The Elephant in the Room

For the past two and half days I've felt a strange tension in this conference. It is about the thorny question of whether ethics pays. The business case for CSR. The harmony between economic, social and ecological sustainability.

Most of the time panellists and speakers were hammering it home that joining the UN Global Compact and implementing the principles just makes good business sense. I had a very lively conversation with Peter Solmssen, Executive VP of Siemens about this, who joined the company recently as part of the revamp of the board in the aftermath of the corruption scandals. He was fairly bullish that fighting corruption makes good business sense, 'we are more profitable now' he argued. He argued that in most countries big conglomerates like Siemens or General Electric are doing business with public purchasers who at the top level are not interested in corruption, and that companies who are known for not engaging in it, in fact have a competitive advantage. His view is that big players have indeed the chance of forming a 'cartel of the good' to collaborate on addressing ethical issues like corruption – and be the better off with it.

A similar take I got from talking to Gustavo Grobocopatel, President of Grupo Losgrobo from Argentina. His company works in agriculture and adjacent supplies and services, and he sees the particular value for his organization in engaging with the UN Global Compact in improved stakeholder relations. In particular his customers value this inclusive approach and for him CSR is very much about competitive advantage. His organization is particular interesting as it tries to keep more of the value chain of agricultural products in the country, rather than just exporting commodities and falling victim to what is commonly referred to as 'Dutch disease'.

In some ways then it was quite a little 'scratch' (I mentioned my Teflon-ized ears) to hear Klaus Leisinger (President and CEO of the Novartis Foundation for Sustainable Development) say on Friday morning that the talk of 'ethics pays' or 'ethics is just good business' is – in his words – just 'bullshit'. Why, he argued, would companies not do the right thing anyway if it were just good business? Instead he called for a commitment to basic values, brought forward in the 'Manifesto for Global Economic Ethics', by companies a priori, simply because it is morally right, as in some cases it might even cost money in the short term.

I tend to agree with this. Again, we can turn to the ten year old-metaphor: at this age, kids are at the 'conventional' level of moral development (in Kohlberg's theory): they do right and avoid wrong, because mommy and daddy say so and he tries to be a nice boy, and he tries to avoid the smack on the back or wants to get that ice cream as a reward. At least on the rhetorical level, the UN Global Compact members – by and large - seem to be not much beyond the conventional level. Which – don't get me wrong – is quite an achievement. Whole societies have survived on that, so that's fine for our birthday boy.

This apparent reluctance to think about the firm beyond the immediate business case became quite clear today in the sessions dealing with Development. I put the question to Jeffrey Sachs, Georg Kell and Chad Holliday in the final press briefing. Kell re-iterated that we are seeing an 'evolutionary transformation', a re-orientation from short- to long-term and a stronger focus on the (financial) risk which non-financial issues can cause. But 'the basic model remains intact', he said. In a similar vein Holliday, who hinted at further economic incentives to internalize sustainability issues, such as pricing carbon. It was then Sachs, who I think took up the question of whether it is time to move beyond the current framework. He said, that providing malaria medications to poor people 'is not a money making venture'. But still he argued that the business contribution to achieving the Millennium Development Goals is vital. So he pointed more at models of shared responsibility and sees business getting much more involved in public-private-partnerships. This was re-iterated by Robert Orr, Assistant Undersecretary General of the UN, who moderated the press briefing. For him the UN Global Compact is very much about becoming/being a player in global governance. He stressed there is hardly no issue on the global political agenda, where business is not part of any possibly thinkable solution. I liked that candour and agree.

Followers of this blog familiar with our writings will know that this is where I see the future of CSR going: Business as a political actor, intricately involved in societal governance. In Kohlberg's model of moral development, this would be the post-conventional level: understanding social contracts and universal moral principles – and doing the right thing based on understanding this. So let's wish our ten year old a healthy further development – there are new stages to discover!

‘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).

