What does American Apparel’s bankruptcy mean for responsible business?

This week’s announcement of American Apparel’s bankruptcy and subsequent filing for Chapter 11 protection could spell the end of a unique experiment in responsible business.

Although it has been a fixture along with global retailers such as Zara, Gap, and H&M on high streets across the world for the past decade or so, American Apparel is unlike virtually all of its counterparts in the apparel industry when it comes to responsible business. While other global clothing companies outsource their production to suppliers in emerging economies, American Apparel has steadfastly stuck to a made-in-America philosophy, promising that its clothes are ‘sweatshop free’.

According to the company, the average American Apparel stitcher earns more than $2,000 month, along with a range of employee benefits including subsidized health insurance, an on-site medical clinic, subsidized public transport, and English classes. By contrast, according to the ILO, garment workers in key Asian export countries Vietnam and Cambodia earn around $80 monthly while the minimum monthly wage for garment workers in Bangladesh is a rock bottom $39.

Given that American Apparel’s competitors therefore enjoy such drastically lower labour costs by sourcing from overseas, it may come as little surprise to many that the company is facing major financial difficulties. How could it even have hoped to compete with the likes of its fast fashion rivals Zara and H&M when its cost profile is so unfavourable? Isn’t it simply inevitable that it would eventually go bankrupt?

The answer to that question is not as obvious as it may seem.

The company itself has often acknowledged that its approach is, as it says on their website, “not the easy road to travel”. Nonetheless, it claims that its vertically integrated business model offers efficiencies because everything is completed in-house, and furthermore it enables better quality control and provides for a faster response to the rapid changes in the fashion industry. According to the company, its approach is not only more ethical, but more financially responsible too.

There is some truth to these claims, but even so, it is hard to square them with the huge differences in production costs enjoyed by their rivals. There is little doubt that American Apparel’s ethical stance has, and continues to, put it at a major cost disadvantage in an increasingly price conscious category.

Of course, higher labor costs are not in themselves necessarily such a problem, providing either that the company can enjoy cost advantages elsewhere, or that its customers are willing to pay for a premium for the additional value they bring. Again, American Apparel can make something of a case here. It spends considerably less on marketing than many of its competitors by producing advertising in-house and adopting a highly controversial, sexualized approach that garners much greater attention than is warranted by its ad spend. Also its core customer base of hip teens and 20-somethings do typically applaud its sweatshop free position, at least in so far as they have heard about it - the company has generally eschewed an explicit ethical positioning in favour of a “sex sells” approach to marketing. The problem is that however much some of their customers might support a made-in-the-USA philosophy, there is little evidence to date that a sufficiently large slice of the mass market fast fashion category is willing to pay the extra $5 or so that a t-shirt produced in the US costs just to assuage their consciences.

Despite the numbers not quite seeming to add up, until just a few years ago, American Apparel did seem to make it all work. Throughout the 2000s it was seen as offering something unique in a crowded and quite bland retail space – a combination of the edgy aesthetic, clever marketing, and a seeming alignment of values with its core customer base helped inspire a cultish devotion that quickly took off. By the mid 2000s the company was expanding rapidly across the world, transforming from a predominantly manufacturing-based company to a global retail giant almost overnight. It was a lauded US success story.

And despite the cost issues with its made-in-the-USA approach, it was not labor costs that ultimately brought on American Apparel’s downfall - but they have played a role in preventing it getting back on its feet.

So if not labor costs, what did cause the crash? Although it was clearly a combination of factors, the fact that its rapid international expansion coincided with the 2008 financial crisis probably changed the course of the company more than anything else. With markets shrinking, the company quickly found itself mired in unsustainable debt, with a major cash flow problem. A run-in with the immigration authorities in 2009 then led to severe staff shortages and supply hold-ups, while a hike in global cotton prices subsequently drastically cut into the firm’s profitability. Compounding the problem, its competitors responded to the new market realities by stripping out costs and forcing down prices. This left American Apparel with a shrinking customer base ready to pay for its now seemingly overpriced basics.

At this point, it’s ethical sourcing strategy probably did hold it back from cutting costs as ruthlessly as its competitors. A retrenchment of its retail operations, several attempts to refinance its debt, and some last minute angel investors held off bankruptcy until now, but with the company unable to turn a profit since 2009, it has simply not been enough. Even the ousting of controversial founder and CEO Dov Charney last year did little to engineer a turnaround in fortunes. This week’s announcement seems to be merely the next chapter in the ongoing battle to resuscitate a severely sick patient.

So what does the rise and fall of American Apparel mean for responsible business? The bottom line is that the company’s strategy just about worked while times were good and the economy was strong - and probably even added to its distinctive appeal. But in more difficult circumstances the challenging economics of domestic production reduced the company’s ability to compete effectively in the marketplace. With better timing, deeper pockets, or just a little more luck, catastrophe probably could have been avoided, but even then American Apparel showed some alarming financial mismanagement and some clear unwillingness to adapt its formula despite shifting marketplace dynamics. As the company says, “Manufacturing in America requires risk taking and long-term investment,” but as with many aspects of responsible business, it takes great skill and foresight to maintain the alignment of ethics and profits over time.

Photo copyright Emily Burnett. Reproduced under Creative Commons Licence

The Volkswagen diesel deception - 5 key questions

News about Volkswagen's (VW) emerging emissions test rigging scandal makes one wonder if there is ever a story in business ethics too preposterous to be true. But it certainly raises some interesting and important questions about the nature of corporate responsibility that demand some pretty quick answers.

In some ways, it is not a complicated story, and even the CEO Martin Winterkorn today admitted to the firms culpability and apologized. "We totally screwed up" the carmaker's US chief was also reported as saying. So, VW deliberately manipulated the software that manages their diesel engines so that the emission data in test mode appeared significantly lower (up to 40%) than in reality. And this is not just pretending the cars are more fuel efficient than they really are. The EPA clearly states that the substances whose level of emissions were concealed:

"penetrate deeply into sensitive parts of the lungs and can cause or worsen respiratory disease, such as emphysema and bronchitis, and can aggravate existing heart disease, leading to increased hospital admissions and premature death."

That wording alone should strike considerable fear into VW board. The company might face criminal investigations and court proceedings that might even compare the tobacco industry or the financial sector's travails. Already the company could be faced with fines up to $18bn and a massive recall with 11m cars thought to be affected.

From the perspective of corporate responsibility then the fascinating time has just started - how on earth could that happen? Here are a few questions to consider over the next few days and weeks as the scandal unfolds.

