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


Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Strategic CSR - Gig economy

The article in the url below provides some fascinating insight into the lives of people working in the gig economy for firms like Uber, Deliveroo, and TaskRabbit:
 
"There are no good estimates on the global scale of the gig economy but in the US there are about 800,000 people earning money this way without being anyone's employee."
 
"Algorithmic management" is the term academics have devised to explain how the working lives of these people are increasingly being dictated by software (via apps) as opposed to by managers (as in a traditional organization and employer/employee relationship):
 
"For companies like Uber, which aspires to 'make transportation as reliable as running water,' algorithmic management solves a problem: how to instruct, track and evaluate a crowd of casual workers you do not employ, so they deliver a responsive, seamless, standardised service."
 
These algorithms essentially track every aspect of the work being conducted for the company as soon as each worker logs on to the app. It dictates everything from how quickly they must respond once an opportunity is sent to them (within 30 seconds for Deliveroo) to assessments of performance:
 
"Deliveroo's algorithm monitors couriers closely and sends them personalised monthly 'service level assessments' on their average 'time to accept orders,' 'travel time to restaurant,' 'travel time to customer,' 'time at customer,' 'late orders' and 'unassigned orders.' The algorithm compares each courier's performance to its own estimate of how fast they should have been. … Drivers for Uber's ride-hailing app, of which there are about a million around the world, are subject to similar algorithmic control. They choose when to work but once they log on to the app, they only have 10-20 seconds to respond to 'trip requests' routed to them by the algorithm. They are not told the customer's final destination until they have picked them up. If drivers miss three trip requests in a row, they are logged out automatically for two minutes. Uber sends drivers a weekly report including their confirmation rate and average customer rating (out of 5)."
 
Rather than something new, however, "algorithmic management" is increasingly thought of as an extension of innovations that were the foundation of the field of management:
 
"'Algorithmic management' might sound like the future but it has uncanny echoes from the past. A hundred years ago, a new theory called 'scientific management' swept through the factories of America. It was the brainchild of Frederick W Taylor, the son of a well-to-do Philadelphia family who dropped his preparations for Harvard to become an apprentice in a hydraulics factory. He saw a haphazard workplace where men worked as slowly as they could get away with while their bosses paid them as little as possible. Taylor wanted to replace this 'rule of thumb' approach with 'the establishment of many rules, laws and formulae which replace the judgment of the individual workman.' To that end, he sent managers with stopwatches and notebooks on to the shop floor. They observed, timed and recorded every stage of every job, and determined the most efficient way that each one should be done. … For Jeremias Prassl, a law professor at Oxford university, the algorithmic management techniques of Uber and Deliveroo are Taylorism 2.0. 'Algorithms are providing a degree of control and oversight that even the most hardened Taylorists could never have dreamt of,' he says."
 
As companies tighten the screws, however, these workers are beginning to pushback, complaining that they were lulled into working for these companies with elevated pay rates and conditions that are then gradually reduced. The recent lawsuit against Uber (in California and Massachusetts) is a good example of this. Something similar (although less formal) also occurred over the summer in London – "one of the first industrial disputes to hit the city's so-called gig economy":
 
"These are workers without a workplace, striking against a company that does not employ them. They are managed not by people but by an algorithm that communicates with them via their smartphones. And what they are rebelling against is an app update."
 
While it is clear that many people self-select into these jobs because they fit their lifestyle at present ("Some 85 per cent of couriers have told Deliveroo they use it for 'a supplementary income, or short-term flexible work'"), it is also clear that the structure of these jobs are redefining the nature of 'employment' in a way that poses significant challenges to courts (that have to deal with grievances today) and public policy planners (who will have to deal with the social consequences in the future if these jobs fail to provide the healthcare and pension support these people will need at some point). There is also, of course, a moral component to the way these jobs are structured. While some see them as facilitating 'flexibility' and others see them as incentivizing 'abuse,' the danger is that whatever we gain in productivity in the short term ("Taylorism 2.0"), we lose in our humanity over the longer term.
 
Take care
David
 
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler4e
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


When the boss is an algorithm
By Sarah O'Conner
September 10/11, 2016
The Financial Times
Late Edition – Final
Life & Arts, 1
 

Friday, November 25, 2016

Strategic CSR - Black Friday

The article in the url below reports REI's decision last Thanksgiving to "cancel Black Friday":
 
"Outdoor gear and sporting goods retailer REI is canceling Black Friday this year. No promotions, no hourly sales, no doorbusters, no waiting in line."
 
