The CSR Newsletters are a freely-available resource generated as a dynamic complement to the textbook, Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation.

To sign-up to receive the CSR Newsletters regularly during the fall and spring academic semesters, e-mail author David Chandler at david.chandler@ucdenver.edu


Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Strategic CSR - Fast fashion

If you haven't yet seen it, John Oliver's attack on the fast fashion industry last weekend is very entertaining:
 
 
The danger with comedy, however, is that the message is over-simplified in order to deliver a clean punchline. The reality is often not so cut-and-dried, especially when you are dealing with economic development and individual self-interest. In contrast to Oliver's pessimistic view of the way that fashion companies today still struggle with "supply chain management," for example, the article in the url below indicates that there has been significant progress:
 
"Adidas terminated agreements with 13 suppliers last year for non-compliance, according to the sportswear company's 2014 sustainability report."
 
The article provides evidence that Adidas was not simply cutting-and-running at the first sign of trouble with these suppliers, but had made every effort to work with them to improve their performance on the company's audit. In spite of Adidas' best-practice approach and in the face of what it describes as "severe or repeated non-compliance," the company was forced to end the relationship in these 13 cases. But, in contrast to Oliver's simplistic tarring of the whole industry, it is clear that such rejections are becoming increasingly common:
 
"The company's global sourcing team, which works to pre-screen potential new suppliers, assessed 226 factories last year, rejecting 104. Some are rejected on a first visit, others, that have serious but correctable non-compliance issues, got three months to fix problems before being re-audited. The final rejection rate in 2014 was 10 per cent, the company, said. … Adidas also issued 65 warning letters to suppliers in 13 countries about ongoing serious non-compliance issues. Most were in Asia, where 60 per cent of its supplier factories are situated."
 
There are other elements of the debate that Oliver neglected to mention:
 
"In the wake of the Rana Plaza factory collapse in Bangladesh, trade unions, NGOs, the International Labour Organization and international buyers worked together to create the Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety. By September last year, all Adidas Group supplier factories disclosed to the Accord had been assessed for electrical, fire and building safety."
 
I highlight all of this not to pick on Oliver who, in his short run so far on TV, has brought public attention to a number of important issues (see: https://www.youtube.com/user/LastWeekTonight; his attack on FIFA is particularly good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlJEt2KU33I), but merely to emphasize the complexity of this issue and to combat the stereotypical narrative. Ethical supply chain management has made vast improvements since Nike's sweatshop days and a number of companies are adopting progressive approaches to reduce the number of incidents of abuse, without shutting off the economic opportunities such factories can provide to the developing world (which is no joke)!
 
Take care
David
 
David Chandler & Bill Werther
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: http://www.sagepub.com/chandler3e/
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
 
 
Adidas terminates deals with 13 suppliers in Asia over non-compliance
By Marino Donati
April 27, 2015
Supply Management
 

Monday, April 27, 2015

Strategic CSR - e-Waste

The article in the url below provides some recent statistics on the problem of e-waste (Chapter 8; Case-study: e-Waste, p544). As you might expect with the growth in the consumer electronics industry, the problem is getting worse rather than better:
 
"In 2012, 50 million tons of e-waste was generated worldwide, and with the proliferation of smartphones, smart watches and other tech gear, that number will only increase. United Nations officials estimate that the volume of e-waste generated worldwide is expected to climb by 33 percent by 2017, to 65 million tons."
 
The article contains not only statistics, however, but also some pretty horrific photos that convey the damage these toxic materials can cause unless recycled properly:
 
"About 80 percent of the e-waste produced in developed countries (North America and Europe on the top of the list) is not disposed of in situ, but shipped, most of the time illegally, to developing countries on cargo ships, where it is illegally disposed. … The southeastern town of Guiyu, China is a major e-wastebasket. CNN reported that Guiyu workers burn or process tech gear with hydrochloric acid to recover valuable metals like copper and steel. The process releases toxic heavy metals like lead, beryllium and cadmium into the environment. Hydrocarbon ashes have also polluted the air, water and soil."
 
Unfortunately, the chances of these trends reversing, particularly in developing economies, is remote at present:
 
"Disposing of a PC by sending it to a dumpster in Africa costs $2, while it would cost $20 to sustainably recycle it."
 
In the U.S., the problem appears to be lessening somewhat, although it is not clear if this is due to greater awareness or the economic downturn:
 
"According to recent data from Recon Analytics, in 2014, the average American replaced his or her mobile phone every 26.5 months, a vast improvement from every 18 months in 2007."
 