1. Embedding corporate responsibility and sustainability

Volkswagen is one of the European companies that really seemed to embrace 'Sustainability and Responsibility' from quite early on - and much ahead of many of its German rivals who relied on the social responsibilities of business being part of the traditional tightly regulated, corporatist consensus governing the national economy. How is it possible that a company committed to some of the core values of corporate responsibility could so blatantly cross the line into not only unethical but clearly illegal practice in a key area of its responsibilities? Is this just another greenwash case to fuel further cynicism about the CSR commitment of corporations?

2. Is it an industry phenomenon, or just one bad apple?

The debate about companies providing overly optimistic fuel consumption data is an old one, and a number of other companies have faced problems with overstating the frugality of their cars. VW's rigging of the tests takes the game to a whole new level, but does this mean it is an outlier or just the first one to get caught taking things too far?

3. What was VW thinking in terms of not getting caught?

It would be interesting to find out what the discussions within the company looked like when the software used to rig the tests were devised and implemented. VW must have been convinced they would not get discovered. What does this say about regulation of the auto motives industry, especially when they were eventually rumbled by a relatively unknown clean air group that was actually hoping to show that diesel cars were clean. Why did nobody within the company conceive that in a highly scrutinized industry, such as the global automotives industry, these practices would not get examined?

4. How far up the hierarchy did knowledge about these practices go?

When Amazon got into the headlines recently, Jeff Besos issued an immediate statement that he had non knowledge of the practices and did not approve of them. So how much did VW senior executives know? It is hard to imagine that this was just the work of some 'rogue engineers', but at the same time it is curious that VW has tried to protest its innocence for more than year since the falsified tests were uncovered, blaming a software malfunction - only eventually coming clean when the EPA threatened not to issue them with environmental certifications for their 2016 models. As one reporter noted, the VW CEO is a detail-oriented engineer himself: "It's difficult to imagine that a man who fixates on such minute details as the noise a steering column adjuster makes would know nothing about active manipulation of diesel emissions while he was in charge." So what does the scandal say about the corporate culture at VW and the role of its leaders in setting the ethical tone?

5. How can this happen in a quasi-public institution such as Volkswagen?

VW, from the outset, had a rather broad social mission. The company's mission has been from the outset to provide Germans with mobility. Even today, the social mission lives on: the company claims to "aspire to shape the mobility of the future – making it responsible, environmentally compatible and beneficial for everyone." It is even part-owned by the government of Lower Saxony, which still owns a controlling 12.7% share of the company. So this is not a company solely controlled by some profit maximizing hedge funds or other purely profit driven investors. The decision to try and cheat the regulators however has ended up wiping billions off the value of the company in a matter of days. So what should we conclude about whether ethics pays or not and whether social purpose can really be integrated into the corporate form? 

There are many more aspects to the story. At the end of the day, the 'green car' and VW's 'BlueDiesel' will maybe just count among the many ways car companies (and yes, the rest of us) try and disguise the fundamental ecological contradictions of our modern automotive civilization. But it will also be fascinating to watch the details of this story unearthing the kind of decision making prevailing at supposedly responsible companies. VW's original motto, 'Kraft durch Freude' or 'strength through joy', it certainly won't be though. 

Photo by John Matthies. Reproduced under Creative Commons Licence

Are Americans working too much?

With many people currently enjoying or looking forward to their summer holidays it is sobering to consider some of the differences in expectation that workers in different countries will have about how much paid time off they can enjoy. Statutory minimum leave varies enormously by country, from zero days in the US, through to 5 working days in China, 10 working days in Canada, and all the way up to 25 working days plus public holidays in countries like Denmark and Norway. Of course, variations in legislated minimums give plenty of scope for more explicit CSR type policies in low-regulation countries such as the US, but even looking at the average leave taken across countries, Scandinavia and most of Europe far outpace North America. Sure, a lot of the talk now is about Americans not having enough jobs, but another way of looking at it is maybe some Americans are simply working too much.

We have been interested in debates about working hours, flexible work arrangements, forced overtime and the like for some time. In the first two editions of our Business Ethics textbook we included cases on young professionals and excessive working hours.  In the most recent 3rd edition, this changed to a case about forced labor, which is a related but quite different issue. These are complicated problems, especially when much of the excessive hours worked by professionals is, in principle, voluntary. Even in sweatshops, some argue that workers choose to work long hours for low pay, because it is better than the alternative - which is no job and no pay.

Anyway, arriving in the inbox today was a nice infographic from onlinemba.com, the fruits of whose labors we've featured before in our survey of the best and worst corporate responsibility infographics. It tells an interesting, and well documented, story of the problems of excessive working hours in the US. We're not sure the call for a return of a 40 hour week will be heeded in the current climate, but it certainly helps start an important conversation. And with many in the CSR world apparently uninterested in working hours in the developed world as a relevant topic, it provides a decent business case for changing that perspective.




Infographic source: OnlineMBA.com
Photo by LaPrimaDonna. Reproduced under Creative Commons Licence

Is selling human organs really so unethical?

Earlier this week, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported on the rise in the illegal trade in human organs. The WHO estimates that more than 10,000 black market operations involving purchased human organs are now carried out every year. There are serious ethical and medical concerns associated with the practice. Sellers risk being exploited, buyers may be victims of scams, and both parties face far higher risks of medical complications due to the lack of proper medical care.

The problem is though, although the commercial trade in organs is in many respects morally repugnant, many of the problems associated with the illegal trade in organs are actually directly a result of its illegality. Backstreet operations, black market trading - these are the critical risk factors here, not its dubious moral status. Plus, for all the important concerns about the problem of poor people being exploited to sell their organs to the rich, it is important not to mix up what are two different ethical issues here - one about exploitation of organ sellers and one about whether the commercial trade in organs is something that is acceptable in society at all. Both of these are worth examining in a little more detail.

First off, lets bracket for a moment the problem of exploitation and just consider the ethics of commercial organ trading. Sure, we know the practice has been made illegal in almost every country - but is selling human organs really so bad? One major issue that we have to consider here is that, like it or not, the sale of human organs saves lives. Donations of organs from the deceased are simply too limited to meet demand almost everywhere. In the US, more than 100,000 people are currently waiting for organ donations.  In China ,it is estimated that a million people are currently in need of a kidney ... yet last year only something like 5000 actually received one. Most countries are facing a severe supply problem. So from a simple societal cost-benefit perspective, then,  providing the seller stays in relatively good health, and the buyer is able to live longer or better than they would have otherwise, the benefits would appear to exceed the costs. Without sufficient supply from other sources, commercial organ trade can make society as a whole better off.