Instead, the adventure retailer is encouraging consumers to #OptOutside:
 
"In an unprecedented move for the modern-day holiday shopping season, REI's 143 stores will be closed the day after Thanksgiving. The co-op business plans to launch a campaign Tuesday encouraging people to forgo shopping to spend time outside instead. With the hashtag #OptOutside, REI will ask people to share what they're doing on Black Friday on social media."
 
Of course, the cynical side of me notes that REI has a vested interest in everyone spending more time outside. I am sure the firm is hoping that they will buy lots of REI gear in order to do it. But, at least they will not be buying that stuff on Black Friday. And, any pushback against the relentless march of materialism in our society must be a good thing, right?
 
For more detail on REI's campaign (which continues this year) and its underlying motivations, see: http://optoutside.rei.com/
 
And for a list of companies that will not be open this year on Thanksgiving Day (and the few that will also be closed on Black Friday), see: http://bestblackfriday.com/blog/stores-closed-on-thanksgiving-and-black-friday-2016/
 
Have a good weekend
David
 
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler4e
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
 
 
REI Closing on Black Friday for 1st Time in push to #OptOutside
By Hadley Malcolm
October 26, 2015
USA Today
 

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Strategic CSR - U.S. economy

I came across this website the other day: http://www.usdebtclock.org/
 
It is amazing to see the U.S. economy working in real time.
 
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
David
 
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler4e
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
 

Monday, November 21, 2016

Strategic CSR - Self-interest

The article in the url below reviews a book by Samuel Bowles ('The Moral Economy: Why Good Incentives are No Substitute for Good Citizens,' Yale University Press) that challenges the central tenet of rational economic theory – that the pursuit of self-interest generates optimal societal-level outcomes:
 
"If there is a single dogma that has dominated mainstream economic and political thought since the 18th century, this is it. Samuel Bowles, an economist at the Santa Fe Institute, thinks this dogma is false. In his tightly argued and illuminating book, The Moral Economy: Why Good Incentives are No Substitute for Good Citizens, Bowles makes the case that appeals made to our self-interest can undercut instinctive moral impulses; and that when these impulses are weakened, crucial institutions work sub-optimally, if at all. This is the case even for markets, institutions which the dogma holds up as exemplars of the unique organising power of greed."

In order to make his point, Bowles presents examples of various research studies that show the potentially damaging influence of financial incentives:
 
"Fifteen years ago, the Boston Fire Department ended its policy of unlimited sick days, hoping to curb the flu outbreaks that seemed to happen on Mondays and Fridays. Fire fighters taking more than 15 sick days would have their pay docked. The following year, the number of sick days taken more than doubled. And sick days around the year-end holidays increased by an order of magnitude."
 
The reason offered to explain this phenomenon is that we work for multiple reasons. Of course, we seek financial remuneration, but the work that we do also shapes our identity, which is closely tied to our self-esteem. Belonging to an organization also fulfills our needs as social beings – the value we place on belonging to a group and working towards something that is bigger than ourselves:
 
"The change in sick-day policy replaced a relationship that respected the honour of the firefighters with one that put a price on their obedience. Instead of treating showing up to work over the holidays as a duty, it became something they could buy their way out of. Many decided the price was worth paying."
 
While I agree with all of this as an explanation as to why financial incentives will often produce unintended outcomes, whether this is the same as saying self-interest is not the primary driver of behavior overall seems less clear. My sense is that humans act largely according to their perceived self-interest. A broad definition of 'self-interest' therefore includes the need to build identities that enhance our self-esteem and satisfy our need to belong to a larger group. In other words, it is consistent with our self-interest for us to reject financial incentives when they harm our moral or psychological wellbeing:
 
"Prices crowd out goodwill because they are not just incentives. They convey messages too. In the simplest cases, they can signal that the domain of the incentive is not the proper home for moral concerns."
 
In this way, it is easy to arrive at the conclusion that true altruism does not exist. In other words, people donate to charities or volunteer their time (or work as firefighters) because doing so makes them feel better about themselves – it reinforces their perception of themselves as being the kind of person that helps others. The key seems to me to be the importance of instilling certain values in people at an early age (e.g., good parenting and good education) that builds the need to define an individual's self-interest in terms of the wellbeing of the society in which they are based, rather than in terms of a narrow focus on personal success and material gain.
 
