion at a workshop I was involved in last Wednesday on Social Enterprise. This enigmatic concept broadly encompasses the idea of an organization that has social or environmental drivers as the PRIMARY goal. It is a huge phenomenon and is an area to watch in terms of research and, more importantly, its actual impact on pressing global problems.

Last Wednesday also saw the UK government announce the details of a strategic spending review intended to reduce the UK debt, which will cause a great deal of pain over the next few years. While the axe has been taken to nearly every aspect of public spending and the benefits and welfare system in our country, miraculously the investment in foreign aid has been pretty much spared. Though I didn’t spot him there, maybe the Chancellor was listening to the message from Bill and Melinda Gates. I sincerely hope a few business leaders will too.

Laura Spence

Photo by Johnny Vulcan. Reproduced under Creative Commons Licence

Why the Wall Street Journal is wrong about CSR

Our friend, colleague, and fellow blogger over at the University of Western Ontario, Mike Valente, has just posted a very informed and thought-provoking response to last week's rather incendiary article in the Wall Street Journal about why CSR is misguided. As you'll see from the 200 or so comments on the WSJ comments page, the original piece did not pose a particularly convincing argument, and as far as we're concerned, nor was it a very insightful one either. Over on his Business and Sustainability blog, Mike helpfully provides some good clear analysis of why the author is wrong, some of which we've re-posted  below. Mike also says where he agrees with the article too, but you'll have to go to Mike's original post to read that. We just like the argumentative bits.

It's great that Mike took the time to write this reply. When we first read the WSJ piece, Andy's deeply thought through response was, "this is suspiciously crtpyo-Friedmanite - he seems to think the world hasn't changed in the last 40 years". Dirk's was: "this guy is in cloud cuckoo land regarding the role of government". We didn't get much further than that.

So here's a extract from Mike's post:

Where I Disagree


1) Business as Passive Recipient: My greatest concern with this article is the author’s presumption that business merely represents a passive recipient to market and regulatory trends as reflected in his examples of the auto sector and health food sector. We’ve known for quite some time though that companies have played a proactive role in shaping the market and regulation for food, vehicles, and many other products and services. General Motors played a very influential role in curbing government imposition of taxes on gasoline so that larger gas-guzzling vehicles would still be attractive to the market. The private sector’s role in ‘killing’ the electric car was, according to many, not a result of any lack of market demand but the preservation of corporate interests, suggesting that business exercises the power to build and dismantle markets. So while I agree that companies will respond when the market demands change, I disagree that companies sit by idly in response with no influence on this market through political lobbying or strong marketing.


While it is true that companies have adapted to the changing demands of consumers in, for example, healthier food, this was not without strong corporate interest in preventing such trends through strong lobbying for regulation that supports practices that undermine the health of consumers. Examples here include the subsidization of corn and soy to support the processed food industry and the strong lobbying for the allowance of trans fat in food. And as an aside, the author’s argument that social activists have had little impact on changing company ways is unfounded. Many would argue that civil society organizations, non-governmental organizations, and activists play an important role in shaping market demand and consumer behaviour in spite of corporate efforts to preserve the status quo. Consider Greenpeace’s ability to catalyze a massive boycott of Shell in 1995 or the Asian-American Free Labor Association’s ability to boycott Nike products in early 1990s. More recently, the New York Times reported that banks are becoming more wary about lending to mining companies in light of growing criticism by environmental advocates such as the Rainforest Action Network and Sierra Club.


2) Business as a Political Actor: I would argue that there are indeed situations when firms are best positioned to respond to social and ecological issues regardless of the relevance to business operations. This is especially the case in the global south where substantial public service gaps exist and companies have stepped in to fill governmental roles like, for example, the efforts of several multinational corporations in Kenya to address public service gaps after the post-election conflict in 2008. While I agree that in an ideal world, government or other public bodies may be best positioned, in reality these actors are not always available and it is instead business that finds itself better positioned (see Private, but Public WSJ, 2009). Regardless of the reality of the situation, the article implies that companies should stand by and do the responsible thing which is to continue with daily operations that maximizes profitability when its surrounding communities don’t, for example, have access to food and water.


But governmental gaps exist as a consequence of an increasingly complex socio-economic environment rather than because government has lost its capacity. Similar to the economic models that are built upon a ‘theoretical’ assumption of perfect competition, the ideal scenario of which the author speaks may not exist, however logical his argument might be. So while it is true that, in theory, “governments are a far more effective protector of the public good”, the reality is that their ability to do this is waning when we consider the rather pervasive loss of power of government to regulate and provide public services, the ability of corporations to transcend state level regulation, and the growing privatization of public services. We can either keep beating a dead horse and try to revert back to a simplistic design that relies on the separation of the public and private sectors or we can begin to adapt to the reality that these lines are blurred and business might have to be involved in the solution to these problems. This is a frightening thought of course because it suggests that a profit-making entity is influencing public discourse. The truth is that this has been happening for quite some time. Perhaps our efforts should be directed to understanding this growing phenomenon, building theories to guide it, and advising managers and policy makers how to use it to align corporate and public interests.


3) Managerial Choice to be Part of the Solution: Even when activists, NGOs, and civil society groups do exist to address some of these issues, we find that business is typically brought in as part of the solution. Many unique business models of the global south represent innovative responses, suggesting that business is not merely a passive recipient to market trends but an active player in the solution to these issues. The point is that firms represent architects in finding ways to align profit with social goals. This gets to an important presumption that the author makes regarding the view that managers do not have control over the alignment of profit with public goals and that factors beyond its control determine this alignment.


Exemplary scholars like Ed Freeman argue that it is the responsibility of business to migrate to areas that ultimately maximize value for multiple stakeholders, including shareholders, concurrently. Put another way, managerial options may not be limited to being responsible on the one hand and sacrificing profits on the other OR vice versa. A manager’s job is to think outside of the box to understand how profit maximization can take place in conjunction with the maximization of value for different stakeholders; stakeholders who represent social interests. So, for example, let’s say an automotive manufacturer is pondering their next line of vehicles to be designed and manufactured. The author’s view is that the firm can do one of two things – either ‘responsibly’ make a green car at the expense of profits because no market yet exists or maximize profitability and make an SUV where the market currently resides. As already mentioned, companies have a very strong ability to create new markets and influence public policy in a way that shapes society’s behaviours. To Freeman and others, the challenge of business is to find a way to make responsibility (or ethical behaviour) and profitability commensurable. So being responsible here may involve pushing for regulation that supports sustainable vehicles and building marketing campaigns that educate the market about such products and thus make such strategies profitable.


In sum, the views put forward in the WSJ article, while relevant at a time when public and private roles were distinct and clearly defined, are quite outdated. It may be time to let go of the theoretical niceties associated with pigeonholing roles and responsibilities to different actors and recognize that the blurring lines between them may represent a future reality that requires the attention of managers, business scholars, and policy makers.

Enough said.

Photo by Adran MB. Reproduced under Creative Commons Licence