That is not to deny that there are indeed very significant costs that have to be borne by the seller here in terms of potential health risks. Even if society can be shown to benefit in aggregate, not everyone benefits equally. After all, the seller is potentially putting their own life at risk here. But if we can  imagine a situation where the seller is provided with suitable safeguards to minimise these risks - through a guaranteed level of decent medical care for example - then the cost-benefit argument could certainly prevail. In fact, that is precisely why we do often permit some forms of voluntary non-paid donation: under the right conditions,  live organ donation can make a net positive benefit to society. In principle, that cost-benefit equation should not be materially changed by introducing a commercial transaction ... except of course we have thrown some actual financial costs and benefits into the mix.

To be sure, few of us are comfortable with the idea of selling organs for money. For critics, it only makes sense from a cost-benefit point of view if we ignore the more ambiguous costs involved, such as the loss of basic humanity involved in such an act. Simply put, it is not something we want to accept in a civilized society. A similar argument is also raised in relation to other "unacceptable" practices, such as euthanasia, prostitution and drug use. Legalization might well create benefits, minimize harms, or simply enable greater personal freedoms, but the law also has to codify the principles of  human society that we want to establish and live up to. And commercial trade in live organs, so the argument goes,  is against those basic principles.

Let's be clear though: those principles come at a cost - the cost of human lives. People are literally dying waiting for suitable organ donors. At a time when the illegal trade is actually growing, shouldn't we be revisiting the question of whether the commercial organ trade is really so unacceptable that it's worth letting people die for our principles? Isn't it time we asked whether the legal prohibition route is actually working?

The exploitation question is a different but no less important question. The prospect of the most disadvantaged in society selling their own body parts just to get by assaults our most basic principles of human dignity. Obviously we need to tackle poverty itself in a more concerted fashion to get to the heart of this problem. But in the meantime, the big question we have to ask is whether the decision to make the commercial trade in organs illegal is actually benefiting or further exacerbating the exploitation of the poor?

Regardless of its legal status, people will continue to do whatever they can to escape poverty, and for the truly desperate, their organs may be their most valuable asset. Pushing such people into the hands of criminals and unlicensed medical practitioners, however, is a recipe for adding yet more exploitation onto an already unfair situation.

Legalization by itself would not solve the problem.  But if we were to accept that, in principle at least, the trade in human organs might be socially acceptable, the real question then becomes: how could we do it in a responsible way so that people do not get exploited?

There's no easy answer to this, but it is possible to conceive of a tightly regulated system that could eliminate most if not all of the worst forms of exploitation. Price controls for organ donations, strict rules for participation as donors and recipients, mandatory counseling for prospective donors, enforcement of medical follow-up, quality control checks, a transparent system to ensure clear organ provenance - these are the kind of arrangements that a serious regulator might want to put in place.

Many governments probably won't have the will or the capability to do this effectively, and it's hardly a very encouraging sign that the only country currently operating a legalized system is that great bastion of freedom and security, Iran. But a few years ago the Singaporean Government was apparently also considering the issue, although nothing seems to have come of it. Who's to say that China wont be the next, especially given that they are currently operating a widely condemned practice of harvesting organs from executed prisoners. A voluntary system could hardly be more controversial. But who these days would really be brave enough to advocate legalization given the international consensus against the trade? Maybe it's time for those on the intermiable organ waiting lists to start getting organized.

 Photo by Lasse-san. Reproduced under Creative Commons Licence

Why Occupy Wall Street should occupy corporate leaders' minds

This weekend, the Occupy Wall Street protest will go global. Protests, marches and occupations are planned across the world, with almost a thousand events across every continent scheduled to go ahead on October 15th. Here in Toronto, the financial district around Bay Street is preparing for an occupation that has so far garnered more than 9000 followers on Facebook. In London, social media sites have registered more than 15000 followers for the planned occupation of the London Stock Exchange. Similar smaller scale events are in the offing from everywhere from Alaska to Auckland. Whatever the success of these protests, it is remarkable the speed at which a local event in New York which was hardly reported on two weeks ago, has now been turned into a global movement.

Although the range of issues and demands of the Occupy Wall Street campaign and its various international incarnations are many and diverse, they share a strong single point of focus. The financial sector is very much the villain here. This is in some contrast to the movement that the current events most parallel, the anti-globalization protests that took to the streets in late 1990s and early 2000s, exemplified best by the Battle in Seattle in 1999. At that time, although many of the issues were the same as those receiving attention now, the main point of focus was international finance and trade organizations such as the WTO and the IMF, and meetings of political leaders such as the G8 were major targets. Now, by occupying the financial centers of major cities, the focus is much tighter. The financial sector is public enemy no.1.

In many respects, this is not too surprising. Economies across much of the developed world have been in a constant state of crisis for the past three years. Austerity measures are biting hard. Unemployment is up. And a significant proportion of society feels excluded, exploited, and ready for an alternative. The financial sector is an obvious target because it is here that the systemic risks have been created, and it is here that so much of taxpayers money has ended up, shoring up institutions that are too big to fail. When these same organizations continue to post substantial profits, pay out huge bonuses and generally carry on as before, it is fairly predictable that they will become the focus of so much public ire.

Much of the initial response to Occupy Wall Street has been dismissive. The financial sector, which must be getting quite used to being the bad guy these days, has hardly raised a murmur in response. As of yet, we haven't seen a single press release on the events from major financial services organizations such as Bank of America, Barclays, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, or anyone else. Don't business leaders have anything to say about what's going on?  Don't they want to be part of the conversation? Or are they just so concerned that anything they say will just be ridiculed by the protesters, or simply set them up as even more of a fall guy, that they are fearful of trying to put their position across in public?

But big business, and big finance in particular, needs to take this seriously. Here's why.

First, because governments are looking to be responsive and populist, especially with elections around the corner in the US. That could mean tighter controls, less freedom and more regulation. As even Dominic Barton of McKinsey made clear in the Harvard Business Review earlier this year, "Business leaders face a choice: They can reform the system, or watch as the government exerts control ... there is growing concern that if the fundamental issues revealed in the crisis remain unaddressed and the system fails again, the social contract between the capitalist system and the citizenry may truly rupture, with unpredictable but severely damaging results." Better regulation might fix some of these problems, but knee-jerk regulation, borne of anti-corporate prejudice is not going to be the best fix for the capitalist system, and not necessarily the one that we need.