A cloud of well known words with some rays of sunshine

This morning the Summit opened. It was a well organized and well choreographed session. Our ten year old is a well behaved boy indeed (sorry for masculin-izing the UNGC, I just go by the blue colour of the UN...).

Ban-Ki Moon opened, followed by a number of panellists and it were the usual, well meaning speeches by many leaders in business, and civil society. Moon announced the goal of raising the membership from currently 8,000 to 20,000 by 2020. Bloomberg ventured to step out of his role as Mayor and into that of a concerned citizen by pointing to two of the major challenges for future sustainability: 1bn deaths due to tobacco consumption over the next decade, and a similar level of road fatalities, given the current trends in automotive growth. These were quite daunting, but nevertheless refreshing new angles on the issues.



Maybe i am hanging out too much on conferences that my ears are by now a bit teflonized for much of the sustainability rhetoric. But reflecting back on this opening session, I feel quite good about the UNGC. It has certainly changed the game for many of the companies involved, most of them – which I did not know – are in fact SMEs.



So the ten year old gives us some reason for pride and satisfaction. But you keep wondering if the bigger worry in fact are not those little friends of our laureate who he hangs out with. In other words, the biggest worry still are those companies who haven't even signed up (or the 1,300 which had to be expelled). I think this aspect highlights the magnitude of the underlying issue and in fact one reason why what has been achieved by the GC is undeniably a success.



I liked Philip Jennings, the General Secretary of the gobal federation of trade unions (UNI Global Union). He highlighted the persistent plight of the trade union movement and the apparent tensions between a company publishing all sort of niceties on employees in their CSR report while at the same time busting their unionized workers. Point well made.



The agenda for the future was probably best put by John Ruggie (Harvard University) in the afternoon plenary, posing that the era of 'declaratory CSR is over' and companies now have to 'know and show' concrete progress. He argued that sustainability, as suggested in the new Blueprint for Corporate Sustainability Leadership is not a 'technocratic fix' but rather an active engagement with stakeholders in concrete situations. This new Blueprint is probably becoming a rather influential tool in the future, the Director General of the Norwegian Oil Fund pointed out: they will use it as a guideline in talking to companies and aligning their investment decisions on it. It seems to be a step closer to what many businesses are calling for: a more level playing field.

The Birthday Party Begins

Ten year olds are in a funny age. Not quite children anymore, they are not grown ups either. They have learned the basics, reading and writing and calculus - but there is still a lot ahead of them.

I like the metaphor for the UN Global Compact ten year anniversary Summit. In the opening ceremony it became quite clear that indeed much has been achieved. To talk about business responsiblities is now widely legitmate and the guest list shows, that many companies have grown with it. This is also visible in who - next to Ban-Ki Moon (UN Secretary General) - was invited to give the major talk in this afternoon's opening ceremony: Wang Zhongyu, President, China Enterprise Confederation - China of all countries. Its nice that ten year olds still don't care too much about what the world around them thinks. And in fact one has to give Chinese businesses in the UNGC a lot of credit, certainly for their commitment and also for successes.

CSR is a world full of ambiguities, but today China's and Chinese businesses' record on the achievement of the ten principles was not on the agenda. Fair enough, this can come at another time.

Equally ambiguous I felt about a 5mins videoclip which was shown in the opening ceremony. I forgot the details, but it was incredibly cheesy, happy-clappy and goosepimply-emotional. Showing this at, say, the Christian Womens Knitting Association of South Arkansas' annual charity dinner - fine. But in a room with over a 1000 people from business (300 of which CEOs or the like)? I don't know. But hey, where shall a ten year old have already got a sense of style?

By the way, who started that fashion of showing a video clip with people talking in the clip while they are sitting in the flesh on the podium? This happened twice today. Why not just talk to each other?

Which happened finally, when we were told by Lord Hastings, the master of ceremonies for the Summit, to say hello to the person right of us and the person left of us. I was so relieved we did not have to kiss them. My neighbor on the left was from Uruguay, btw. He contgratulated me on Germany's win today in the Soccer World Cup. So it was nice after all...