Take care
David
 
David Chandler & Bill Werther
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: http://www.sagepub.com/chandler3e/
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
 
 
Stunning Photos Capture Devastation Caused by Electronic Waste Across the Globe
By Lorraine Chow
April 15, 2015
Alternet
 

Friday, April 24, 2015

Strategic CSR - The politics of climate change

In light of much of the media coverage that accompanied Earth Day on Wednesday, the article in the url below offers a hopeful take on the state of the climate change debate here in the U.S.:
 
"An overwhelming majority of the American public, including half of Republicans, support government action to curb global warming, according to a poll conducted by The New York Times, Stanford University and the nonpartisan environmental research group Resources for the Future."
 
This is encouraging/surprising/hopeful because it runs counter to the prevailing narrative, which focuses largely on partisan stereotypes:
 
"Among Republicans, 48 percent say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports fighting climate change. … Many Republican candidates question the science of climate change or do not publicly address the issue."
 
As the article notes, hopefully this information will be picked up by pollsters and influence the debate as we ease into the 2016 presidential campaign:
 
"… the poll also found that two-thirds of Americans said they were more likely to vote for political candidates who campaign on fighting climate change. They were less likely to vote for candidates who questioned or denied the science that determined that humans caused global warming."
 
Have a good weekend.
David
 
David Chandler & Bill Werther
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: http://www.sagepub.com/chandler3e/
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
 
 
Most Republicans Support Government Action on Climate Change
By Coral Davenport and Marjorie Connelly
January 31, 2015
The New York Times
Late Edition – Final
A1
 

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Strategic CSR - Climate Alarmism

The article in the url below brings a much needed sense of balance to the climate debate. It does not dismiss the notion of climate change (in fact, it acknowledges it as a fact); what it does do, however, is present a balanced view that takes into account the notion that not all of the changes that are occurring are necessarily disastrous:
 
"It is an indisputable fact that carbon emissions are rising—and faster than most scientists predicted. But many climate-change alarmists seem to claim that all climate change is worse than expected. This ignores that much of the data are actually encouraging. The latest study from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that in the previous 15 years temperatures had risen 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit. The average of all models expected 0.8 degrees. So we're seeing about 90% less temperature rise than expected."
 
The article contains a number of specific examples:
 
"Facts like this are important because a one-sided focus on worst-case stories is a poor foundation for sound policies. Yes, Arctic sea ice is melting faster than the models expected. But models also predicted that Antarctic sea ice would decrease, yet it is increasing. Yes, sea levels are rising, but the rise is not accelerating—if anything, two recent papers, one by Chinese scientists published in the January 2014 issue of Global and Planetary Change, and the other by U.S. scientists published in the May 2013 issue of Coastal Engineering, have shown a small decline in the rate of sea-level increase."
 
The value of such an approach is that it respects empirical reality. To ignore such data is to fuel the belief that climate change is a myth propagated by people with vested interests. Instead, presenting all the facts (especially those that do not fit the prevailing narrative) encourages trust. And importantly, such disclosure is more likely to result in realistic responses (both in the market and in public policy) that might move us more quickly to where we need to go:
 
"Alarmism has encouraged the pursuit of a one-sided climate policy of trying to cut carbon emissions by subsidizing wind farms and solar panels. Yet today, according to the International Energy Agency, only about 0.4% of global energy consumption comes from solar photovoltaics and windmills. And even with exceptionally optimistic assumptions about future deployment of wind and solar, the IEA expects that these energy forms will provide a minuscule 2.2% of the world's energy by 2040. In other words, for at least the next two decades, solar and wind energy are simply expensive, feel-good measures that will have an imperceptible climate impact."
 
The conclusion (and, remember, this is an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal) is measured and reasonable. As a result, it stands a chance of advancing the debate, rather than inciting both sides to continue shouting past each other:
 
"In short, climate change is not worse than we thought. Some indicators are worse, but some are better. That doesn't mean global warming is not a reality or not a problem. It definitely is. But the narrative that the world's climate is changing from bad to worse is unhelpful alarmism, which prevents us from focusing on smart solutions."
 