Second, because the protests create a great opportunity for collective action on the part of business. Problems of financial risk, executive pay and corporate lobbying aren't going to be fixed by individual company initiatives, or even by national government regulation. If one firm or one country reduces its attractiveness by, for example, controlling pay, then talent will likely migrate to more rewarding shores. If one company puts a limit on government influence, then the attention of policy makers will simply be taken up by its competitors. That's the savage logic of the global marketplace. The best recipe for meaningful change is collective action across an entire industry. Like a financial sector executive pay protocol. Or a banking industry code of practice on political influence. But to be effective these would need to include government and civil society participation and include effective monitoring and sanctions across borders. No one is pretending this wouldn't require a huge effort. But crises of trust, like the current protests, could be the context that is needed for collective action such as this to arise and prosper.

Third, because these protests clearly signal that for some proportion of the population, all the money, time and effort expended on CSR simply isn't working. And spending more isn't going to make a difference. These people are looking for a change in the system, in the rules that govern business and it's relationship with government.They're looking for more accountability, less political influence, and if their demands are for better corporate citizenship, they mean the kind of citizenship where you pay your fair share of taxes and don't just simply offshore when it suits you. This requires a very different approach to CSR than the one now predominant in the corporate sector. It means fixing attention on how to devise better rules, not how to behave better within the existing rules.

The challenge here, clearly, is a big one. Perhaps then it is no surprise that corporate leaders have been content so far to just cover their ears and hope it all blows over. But there are fundamental issues that need addressing at the heart of our model of global capitalism. Occupying Wall Street, Bay Street, or the City of London may not be any kind of solution, but that does not mean it should just be dismissed either. Business leaders would be foolish not to see this as an opportunity to create an improved system of capitalism that serves us all better.

Photo by david_shankbone. Reproduced under Creative Commons licence 

Labour rights - back to the future?

While a lot of the topics we comments on in this blog are usually about either international events or the latest, contemporary developments, it is good to remember that some of the age old issues in business ethics are worth revisiting from time to time.

One of these is fair wages and the right to unionise. In North America these issues are currently high on the agenda as if we were still in the dark ages of capitalism in the 19^th century. This was nowhere more surprisingly evident than in last week’s instalment of ‘Real Time’ with Bill Maher. The show took off with an interview of Chesly ‘Sully’ Sullenberger. You remember, the pilot who landed his plane for lack of other options safely into the Hudson River in January 2009, after both engines had been struck by birds. Since then, Sullenberger, with his cool attitude and gigantic moustache not only reminded us what a real pilot should look like, but also became something of a hero.

What is interesting though is what he’s currently using his fame for. Before Congress, some time ago, he focused attention on some of the crucial ethical issues in his industry. The pay of most pilots and airline staff has dropped by around 40% and most employees – including Sullenberger – have lost their pensions when their airlines filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy – as most large airlines in the US have done.

This silent infringement of workers’ rights has gone on for some time – but has received little attention.  One of the big events – next to celebrity campaigning by ‘Sully’ – that did draw the attention to this was the crash of a Colgan Air jet in Buffalo only a month after the New York incident in February 2009. Meanwhile, a PBS documentary unearthed some interesting details, such as that most commuter airlines, like Colgan Air (a subsidiary of Continental Airlines), pay their pilots below a living wage – between US$16 to 20,000! The documentary suggests that one major contributor to the air crash was pilot fatigue and working conditions. The co-pilot, for instance, had to sleep in the airport the night before because she felt unable to afford a hotel in Newark before starting work in the morning.

The interesting ethical issues here clearly point to the need to revisit and re-apply some stakeholder thinking to the airline industry. While customers have seen falling prices in air tickets in the last decades this seems to have largely taken place at the expense of employees. It is somewhat tragic that it took a plane crash killing all 49 people on board to alert the public to these imbalances.

Now, the issue of a living wage is something we often discuss in the context of so-called ‘developing’ countries. But these questions obviously also need to be addressed in many industrialized countries. In some ways, the US ‘leads’ the way here, especially with respect to the big controversy in recent weeks over new legislation, discussed in the states of Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida and New Jersey, which substantially cuts back the rights of public sector workers to organize and bargain collectively with their employers.

Sifting through the US papers these days, it is a little bit like good old class warfare all over again. Union membership, long in decline, is surging: the American Federation of State, Country and Municipal Employees (AFS) has grown from 900,000 to 1.4 million members in the last couple of years.

Academically, it is interesting to see that these bread-and-butter labour issues initially did not have their natural home in the business ethics curriculum. Rather, these things are mainly studied among ‘Industrial Relations’- or ‘Labour Process’ scholars, with their separate conferences, journals and textbooks. With the return of these issues to the fore, it is clearly also time for the business ethics and CSR communities to start looking closer to home. Ahead of the curve here is the Aspen Institute which has launched an initiative on Low Wage Workers. This involves a teaching module for use in MBA courses and a white paper looking at low wage work in the US economy. Let's hope it's the spur for further action that we need.

Photo by Rochelle Hartman, reproduced under Creative Commons Licence.

Corporate disaster relief in Japan: going beyond charity?

With global attention focusing on the rapid escalation of conflict in Libya and desperate efforts to contain the nuclear threat in Japan, it is easy for the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the wake of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami to recede from view. But with reports of the death toll now edging past 18,000, and nearly 500,000 people still living in shelters, the country is still certainly in dire need of support and assistance - and will be for some time to come. A report from the World Bank has estimated that the damage inflicted by the disaster will cost somewhere between $123bn and $235bn, the equivalent of some 2.5% to 4% of the country's GDP. Recovery could take up to 5 years, the report suggests.

Business in Japan has been significantly damaged by the quake and its aftermath. The automotive and electronics supply chain, in particular, appear to have been severely disrupted, leading to delays and shutdowns in production. But as previous disasters have shown, business can also play a major role in rescue and relief operations, as well as in subsequent rebuilding efforts. Wal-Mart famously upstaged the US government in responding effectively to the floods in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. In contrast, after the devastating 2008 cyclone in Burma, international companies were slow to offer assistance. Last year's Haitian earthquake generated a lot of corporate donations, as well as a fair deal of controversy around the role of companies in economic redevelopment and rebuilding projects.