Take care
David
 
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler4e
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
 
 
When greed isn't good
By Robert Armstrong
August 20/21, 2016
Financial Times Weekend, Life & Arts
Late Edition – Final
8
 

Friday, November 18, 2016

Strategic CSR - Biometric data

The article in the url below highlights the growing complexity of the task facing companies that are collecting ever growing amounts of their employees' personal data:
 
"As the advent of widescale use of biometric data approaches, companies already struggling to protect the personal information of their employees and business partners will have to ramp up their security to even higher levels to protect the even-more-sensitive fingerprints and iris scans that will be in their possession."
 
In particular, the concern is with innovations that are designed in to increase security by relying on biometric data for identification. The reason these data are more secure is because they are unique to the individual. While this increases security, however, it also raises the stakes should those data be compromised:
 
"While the ramifications of a stolen password can be a pain for the affected person or company, the password can be changed and the damage limited. But stealing someone's fingerprint, palm print or iris scan can lead to a lifetime of problems, said David Meyer, vice president of products, OneLogin, an identity and access-management firm. 'The risks or consequences if biometric data get compromised are larger than if a password secret gets compromised,' said Mr. Meyer. A person can always change their password or get a new ID badge, 'but they can't change their fingerprint or facial geometry.'"
 
Hmmmmmm. In practice, however, I wonder how different this is. While a password can certainly be reset, I am not sure that a social security number (National Insurance number in the UK) can be changed nearly so easily – perhaps about as easily as someone's "facial geometry." And, as far as I am aware, my SSN has been compromised so many times, it is surely available to the highest bidder on various dodgy websites. Clearly there is an emerging business opportunity for someone who can develop a cosmetic surgery process to alter fingerprints – no doubt, iris scans will be a little more complicated.
 
Have a good weekend
David
 
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler4e
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
 
 
Biometric Data Raises Privacy Stakes
By Ben DiPietro
July 25, 2016
The Wall Street Journal
 

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Strategic CSR - Exxon

The article in the url below contains good news from Exxon:
 
"Exxon Mobil Corp. is ramping up its lobbying of other energy companies to support a carbon tax, marking a shift in the oil giant's approach to climate change as the industry faces growing pressure to address the politically charged issue."
 
The shift is not in terms of policy, but the level of effort Exxon is willing to invest in bringing about a carbon tax:
 
"Exxon's official position has long been the same—a carbon tax is the best way to address the risks of warming temperatures—but it has done little to actively advocate for that goal in recent years. Lately, Exxon has been making the case with its U.S. counterparts to support a carbon tax, arguing that the industry must not oppose all climate policies, according to people familiar with Exxon's thinking."
 
In spite of what you might think due to the company's ongoing tussle with the NY Attorney General, the article reports that Exxon's interest appears to be genuine:
 
"Top Exxon officials have been more vocal about their support for a carbon tax and have met with Capitol Hill offices about related legislation, according to the company's recent lobby disclosure forms. For the past six months, Exxon has been asserting its position more in meetings within trade associations, including the American Petroleum Institute and American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, according to multiple reports from people who have attended meetings with Exxon officials."
 
The cynical side of me is guessing Exxon's enthusiasm is based on its relative efficiency. In other words, if costs are pushed up for the industry as a whole, they will have a greater impact on less efficient companies, while more efficient companies (such as Exxon) will be better able to absorb the additional costs. This is why Walmart has long-supported an increase in the minimum wage – the firm pays above industry average and is more efficient than its competitors. The fear for companies with low-cost business-level strategies (such as Exxon and Walmart) is that costs will be implemented selectively or that they will be pressured to voluntarily take on additional costs to which other firms are not exposed. A carbon tax, of course, represents an increase in costs relative to the amount of carbon produced (and sold).
 
Having said that, a carbon tax is uniformly recognized by economists to be the best way to tackle climate change. Similarly, any solution to the consumption of fossil fuels has to involve the biggest industry players. As such, the fact that Exxon is willing to raise its public profile in support of a tax is absolutely a step in the right direction. In an ideal world, Exxon, and BP, and Shell, and Chevron, etc., will be incentivized by their stakeholders to shift their efforts (in particular, R&D) towards renewable energies, and shift quickly.
 
After that, we can work out what to do about the really big players in the global energy markets – the state backed companies, such as Aramco (Saudi Arabia), Sinopec (China), and Gazprom (Russia). As I said, in an ideal world …. And, suddenly, we are in a world that is far from ideal.
 