Ambiguity also came up with the terminology in the world of CSR. CSR for most people who spoke today is still seen largely as philantropy while 'Sustainability' - the title of the Summit - in their view looks more at making operations and core business processes socially responsible. It all goes to show that language and concepts are, at the end of the day, all ephemeral and relative. Like ten year olds and their slang today. Would I understand a text message from them? Probably not, but if it means something good, I don't care.

'Business Education has Become an Industry'

So here we are. As hot as the weather is in New York, as hotly contested is the role which business education has played recently in making for more responsible companies. At the PRME 'side event' of the UNGC Summit some rather soulsearching questions were raised. Rakesh Kurana from Harvard made it quite clear that one of the dilemmas of b-schools in fact is that they have come to see their students rather as ‘customers’ then people who need education and at times been served a diet that needs some acquired taste. Just to blame the business world for lack of demand for issues of CSR and ethics is not enough in a world where the public increasingly worries about the status of wider societal impacts of business.

While the Accenture Study (in cooperation with the UNGC) of the opinion of more than 800 CEOs suggest a slightly different picture, it leaves us with one general problem: Since business education, certainly at postgraduate/MBA level is in fact privatised and ‘purchased’ by students or their companies, this inherent tension cannot be denied. One of the reasons I personally have started to dislike teaching on MBA – or worse – executive MBA – programs is exactly that it is a tough challenge to make students think, reflect about things unknown or strange to them and, most notably, to read. And the issues the UNGC is concerned about fall exactly in this category.

Interesting comments came from India, delivered by Jamshed Irani, Director, Tata Sons Limited. In his view, since business schools don’t do a good job (in general) at talking about climate change, ethics etc. corporations should have their own universities and b-schools. Yes, you havn’t misheard. I guess this reflects a tradition of a great company with a long tradition of philanthropy and ethics, such as Tata. But what about a b-school run by AIG, BP or Lehman Brothers? Just imagine the type of ‘leaders’ we would get from there...

So far the UNGC summit (i.e. this fringe event) put the finger on one important thing: with delegating responsibility for public goods (and education used to be one) in the hand of private actors, we have opened a pandora’s box. Its irreversible, I think (as the Hewlett Packard Chair in CSR, no less). But we need new criteria for private responsibility for public goods in order to change this focus within b-schools. How this will be achieved – no real answers so far from New York.

UN Global Compact Leaders Summit 2010

What do you bring to the birthday party of a ten year old? Especially if it has pretty posh parents and throws the party nowhere less than at Times Square in New York?

Crane and Matten have been invited to be the official Summit Bloggers for the 10 year anniversary Conference of the United Nations Global Compact this week Thursday and Friday in New York City. Over the next three days Dirk will keep you posted with news and updates on what is going on here.

I have never done such a thing, so expect a colourful medley of comments, lifeblogs from the sessions or just thoughts. Let me know what you think, too, so that we can learn as we go. I have no real idea where this will be going. In the spirit of the party, I am not in the mood of only talking about how naughty the boy has been over the last 10 years. This job is done by others already in the bloggosphere.

And besides, its not how I feel about the compact. In a world with serious governance deficits on the global level I think we can do with all we can. And here the UN Global Compact has changed the game remarkably, I feel. Thursday and Friday this week, around 1200 senior executives from member companies, some of them top brass, will talk about ethics in business, CSR, sustainability etc.. I still have vivid recollections how things were 10 years ago. The laughter and raised eyebrows of my colleagues in the German bank I was working at the time, when I told them I would take a job teaching and writing about business ethics: 'Business ethics: hahahah. What will you do in the afternoons?'. That was '99, so things have changed.

This being more a meeting of members of an organization rather than a normal conference I expect this to be quite exciting. I have also scheduled some interviews with senior managers, so lets see where that takes us.