Corporate involvement in disaster relief in Japan has yet to hit the headlines in any major way, primarily, as far as we can tell, because companies have been rather conservative in their responses. That's not to say that companies haven't helped raise a lot of money for the cause, because they have. According to the US Chamber of Commerce's, Global Aid Tracker, which does a pretty impressive job of keeping tabs on such things, global corporate assistance for the Japan crisis has now exceeded $158 million.  This includes 100m Yen (about US $1.2m) each from companies such as Bayer, BP, Hyundai, LG, Nikon, and others. Even higher sums - up to 5 times as much in fact - have been committed by the likes of Canon, Citigroup, Dow, GE, Mitsubishi, Nintendo, Sony, and Wal-Mart. As you can see, it's not just Japanese companies either, but global companies, especially those operating in Japan doing the giving. The Japanese Red Cross, however, appears to be the most favoured recipient.

Some companies have linked up their corporate donations with employee giving, often by matching employee donations, as a way of engaging workers in CSR initiatives. An interesting development here has been the tie-up between the CSR services company AngelPoints and Network for Good to provide a free on-line giving platform to the firm's clients. As the firm's press release puts it:

From now until the end of April, two million employees from companies such as Newell-Rubbermaid and Sterling Savings Bank will have access to a centralized online donation platform that will facilitate the immediate transfer of funds to organizations in Japan that need it most.

In fact, the on-line world has probably seen some of the more innovative responses to the disaster from the corporate community. Whilst some, such as iTunes and LivingSocial have simply enabled users to readily make donations through their sites, various Japanese gaming companies have developed cause-related game tie-ins to engage their users in contributing to relief efforts. The gaming demographic is notoriously difficult to enlist in social programmes, so it is certainly a positive sign that gaming companies are using their core products to reach out in this way. Zinga, the US company behind the hugely popular Facebook games, Farmville and Mafia Wars has followed up its Haiti giving initiative with a Farmville in-app donation vehicle which enables users to donate by buying virtual goods within the game - in this case, a daikon crop. Launched within 24 hrs of the disaster, online gamers reportedly went on to help Zinga contribute more than US $1m in just a few days. For a company with a tagline of 'connecting the world through games' (and already drawing fire for its addictive effect on young players), Zinga's ability to use social media to connect gamers around the world with major social problems is a surefire winner.

Elsewhere, there has been a disappointing lack of innovation among the corporate community in the Japan disaster relief. Providing money and in-kind goods is one thing, but what really can make humanitarian aid efforts stand out are when they leverage core corporate capabilities. Japanese manufacturing companies, with their decades of experience in just-in-time management and lean manufacturing practices, could be deploying their logistics and supply chain prowess to relief efforts. Law firms and financial services companies could be putting their skills towards helping displaced families, many of which lack earthquake insurance, sort out the legal and financial mess they have found themselves in rather than simply donating cash.  The list goes on. Short-term charity is fine as far as it goes, but companies should know that a more strategic approach to corporate responsibility has the potential to add considerably more value both to the stricken Japanese people and to themselves.

Business ethics more culturally significant than CSR ... but not everywhere

'Business ethics' and "corporate social responsibility" are two terms that are often used interchangeably, but at the same time represent somewhat different lenses on business practice. Ethics, of course, is always concerned with norms and values, and is basically about what is right and wrong. CSR on the other hand may be about these things, but doesn't have to be - lots of people take a purely economic or strategic approach to CSR without any real consideration of the normative dimensions. CSR is also, as might be expected, a lot more business-friendly than business ethics. In fact, people often tend to use CSR when they're talking about the good things companies are doing, and business ethics (or a lack of them) when talking about the bad things they do. There are other differences too, but we'll save the definitional niceties for another day.

The point is that the term you use is not always just arbitrary. And the two have a very different heritage even if they have broadly similar concerns. As a professor of business ethics (Crane) and a professor of corporate social responsibility (Matten), and co-authors of textbooks on both subjects, we often get asked which is the most important, which is the most popular subject at university, and why we do we need more than one term to describe the same thing? So we were pleased to discover the new gizmo from Google that lets you easily and quickly do a simple analysis of the cultural significance of different words and phrases. The Ngram viewer from Google Labs plots the incidence of specific terms over the last 200 years in more than 5 million digitally scanned fiction and non-fiction books. It may not let you do anything very sophisticated from a research point of view, but it is incredibly easy and fun to use.

So we plugged "business ethics", "corporate social responsibility" in, and for good measure added "corporate responsibility" and "sustainable business". The results, shown above, relate to books published in English from 1900 to 2008 (the last year provided by the data). As you can see, CSR only really emerged post 1960, whilst business ethics has enjoyed more than a century of cultural dominance, with particular peaks around the crash and depression of 1929-1930, and the financial scandals of 2000. And CR was actually a preferred term to CSR in books until around 2001.

By the looks of things, the dominance of business ethics could be coming to an end though. CSR and corporate responsibility have become increasingly more used - especially in the last decade which has seen an exponential growth in their incidence. Saying that, we'll see if the most recent financial scandals see another resurgence of business ethics post 2008 as the last data points on the graphs might seem to suggest.

An interesting feature of the tool is that you can distinguish between books published in English in the US and books published in English in the UK (as well as books published in non-English languages). And here, we were intrigued to see that in UK publications, CSR has already overtaken business ethics as you can see in the graph below.

In fact, in UK books, business ethics in general has not achieved anything like the cultural significance it appeared to in the first graph. Until the early1980s corporate responsibility was actually the dominant term.

Looking then to US books (see below), we can see that it is here that business ethics particularly stands out - albeit with a mid 1970s blip when corporate responsibility overtook it. Even as late as 2008, business ethics still dominates by quite a gap, although this is clearly narrowing over time.

The US emphasis on individual ethics versus the European focus on system-level responsibilities is something we've discussed at some length in our Business Ethics textbook. Plus the UK has been very much at the vanguard of the CSR movement. So these graphs don't come as a complete surprise. Still, it's interesting to see the data set out so starkly. That said, there are clearly some limitations to the Ngram methodology, as has been widely discussed. Still, there is clearly food for thought in here. And, of course, we're sure there are a whole lot of other corporate responsibility analyses that can be conducted with the tool. Do let us know of any interesting ones you come across.

Top 10 Corporate Responsibility Stories of 2010

Mermaids protesting the BP oil spill. Photo by Johnathaneric.

 It's been a big year for corporate responsiblity. A huge oil spill, continued ructions in the financial sector, landmark decisions in the courts, and a new dawn for online companies around human rights issues. It is never easy to pick the most important stories of the year. Some get huge coverage simply because they feature big brand companies. Some hardly even scratch the public consciousness despite having major implications. In other cases, it can be difficult to determine accurately what their long-run significance will be.