Happy Earth Day!
David
 
David Chandler & Bill Werther
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: http://www.sagepub.com/chandler3e/
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
 
 
The Alarming Thing About Climate Alarmism
By Bjorn Lomborg
February 2, 2015
The Wall Street Journal
Late Edition – Final
A13
 

Monday, April 20, 2015

Strategic CSR - Philanthropy

The article in the url below is an interview with a philosopher who believes in a more radical approach to philanthropy:
 
"In his new book, The Most Good You Can Do, to be released on Tuesday, Mr. Singer argues that people should give a substantial percentage—ideally a third—of their income to charities. Mr. Singer himself has given away at least 10% of his income for 40 years; that number has gradually risen to between a quarter and a third of his income. He advocates focusing donations on the developing world."
 
The philosopher who is being interviewed, Peter Singer, is more popularly known for his work advocating for the extension of human rights to animals and the environment, but in his new book (the reason for the interview), he focuses squarely on human behavior towards our fellow human beings:
 
"A scholar with appointments at Princeton University and the University of Melbourne, Mr. Singer, 68, considers himself a utilitarian philosopher. … [His reason for writing the book is] to change how we think about what it means to be ethical. 'If you ask people what it means to live ethically, it's a 'Thou shalt not' statement: 'You shouldn't cheat' and 'You shouldn't lie,'' he says. 'But if you're fortunate enough to be part of the more affluent billion in the world, to live ethically, you have to do something to help those who are less fortunate, who just happened to have been born in impoverished countries, and that's part of living an ethical life.'"
 
His argument, in essence, is that any $1 donated should be directed towards supporting action that generates the most benefit for the greatest number of people. As a result, he thinks we should turn our attention away from many of the 'philanthropic causes' currently supported in the West towards helping those in greatest need:
 
"Peter Singer would sooner donate a kidney than sponsor a concert hall. So when entertainment mogul David Geffen gave $100 million in early March for the renovation of Avery Fisher Hall at Lincoln Center in New York—it will soon be renamed David Geffen Hall—Mr. Singer questioned why people thought he was doing so much good. … Mr. Singer says that he doesn't understand 'how anyone could think that giving to the renovation of a concert hall that could impact the lives of generally well-off people living in Manhattan and well-off tourists that come to New York could be the best thing that you could do with $100 million.' He notes, for example, that a donation of less than $100 could restore sight to someone who is blind."
 
On the face of it, it is hard to argue with the sentiment that the ability to restore someone's sight should outweigh the opportunity to listen to the opera (which, after all, most people in developed economies choose not to do). My sense, however, is that Singer is missing the point. Rather than focus on the intention behind the donation, it is essential to focus on the delivery of that aid. In other words, what is the most effective way of harnessing the desire to restore sight and then achieving the desired outcome? This speaks to the larger issue of philanthropy and, in this case, developmental aid – in essence, how can we ensure that the $100 that I might donate goes towards restoring the sight of someone in need? In reality, we know that corruption and inefficiencies are a big part of NGO aid delivery. Also, many suspect that progress sponsored by others is less sustainable than progress achieved through personal effort. In attempting to overcome these concerns and ensuring more optimal outcomes, an important question revolves around the role of market forces. From what is covered in the interview, however, Singer appears to ignore these questions in place of emphasizing individual guilt. It is effective in capturing attention for his ideas (and, presumably, selling more books). I am less convinced that it will help bring about the goals he advocates, which we can all agree are worthwhile.
 
Take care
David
 
David Chandler & Bill Werther
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: http://www.sagepub.com/chandler3e/
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
 
 
Weekend Confidential: Peter Singer
By Alexandra Wolfe
April 4-5, 2015
The Wall Street Journal
Late Edition – Final
C11
 

Friday, April 17, 2015

Strategic CSR - Edible packaging

The article in the url below contains an innovative solution to the problem of excess waste:
"Diners at KFC restaurants throughout Britain soon will be able to have their coffee — and eat the cup, too. … The new cup will debut about the same time as KFC restaurants plan to introduce Seattle's Best Coffee, part of Starbucks."
 
The packaging that KFC will introduce in Britain is not going to taste of broccoli, however:
 
"KFC, one of the chains operated by Yum Brands, is going to test an edible cup made from a wafer coated in sugar paper and lined with a heat-resistant white chocolate."
 
It seems KFC is jumping on something of a bandwagon:
 
"Other companies have been offering similar items. Lavazza, the Italian coffee brand, had edible cookie cups, while Coolhaus sells its ice cream sandwiches in potato starch wrappers printed with inks made from vegetables. In New York, Dominique Ansel Bakery offers a chocolate-chip shot, with organic milk poured into a cookie cup."
 
I guess, for every problem solved there is another problem created. From the description of its ingredients, it sounds like any reduction in waste will be accompanied by an increase in obesity-related health problems.
 
