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

Crane and Matten get married (... but not to each other!)

We don't usually post personal blogs here but given our lack of activity over the past couple of months we figured we had some explaining to do. The fact is we've been neglecting the Crane and Matten blog because, well .... we've been concentrating rather more than usual on Crane and Matten's personal lives.

The last two months have seen not just one of us, but both of us getting married.... and not, we should clarify, to each other, nor, in case you were wondering, to the same woman. Hey, we're friends but we're not that friendly. So first Andy got hitched in September (to Daniela) and then Dirk in October (to Deniz). Of course we also had to go to each other's weddings ... and of course neither of us could get married here in Canada because, well, that would have just been too easy.

So it has been a hectic time of travelling, planning, celebrating, honeymooning, with a bit of best man speech-writing thrown in for both us. Naturally we mused from time to time on the nature of ethical event planning, but no one took much notice of us.

Anyway, the Crane and Matten blog is now back in business, so we will be blogging as usual from now on, although our first post is actually going to be from one of our occasional guest bloggers. So stay tuned for more of our  insights on the world of corporate responsibility. And if you don't agree with what we have to say, then you'll probably find that you have something in common with our wives....

Why the Wall Street Journal is wrong about CSR

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

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

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

Where I Disagree


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Enough said.

Photo by Adran MB. Reproduced under Creative Commons Licence

What is CSR? Free download of introduction to CSR now available

[This post has now been updated with the new edition of our textbook and a new free download. Go to the post "Corporate social responsibility in a global context - a new free download"]

We've just posted online our introduction to CSR from our 2008 text co-written with Laura Spence, Corporate Social Responsibility: Readings and Cases in a Global Context. It's available for free download here at  the Social Science Research Network, albeit only in the pre-typeset version.  In the paper we examine the nature and definition of CSR, and its emergence in different national and organizational contexts. It should be a good basic CSR 101 for anyone trying to get their head's around the subject.

Of course, the question of what corporate social responsibility (CSR) is should be pretty straighforward. It is obvious that CSR is about the stuff that companies do to improve society, right? Or at least what they do to make it less worse. Or perhaps its what they tell us they're doing to make things better, but in reality they're not really doing much of because its expensive, uncompetitive, and difficult. Or maybe its what they should be doing, or doing more of, if only they were a little more, well.... responsible.

So 'what is CSR' is a deceptively difficult question to answer. It almost immediately brings up questions of whether firms have particular types of responsibilities, what those repsonsibilities are, how much firms should be doing, for who, and why. In fact it is easier to come up with a list of questions rather than a simple short definition that pleases everyone.

Still, that's no excuse for ducking the question. Our approach in the CSR introduction paper is not to get too caught up in definitions, but to explore what unites the different definitions that are out there and use that to identify the core characteristics of CSR. In all, we identify six of these components, as shown in the figure below. To find out more, just take a read of the paper....

 
This figure is not actually in the chapter, but feel free to use and reproduce under a non-commercial creative commons licence, giving appropriate citation to the original source of the idea.

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.