But here in the Crane and Matten control room, we've put our heads together to come up with what we regards as the top 10 corporate responsibility stories of the year. These are the events that we think will have the most lasting impact on the field. But it was a hard choice - narrowly missing the cut were the 10 year anniversary of the Global Compact, the FIFA World Cup corruption scandal, Unilever's "Sustainable Living" plan, Apple's labour violations, Wal-Mart's latest announcements on sustainable agriculture, Jerome Kerviel's massive fine, and American Apparel's rollercoaster ride through 2010, among others.

But, hey, not everyone can be a "winner". So if you think we're worng, or if we've missed off your biggest story of the year, do let us know. And while you're at it, take a moment to complete our poll on the right to help us find the top stories according to our readers.Here, though, is our top 10.

1. BP's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico
Deepwater Horizon was one of the world's largest ever oil spills, and understandably this story absolutely dominated 2010. Not only did it put a final nail in the coffin for BP's once vaunted sustainability reputation, but it heralded a major rethink about the viability of deep sea drilling. BP didn't cover itself in glory by failing to come up with a realistic remedy until far too late - and ended up picking up most of the tab, thereby putting paid to the usual assumption that pollution is simply an 'externality' of business. Really, this was the mother of all corporate responsibility crises in 2010.  

2. Google's battle for free speech
Google's withdrawal from China at the beginning of the year was a landmark decision in the battle for free speech on the web. A real clash of titans, no other story this year illustrated better the clash between government and big business around human rights issues. But Google's subsequent legal problems in Italy, where senior executives were convicted of privacy violations, demonstrated just how complicated this battle is going to be. 

3. WikiLeaks publication of the embassy cables
Who knows where this one will end up, or just what its long term significance will be for corporate responsibility? But it's hard to deny its significance as a major turning point in the fight for greater government transparency, and the contested role of the media and NGOs in bringing confidential information into the public realm. Heralded by some as the first great cyber war, the WikiLeaks maelstrom inevitably catapaulted online companies into the fray with predictably unpredictable results.   

4. Citizens United decision
The only court case to make it into the Top 10,  but according to President Obama the 5-4 decision by the US Supreme Court in Citizen's United vs Federal Election Committee "reversed a century of law" and "opened the floodgates" for corporations to play an ever greater role in US politics. According to the ruling, companies and other special interests can now spend as much as they like on influencing the outcome of elections. And why? Because despite their vast resources, companies should have rights to free speech on political matters the same as any other citizen. An historic ruling.

5. Toyota’s product safety recall
This case grabbed a lot of headlines in 2010, mostly because of the very scale of the recall and Toyota's previously unblemished safety reputation. This was a huge embarrasment for the Japanese car maker and showed up serious problems in the firm's management culture.

6. Bank bonuses 
Bank bonuses stayed in the headlines during 2010. Despite continued economic problems, huge public bailouts in Greece and Ireland, persistent unemployment, and widespread austerity measures, some banks managed to award bigger bonuses in 2010 than ever before.  No surprise that the public stayed angry with a bonus culture apparently so far removed from their day-to-day problems. But European regulators finally seemed to get the message with new guidelines released at the end of the year that looked set to dramatically change the bonus landscape across the entire continent.

Butcher in Haiti with food vouchers used to stimulate trade. Photo by DFID

7. Corporate response to the Haiti earthquake 
Few stories better illustrated the precarious role of business in international development than the corporate response to the Haiti earthquake back in January. The arrival of cruise ships full of vacationers represented for many the unacceptable face of corporate insensitivity and amoral consumerism. Yet, few denied that business had to be an essential ingredient in getting the stricken country back on its feet again. 

8. Greenpeace campaign against Sinar Mas palm oil 
Greenpeace won Ethical Corporation's campaigner of the year in 2010 for its work in combating deforestation. This was exemplified in the NGO's campaign against Indonesian palm oil producer Sinar Mas which saw them force Unilever, Nestle and others to cease buying from the company during the year. Greenpeace's spoof ad on YouTube for the Nestle chocolate bar Kit Kat went viral demonstrating how campaigners were effectively harnessing social media for anti-corporate protest. 

9. HP's termination of CEO Mark Hurd
Hewlett Packard has had its ethical ups and downs over the years, but few expected the company to follow through quite so severely when CEO Mark Hurd was found to have made fraudulent expense claims to cover up a relationship with a female contractor. Rejecting Hurd's offer to pay back the $20,000 he'd received for the claims, the highly regarded leader was ousted by the board for failing to live up to the company's code of conduct. This was an impressive commitment to ethical rules by anyone's standards. However, it angered many who thought the company was shooting itself in the foot. A tumbling stock price and Hurd's instatement at competitior Oracle showed how much pain there could be in doing the right thing.

10. India's 2G licence scandal
OK, so actually this happened in 2008, but it was only in the closing months of 2010 that the full extent of the 2G telecom spectrum licences scandal began to be revealed. In what some have called India's biggest scandal since independence, Telecommunications Minister Andimuthu Raja was forced to resign over allegations that he lost the Indian Government some $38 billion in revenues using an opaque permit system that was riven with corruption. Leaked tapes of secret phone calls with corporate lobbyists have poured oil on the fire. This could yet become India's Enron moment.

So that's our Top 10 for 2010. Doesn't make for particularly edifying reading, but it hasn't been all bad. In amongst the scandals and corruption there have been some genuine cases of ethical leadership in 2010, where companies like Google and HP have had to make some hard ethical choices that have cost them dear. No ne said corporate responsibility was easy.

Is too much transparency a bad thing?

It’s been quite a week or so for transparency. The incendiary WikiLeaks release of almost a quarter of a million classified cables from the US diplomatic service has set news media across the world alight with daily revelations that have acutely embarrassed politicians everywhere. Last week also saw the FIFA bribery scandal reach new heights with the screening of the BBC Panorama program alleging corruption, followed by last Thursday’s selection of Russia and Qatar as the hosts of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups respectively. Yes, that’s Russia, the country labeled a “virtual mafia state” in one of the WikiLeaks cables. Both cases involve a whole host of ethical issues, but perhaps more than anything they pose critical questions about the appropriate limits of transparency. How much should we know about what goes on behind the scenes in organizations such as the US diplomatic service or a global sporting body such as FIFA? And can too much transparency really be a bad thing?