Have a good weekend.
David
 
David Chandler & Bill Werther
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: http://www.sagepub.com/chandler3e/
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
 
 
The Fried Chicken Is O.K., but the Cups Are Delicious
By Stephanie Strom
February 26, 2015
The New York Times
Late Edition – Final
B3
 

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Strategic CSR - Coca-Cola

Access to fresh water is becoming an increasingly essential issue for societies worldwide. As the article in the first url below notes, for example:
 
"The World Economic Forum (WEF) … recently named 'water crises' as their number one 2015 global financial risk in terms of impact, and their eighth highest risk in terms of likelihood. Specifically, the WEF report warns of 'a significant decline in the available quality and quantity of freshwater, resulting in harmful effects on human health and/or economic activity' and of a 'deterioration in quality of air, soil and water from ambient concentrations of pollutants and other activities and processes.'"
 
Further:

"Water use is growing at twice the pace of population growth. By 2025, two-thirds of the world population will be experiencing water 'stress conditions.' [And] One in nine people lacks access to improved sources of drinking water and one in three lacks improved sources of water sanitation. This causes around 3.5 million deaths each year."
 
Because supplies of fresh water are an issue for societies, that makes it a particularly sensitive topic for any company that uses large amounts of water. As the article in the second url below notes, Coca-Cola has come under particular attention for the massive amounts of water it uses to make its signature product:
 
"In 2012, Coke sold more than 1.8 billion servings a day – one for every four people on earth. … Over 79 billion gallons of water are required annually to dilute Coke syrup, and an additional eight trillion gallons are needed for other aspects of production, including the manufacturing of bottles. In 2012, Coke used more water than close to a quarter of the world's population."
 
Not only is Coca-Cola increasing our healthcare costs, therefore, it is also reducing our access to something that is essential for life. In other words, if we continue to consume water at current rates, at some point we will have to choose between fresh drinking water and Coca-Cola (and any of the other water intensive products we rely on every day, such as cotton, for example). The smart, progressive companies have already begun to consider ways by which they can reduce their reliance on fresh water.
 
Take care
David
 
David Chandler & Bill Werther
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: http://www.sagepub.com/chandler3e/
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
 
 
Water's a Big Deal, but How's an Investor to Respond?
By Garvin Jabusch
March 3, 2015
Green Money
 
Citizen Coke
By Beth Macy
January 4, 2015
The New York Times Book Review
Late Edition – Final
11
 

Monday, April 13, 2015

Strategic CSR - Moral licensing

The article in the url below builds on the concept of conspicuous virtue (see Strategic CSR – Conspicuous virtue) to provide additional evidence of the complexities of the human mind. In particular, it demonstrates how difficult it can be to persuade humans to act in their own actual interests (as opposed to their perceived interests), which is particularly relevant when it comes to solving our environmental problems:
 
"A recent [academic study] … finds that shoppers who bring their own bags when they buy groceries like to reward themselves for it. For two years the authors tracked transactions at a supermarket in America. Perhaps unsurprisingly, shoppers who brought their own bags bought more green products than those who used the store's bags. But the eco-shoppers were also more likely to buy sweets, ice cream and crisps."
 
According to the article, psychologists refer to this effect as "moral licensing," which is defined as "the tendency to indulge yourself for doing something virtuous." Although this might not seem something we should worry too much about, other studies indicate the issue has broader ramifications:
 
"A study from 2011 on water-conservation in Massachusetts shows how. In the experiment, some 150 apartments were divided into two groups. Half received water-saving tips and weekly estimates of their usage; the other half served as a control. The households that were urged to use less water did so: their consumption fell by an average of 6% compared with the control group. The hitch was that their electricity consumption rose by 5.6%. The moral licensing was so strong, in other words, that it more or less outweighed the original act of virtue."
 
After citing additional evidence to suggest that people are more likely to make 'virtuous' choices as a way to punish themselves, the article concludes that:
 
"The best way to get people to do good, it seems, is to make them feel bad about themselves."
 
Take care
David
 
David Chandler & Bill Werther
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: http://www.sagepub.com/chandler3e/
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Eco-waverers
February 28, 2015
The Economist
Late Edition – Final
67
 

Friday, April 10, 2015

Strategic CSR - Space junk

Not content with polluting the earth, the article in the url below reports that we are also endeavoring to pollute space, too:
 
"Right now, there are more than 300,000 pieces of debris larger than a centimeter in diameter orbiting Earth. They range from tiny shards of metal to deactivated, decades-old satellites. Most are shrapnel from discarded rocket stages that have exploded after use, or satellites that have collided. Colloquially, all this debris is usually called 'space junk.'"
 