Today I will first go to the meeting of the Principles of Responsible Management Education (PRME). The PRMEs are an offshoot of the UNGC which have been signed by many institutions of business education worldwide and which aim at implementing business responsibility firmly into the curriculum of business education.

So I have not yet decided on the birthday present. I have to see how the party goes and how the birthday boy looks from close. I will share my impressions with you.

Should business boycott Israel?

With all the excitement in Washington over Barack Obama's inauguration, it may be tempting to put to one side for a little while the continuing problems in Gaza that so occupied the public and media attention throughout the last month. But one person clearly not watching Obama's swearing-in ceremony was the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon who spent the day visiting the Gaza strip and Southern Israel. As the world's media widely reported, Ban, standing in front of the smoking rubble of a UN building described the scenes as "heartbreaking", and condemned the destruction as "outrageous, shocking and alarming".

It was an important and symbolic visit by the UN leader who was careful not to take sides in his condemnation of the "excessive force" used by both Israel and Hamas. And it clearly serves to highlight the fragility of the current ceasefire and the need for more determined resolve in finding a lasting solution to the problem. But the burning question, of course, is how can genuine progress to be made in such a complex and volatile political situation?

One suggestion recently put forward by the Canadian activist and author Naomi Klein is that businesses and consumers should take a role in addressing the conflict by actively boycotting Israel. Citing the Palestinian campaign group Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS). Klein argues that "economic sanctions are the most effective tools in the nonviolent arsenal." And she is not just talking about economic sanctions at the governmental level, but at the level of individual consumers and businesses too.

In fact, her two main examples of anti-Israel boycotting are both business-level actions: first, her own decision to switch publishers in Israel from a commercial publishing house to a small, anti-occupation acivist publisher; and second, a British telecom company, Freedomcall, which had recently sent an e-mail to the Israeli tech firm MobileMax saying "as a result of the Israeli government action in the last few days we will no longer be in a position to consider doing business with yourself or any other Israeli company."

Boycotts against Israel have been mooted, or activated, by academics, journalists and others in recent years - typically to storms of controversy. In the US, companies participating in anti-Israel boycotts can even be fined. However, recent developments in Gaza have clearly prompted a fresh look at some of these tactics by some, although specific instances of boycotts by western companies still appear to be very rare. Our very unscientific search only came up with one other report from the last two weeks - of a London-based Pashmina company which had joined a voluntary boycott on Israel due to "the horrors committed by the Israeli army". However, Ethical Performance also recently reported on Unilever selling its stake in a factory in an illegal Israeli settlement on the West Bank – but also noted that despite the protestations of campaign groups, had done so as part of a broader divestment process from non-core business rather than any "ethical considerations".

Similar protestations of what Klein calls "cold business calculation" are also evident at Freedomcall, where the managing director is quoted by her as saying "We can't afford to lose any of our clients, so it was purely commercially defensive." Such amoral language and the refusal by business to acknowledge that they are also involved in politics is not unusual. But what is unusual is Klein's appararent readiness to accept that business should be taking an active role in state politics, depsite (or even because of) their focus on commercial self-interest. The author of No Logo and The Shock Doctrine is better known for criticising the role of the private sector in the public domain.

It seems unlikely to us that too many companies will feel comfortable joining an anti-Israel boycott, whether for commercial or political reasons. Why? Well, the ethics are simply too contentious for most business leaders to be comfortable making that kind of a call. Apartheid-era South Africa, or the current situation in Burma have a degree of moral consensus that presages corporate decision-making in a way that the problems in Gaza do not. Yes, maybe business leaders should be encouraged to stand up for what they believe in, but this is less likely to happen when they think their customers and other stakeholders might not agree with them. If even Ban Ki-moon is so careful in choosing and balancing his words of censure, corporations will no doubt tread even more carefully. Only concerted efforts by consumer groups and NGOs will be likely to change their views on whether a political boycott makes good sense. For better or for worse, that is the cold hard logic of business that Klein will have to recognize.


Photo copyright Tom Spender