WikiLeaks is clearly the most significant case of the two, and it looks set to be something of a landmark on the ethics of transparency in the digital age. On the one side, high profile rightwingers in the US, including Presidential hopeful Mike Huckerbee, have responded by suggesting the source of the leaks should be tried for treason. “Anything less than execution is too kind a penalty,” he commented. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is under investigation in the US and Australia, wanted for questioning in Sweden (for an unrelated charge), and on Interpol’s red list – not to mention being cast by Sarah Palin as an “anti-American operative” who should be pursued with “the same urgency [as] al Qaeda and Taliban leaders”. Bradley Manning the army private who is supposedly the original source of the material is sitting in a military jail awaiting court marshal and a possible 52 years in jail. US internet companies Amazon, Paypal and EveryDNS, meanwhile, have responded to pressure by US authorities and ceased supporting WikiLeaks by allow it to use their servers, domains, and payment services respectively. As a result, the organization has been forced offline several times in the last week.

On the other side of the debate, five respected news organizations – the New York Times, The Guardian, Le Monde, El País, and Der Spiegel – received prior access to the cables and have shown little hesitation in splashing front page stories over the past 10 days. Various commentators, hackers, and net activists have heralded the leaks as a new phase in the radical transparency of digital information. Columbia, meanwhile, has offered Assange immunity, whilst Amazon has been touted as a boycott target for caving to “censorship” and political restrictions on “free speech”. Clearly, things are complicated, to say the least.

The publishing of the embassy cables by WikiLeaks is in many ways a more ethically ambiguous act than many of their previous leaks, most notably the well known Iraq and Afghanistan war logs which detailed the hidden impacts of US military action. Other WikiLeaks though have also won acclaim focusing on documents alleging political and corporate corruption, public interest media reports suppressed by injunction, and secret Congressional research reports. The embassy cables, just by their sheer volume, represent a less focused campaign.

Yes, there are clearly some important public interest revelations in the material that has come to light. These include: the exposure of a US spying campaign targeted at UN leaders; the naming by US diplomats of China’s propaganda chief Li Changchun as the orchestrator of the Google hacking late last year; and disclosures that the Brazilian government deliberately covered up the existence of terrorist suspects within its borders to protect the country’s image, to name just a few. Oh and of course claims that the media organization al-Jazeera is heavily influenced by state foreign policy in Quatar, where the 2022 World Cup is going to be held. But it has to be said that many of the big news stories are no more than allegations by diplomats in what they thought were confidential dispatches rather than necessarily well-founded or verified facts. There is also a whole lot more material that is just plain gossip and rumor-mongering rather than what you might genuinely call ‘intelligence’.

All this makes the WikiLeaks cables less clear cut in terms of making the hidden “truth” public. They provide us with a unique insight into how international diplomacy works, and what emerges is hardly pretty or a paragon of honesty and integrity. But it is hardly the case of a whistleblower bringing a miscarriage of justice to light or an exposé of corporate malfeasance or political corruption, except in the very broadest of terms. Sure the material in the leaks is incredibly interesting, but how we have to ask how much of it is genuinely in the public interest. If it doesn’t pass this test, then why should supposedly classified information become public?

On the other hand, the arguments emanating from the US that the release of the cables has injured the national interest and put lives at risk is also rather flimsy. Yes it has embarrassed the government, but then who hasn’t it embarrassed? Putin, Burlosconi, and others have been just as much the target as those in the US. And no one yet has managed to unearth anything that has genuinely put lives at risk even if it has probably hampered US diplomatic efforts in general. This of course begs the question of why so much information should be classified in the first place if it’s not actually protecting anything.

It is this – the transparency versus confidentiality issue – that is at stake here. Some would clearly like to see all but the most critical security information made public so that the state can be held to account. Others believe that a communication made under the presumption of confidentiality should remain that way unless there is a clear public interest reason for disclosing it. In the FIFA case, there seems little doubt that the BBC was right to go public with its allegations of corruption, even if some commentators were unhappy that it potentially hampered England’s bid to host the 2018 tournament. And even if FIFA President Sepp Blatter complained of “the evils of the media"

The WikiLeaks cables though are so indiscriminate as to fail the public interest test, at least when considered as a whole. However, with appropriate sorting and contextualizing (which the newspapers appear to be doing a pretty good job of), this changes the complexion somewhat. Newspapers like the New York Times and The Guardian have given a good account of their motives and methods. As the New York Times editor says:

"The more important reason to publish these articles is that the cables tell the unvarnished story of how the government makes its biggest decisions, the decisions that cost the country most heavily in lives and money. They shed light on the motivations — and, in some cases, duplicity — of allies on the receiving end of American courtship and foreign aid. They illuminate the diplomacy surrounding two current wars and several countries, like Pakistan and Yemen, where American military involvement is growing. As daunting as it is to publish such material over official objections, it would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name."

With appropriate journalistic selecting and framing, there is little doubt that there is an important if rather delicate media task at work here. This doesn’t condone the release of the cables en masse, though, which in our opinion is harder to defend from an ethical point of view, unless one’s view is that all government should be 100% transparent.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of WikiLeaks in this particular case, though, the broader lesson seems to be fairly clear. In business ethics, one of the standard rules of thumb is the New York Times test – if you wouldn’t want your actions to be reported on the front page of the newspaper then maybe you shouldn’t be doing it. No doubt US diplomats didn’t expect this to so literally come true, but in a digital world, the prospects for doing so are increasing exponentially. And if you don’t want to be a news star, then you’ll need to work a lot harder than the US government in making sure what is said in confidence stays that way.



WikiLeaks graphic by Anna Lena Schiller reproduced under Creative Commons Licence
America Shhh image reproduced from Boycott Amazon for Dumping Wikileaks  

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

Shooting straight at Target?

Target, the American discount retail giant that has for years been trying to claw market share from its mammoth rival Wal-Mart, was generally regarded as a more socially responsible alterntive to its big box competitor. That started to change with Wal-Mart's sustainability u-turn a few years ago, prompting Fast Company magazine to recently proclaim Walmart the winner in the "sustainability face-off" between the two companies.

One area of social responsibility where Target has continued to outpunch its rival though has been in diversity and human rights. For example, Target scored a maximum 100 points in the most recent Corporate Equality Index published by Human Rights Campaign, the largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization in the US. Among other things, Target extends its employee's health care coverage to same-sex partners. Wal-Mart, by comparison, until recently provided coverage to less than half of its own employees never mind their partners. It scored just 40 on the Index.

However, in the last two months, Target's carefully nurtured diversity reputation has begun to unravel. It is now in the midst of a boycott from LGBT customers, appears to have seriously angered many of its once loyal employees, and has even had the social media campaign for the launch of its fall clothing line derailed.