While we might be comfortable thinking this is none of our problem, it is a serious concern for the agencies in charge of space exploration:
 
"Together, the Department of Defense and NASA track the orbits of the 19,000 or so pieces of junk that are larger than a softball, alerting satellite operators when any satellite — including the International Space Station — is in danger, so they can move it."

And, it is a problem that is only getting worse:
 
"More space junk raises the chance of collisions, which in turn can lead to even more debris, until the sheer volume of space junk makes parts of space unusable."

The image this generates in my mind reminds me of the scene in the movie 'Wall-E' when we see the abandoned earth surrounded by orbiting space junk:
 
 
In many ways, I feel that movie is the shape (literally) of things to come for the human race. Switch cellphone screens for the TV screens that humans are strapped to in Wall-E and we are closer than we might like to think!
 
Have a good weekend
David
 
David Chandler & Bill Werther
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: http://www.sagepub.com/chandler3e/
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
 
 
There are 300,000 pieces of garbage orbiting earth, and it's a big problem
By Joseph Stromberg
January 20, 2015
Vox
 

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Strategic CSR - B-Lab

The article in the url below contains an interesting announcement by Unilever:
 
"The movement to put purpose at the heart of business strategy has received a major boost with news that several multinationals, including consumer goods giant Unilever, are considering becoming B Corps, for-profit corporate entities that commit to positive social and environmental goals."
 
This follows on from the certification of Natura, the largest Brazilian company and the first publicly-traded company to receive the B-corp certification (see here):
 
"[In December], Brazil's top cosmetics, fragrance and toiletries maker, Natura, became the largest – and first publicly traded – company to attain B Corp sustainability certification. B Corps are certified by NGO B Labs as contributing social and environmental benefits beyond the financial bottom line."
 
While Unilever's announcement would be an important step in its groundbreaking efforts to become more sustainable, I thought the more interesting statement came from the head of B-Lab (the organization that issues the B-certification) commenting on the lack of resistance Natura faced from institutional investors when it announced the move:
 
"Jay Coen Gilbert, co-founder of B Lab, the non-profit company that began the B Corp movement, said the lack of resistance from Natura's institutional investors was a major breakthrough.
'The investors found it a non-issue as it was not a material change from how Natura was already operating,' he said."
 
I think this begs the question: If the change involved no material difference, why was it necessary? I understand there is symbolic value in announcing to the world that you intend to operate your business in the interests of a broad range of stakeholders, but I also think you do not need any change in legal structure or external certification in order to do so. In other words, Natura's investors already knew that was the way the firm operates and they invested with that knowledge. Gaining external validation of that operating structure did not ruffle any feathers because the way they were operating was completely acceptable (and accepted) within existing operating practices of the for-profit corporation.
 
My limited knowledge of corporate law tells me that B-Lab (whether lobbying for the change in legal structure or issuing the B-corp certification) is unnecessary (Chapter 8; Case-study: Benefit Corporations, p497). The non-profit pitches its services as a means of avoiding lawsuits in the event that shareholders feel the firm is not being operated in their interests. However, corporations make decisions to that effect all day, every day. To my knowledge, nothing in current law prevents the firm from operating in the interests of all of its stakeholders. By definition, all firms already do – it is how they employ employees at acceptable wage rates, how they make products consumers want, how they abide by government laws, how they have productive relations with suppliers and distributors, and so on and so on.
 
In short, firms add value (i.e., become profitable) by operating in the interests of their broad range of stakeholders. No legal change or external certification is necessary for them to continue doing so. At best, B-Lab is a waste of time and resources; at worst, it is a distraction that clouds the real issues – ensuring firms make decisions to optimize the relationships in which they are already fully engaged.
 
Take care
David
 
David Chandler & Bill Werther
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: http://www.sagepub.com/chandler3e/
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
 
 
Will Unilever become the world's largest publicly traded B corp?
By Jo Confino
January 23, 2015
Guardian Sustainable Business
 

Monday, April 6, 2015

Strategic CSR - Business schools

The article in the url below questions the social value currently being created by business schools. It does so in terms of the extent to which business school graduates are being trained to enter the finance industry:
 
"Nearly 30 percent of undergraduates majoring in business at U.S. colleges were planning to go into finance in 2014, according to a Bloomberg Business survey of 28,000 students. Interest in finance far outstripped desire for jobs in consulting, the second-most attractive industry, which drew just 11 percent of undergrad business majors."
 