The cause? A relatively innoculous looking $150,000 campaign donation in the upcoming 2010 Minnesota Governor's Race. Target made the donation to MN Forward, a political action commitee which describes itself as "established to ensure that private-sector job creation and economic growth are at the top of the agenda during the 2010 campaign" . The group works to solicit campaign donations from  "Minnesota job creators to elect candidates from both parties who support policies that enhance job growth".

So far, so uncontroversial. Target is among a number of Minnesota-based companies contributing to MN Forward, with a view to backing candidates making job creation and support for business a priority. The group is putting its corporate money behind the Republican candidate Tom Emmer in the Governor's race. And they make no bones about why: "As a legislator, Tom Emmer voted against job-killing taxes and for reduced government spending. Emmer voted with the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce 91% of the time". You can't get much more pro-business than that. So it's hardly very surprising that Target is willing to cough up a few readies to get their man in poll position. So where's the rub?

The problem is Emmer isn't just about supporting business. He's also about supporting marriage. Traditional marriage. As in, not gay marriage. All of the other candidates are in support of legalizing same-sex marriage in the state, but Emmer has been a staunch opponent of LGBT marriage rights. As he says on his campaign website: "I believe marriage is the union between one man and one woman. As a legislator, I have consistently supported the constitutional marriage amendment that protects traditional marriage.”

There's more, as the Minnesota Independent newspaper documents well:

"In 2007, Emmer authored a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage and civil unions. In many instances, Emmer has tried to change language in bills to that same-sex couples cannot benefit. In a bill to create standards around surrogate motherhood, Emmer attempted to replace the word “parents” with the words “mother and father.” In a wrongful death bill this session, Emmer questioned the use of the term “domestic partner” just as he has in bills aimed at providing benefits for same-sex partners. Emmer has also been criticized for his association with Christian hard rock ministry, You Can Run But You Cannot Hide Intl., Inc., which has made incendiary statements about the morality of imprisoning and executing homosexuals. Emmer’s campaign had purchased table space at the group’s fundraiser and visited with the group on the radio and in person."

Ah. So, not exactly a poster boy for Target's diversity policies then. The company, a regular supporter of the local gay pride festival, is more used to being recognized for its leadership on LGBT issues. So given this kind of backstory it is perhaps no surprise that the company's campaign donation has ignited a bit of a storm. Gay rights organizations have been up in arms, various facebook campaigns have been started, and protests have been held outside of the firm's stores. Boycott plans and employee unrest have followed.

Initially, Target was unrepentant. The CEO's response to staff was an email largely dismissing the problem. In the mail, he wrote: "We rarely endorse all advocated positions of the organizations or candidates we support, and we do not have a political or social agenda. As you know, Target has a history of supporting organizations and candidates, on both sides of the aisle, who seek to advance policies aligned with our business objectives, such as job creation and economic growth...Let me be very clear, Target's support of the GLBT community is unwavering, and inclusiveness remains a core value of our company."

However, fearing an escalation of the storm, earlier this month Target's CEO issued an apology letter to employees, remarking that "while I firmly believe that a business climate conducive to growth is critical to our future, I realize our decision affected many of you in a way I did not anticipate, and for that I am genuinely sorry." This seemed to stem the tide of protest, but the story has yet to go away for the troubled retailer. Last week, the Human Rights Campaign (yes, the group that gave Target the 100/100 score for their equality policies) announced that the company has refused to "make it right" to the LGBT community by retracting the donation or making a matching $150,000 donation to a gay rights organizaton. HRC said it would be making a $150,000 donation itself to elect a pro-equality governor.

We doubt ths will be the end of the story. But what can we learn from events so far? One clear conclusion is that the recent Citizens United ruling in the US that gives private corporations the right to fund political broadcasts during elections is not going to be a field of roses for companies. Whilst it may guarantee them free political speech, the question is will they necessarily want to use it given the dangers of upsetting their many and varied stakeholders? Big brand companies especially will probably want to be proceed with politics very carefully and not without due dilligence - as Target have found to their cost.

Secondly, companies will need to get smarter about how to engage in identity politics. It is no use saying "we don't have a political agenda" when you've invested in supporting minority or under-represented groups such as LGBTs, racial minoroties,or the handicapped. The decisions may be driven by business concerns but that doesn't mean that they don't have political ramifcations. And identity-based organizations know this and are ready to exploit companies' naivety. McDonald's have already been burnt on a simialr issue, as we reported a couple of months ago. And if you want to read more, we've recently written a couple of downloadable academic papers focusing on corporations and identity politics and how to bring identity afiliations into stakeholder identification.

The point is that companies are not yet very skilled at joined-up thinking across their span of operations when it comes to issues like gay rights - or any number of other issues that reflect people's complex and multi-faceted identities. Target is learning to thnk about LGBT issues not just in relation to human resources, but also in marketing, investor relations and government relations. Next it could be Muslims, Mexican immigrants or Mothers Against Drink Driving pointing out their inconsistencies. Or perhaps the American Family Association will start boycotting them now that they've heard about all that pro-gay stuff Target were doing. Then we'll really see if the company has a political agenda.

What about politics?

Those of you who have followed this blog and our work over the last years will know that we have taken a special interest in the political role of private corporations. So what are the vibes here at the UN Global Compact Summit?

Well, the general gist seems to be that most of whom are quite happy to pass on more responsibility for the environment, human rights etc. (i.e. the ten principles) to the private sector. The most poignant role in this probably put forward by the UK's new Minister for International Development, Alan Duncan. I liked him when I lived in the UK, but was a bit underwhelmed by what he said. Basically he is a pink Thatcherite, talking about shareholder value and how companies can combine this with development. He ducked questions on BP and whether there is a role for governments in preventing these disasters, which was a bit weak, I found.
A refreshing accent was set by Mike Bloomberg and what the City of New York is doing. He was kind of cool, I found, saying that the City's carbon footprint is now at a third of the average American city. He said the City is willing to lead, but he expects business to do its part as well.


So far well and good. If we release corporations into this sphere though, what about democracy and political principles. There is next to no discussion on this here, apart from the occasional reference to more accountability and transparency. Maybe that should be put on the agenda for the next decade. But this will make it a really warranted area of further research for the academic community. How to make this shift in governance of societies one which is really in the interest of those who are governed? Currently, our best hope is that we will be governed by all those 'benign dictators', which are currently gathered here.