In short:
 
"Business schools, despite broadening their curriculum recently to encourage entrepreneurship and socially responsible careers, still basically amount to banker factories."
 
This is important because of the growing size of the finance industry as a percentage of the overall economy, and the effect a larger finance industry has on national productivity, according to a study quoted in the article:
 
"When finance sucks talented young workers away from other industries, we all suffer, a new report shows. … once a country's finance industry grows beyond a certain point, national gross domestic product per worker declines. That conclusion comes from a 2012 study in which they looked at economic output in 21 countries from 2005 to 2009 and saw productivity decline as soon as the finance sector hired more than 3.9 percent of all workers."
 
Essentially, therefore, the article concludes that the more business schools support and enable a vibrant finance industry, the more the economy as a whole suffers:
 
"So where does that leave business schools, where people go to figure out what kind of industrious businessperson they'd like to be? By routing large swaths of young workers into finance, business programs are probably not powering economic growth."
 
Take care
David
 
David Chandler & Bill Werther
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: http://www.sagepub.com/chandler3e/
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
 
 
Is Business School Gutting the Economy?
By Natalie Kitroeff
February 26, 2015
Bloomberg Businessweek
 

Friday, April 3, 2015

Strategic CSR - 2014

Here is a great graphic to demonstrate the gradual rise in annual temperatures drawing on over a century's worth of data:
 
"The [graphic] shows the Earth's warming climate, recorded in monthly measurements from land and sea over 135 years. Temperatures are displayed in degrees above or below the 20th-century average."
 
 
Not only was 2014 the hottest year on record, but:
 
"Thirteen of the 14 hottest years are in the 21st century."
 
Have a good weekend.
David
 
David Chandler & Bill Werther
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: http://www.sagepub.com/chandler3e/
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
 
 
2014 Was the Hottest Year on Record
By Tom Randall and Blacki Migliozzi
January 16, 2015
Bloomberg Businessweek
 

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Strategic CSR - Media

Here is a good example of how media outlets play a large role in the way that a particular story is covered (and therefore understood) by the broader public (Chapter 8; Issues: Media, p506). On the day after the press conference by NASA and the National Atmospheric Administration at which data was released reporting 2014 as the warmest year on record, The New York Times covered the story as the lead on its front page with the headline "2014 breaks heat record, challenging global warming skeptics." The lead paragraph was:
 
"Last year was the hottest on earth since record-keeping began in 1880, scientists reported on Friday, underscoring warnings about the risks of runaway greenhouse gas emissions and undermining claims by climate change contrarians that global warming had somehow stopped."
 
In other words, the story was presented as an empirical fact that had been unearthed by "scientists." In contrast, The Wall Street Journal buried the story at the bottom of page 6 with the heading "Groups say '14 was World's warmest." The lead paragraph in that story was:
 
"The year 2014 was the world's warmest on record, despite relatively cool temperatures across parts of North America, two U.S. agencies responsible for monitoring global climate trends said."
 
In other words, this was an opinion that was offered by "two U.S. agencies," with all the implications of government bureaucracy and inefficiency that, no doubt, riles your typical WSJ reader. A good journalist knows which buttons to push. As such, the article goes on to note that, by these groups' "reckoning" (implying a hunch that was generated on a whim), many of the all-time hottest years have occurred this century, but follow that up with the note that:
 
"Many scientists attribute the warming temperatures to rising concentrations of carbon dioxide, soot and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and to land-use changes. Some skeptics, however, have suggested the rise in global temperatures has actually slowed since 1998, which was itself a record-warm year."
 
I do not claim the NYT is unbiased, while the WSJ is biased. Clearly, both outlets are biased in their own ways. The lesson I take from this is that it is important to get my news from multiple outlets. As long as you know the bias of each source (and every news source is biased to some degree), then you have some chance of finding out what is actually going on.
 
Take care
David
 
David Chandler & Bill Werther
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: http://www.sagepub.com/chandler3e/
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
 
 
2014 Breaks Heat Record, Challenging Global Warming Skeptics
By Justin Gillis
January 17, 2015
The New York Times
Late Edition – Final
A1
 
Groups Say '14 Was World's Warmest
By Robert Lee Hotz
January 17-18, 2015
The Wall Street Journal
Late Edition – Final
A6