Take care
David
 
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler4e
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
 
 
Exxon Touts Carbon Tax to Rivals
By Amy Harder and Bradley Olsen
July 1, 2016
The Wall Street Journal
Late Edition – Final
B6
 
 

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Strategic CSR - Ethics and compliance

The field of ethics and compliance has long been conflicted. This is demonstrated in the range of titles assigned to people responsible for ethics/compliance in organizations – are they Ethics Officers or Compliance Officers or Ethics and Compliance Officers (or any of the other myriad of titles assigned to people essentially doing the same job)? This conflict is also apparent in the name of the leading association representing these managers, which was originally the Ethics Officers Association (EOA), then it became the Ethics and Compliance Officers Association (ECOA), and now, for some reason, is called the Ethics and Compliance Initiative (ECI) – an "initiative," to me, seems much weaker than an "association."
 
But, anyway. In general, my sense is that the tail has been wagging the dog a bit. In an effort to broaden their appeal to as many managers as possible (and, therefore, maintain or increase membership), the ECI has twisted itself to reflect the morphing field, rather than standing on principle for something 'pure' and shaping the field. The article in the url below supports this argument, suggesting that the consequences of this passive approach might be causing confusion in the executive suite about the role of these essential managers (note: the SCCE is a separate organization representing ethics and compliance officers):
 
"A survey of compliance and ethics professionals by the Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics found 50% said promoting an ethical culture is the top job for an ethics and compliance program, while 35% said it is to prevent and detect misconduct."
 
In particular:
 
"When asked what they thought management believed the top objective is, 43% said meeting regulatory requirements, while 29% said preventing and detecting misconduct. When asked what they thought the board believed, 28% said to prevent and detect misconduct."
 
These survey results reflect confusion as to whether the role of these officers is to build an ethical culture that is likely to prevent misconduct (ethics) or to comply with existing legislation that minimizes the impact of any misconduct should it occur (compliance). While it is clearly more effective for a firm to prevent misconduct, that is also the more expensive option since it involves investment across the whole organization in multiple initiatives, some of which may help prevent misconduct while others are probably unnecessary. The cheaper (and more cynical) option is to wait for misconduct to emerge and then act to minimize the fallout. While this latter approach might be cheaper in the short-term, however, the danger is that it generates much longer-term issues that can seriously threaten the organization's viability (e.g. VW, Wells Fargo, etc.). My suggestion to the ethics and compliance field, therefore, is to start shaping the field in a way that corrects misunderstandings among firms' senior ranks, rather than merely trying to reflect it.
 
Take care
David
 
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler4e
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
 
 
Differing Views on Ethics & Compliance
By Ben DiPietro
July 25, 2016
The Wall Street Journal
 

Friday, November 11, 2016

Strategic CSR - McDonald's

Anyone who has worked in the restaurant industry knows that many chefs like fast-food. The article in the url below challenges some of the best chefs in the world to apply their discerning palates to identify which fast food chain is getting it right (or at least, less wrong). The results indicate the scale of the challenge facing McDonald's as the fast-food industry responds to consumer demands for healthier (yet, good tasting and cheap) meals. While different chefs liked different chains, it seems that none of them think McDonald's food is worth eating:
 
"At the airport. En route to another critical meeting. Fast food is everywhere, and unavoidable. Even celebrity chefs producing the world's most-praised meals have an occasional hankering. So where do they get their fix? We asked them, and alongside the predictable Shake Shack and KFC were some surprising results. More were notable by their absence. We're looking at you, McDonald's."
 
The range of fast-food outlets selected is impressive. In terms of burgers, Shake Shack and In-N-Out Burger both get mentioned twice, while Five Guys also gets noted. As the quote indicates, however, McDonald's is notable by its absence from consideration.
 
Hope you all have a good weekend.
David
 
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler4e
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
 
 
The Best Fast Food, Picked by the World's Top Chefs
By Richard Vines
July 21, 2016
Bloomberg Businessweek
 

Monday, November 7, 2016

Strategic CSR - Tesla

The article in the url below poses an ethical challenge for Tesla that stems directly from the company's growing economic success:
 
"What Happens When You Die Waiting for a Tesla?"
 
According to actuary statistics, this is much more than an artificial thought exercise:
 
"There were 821.5 deaths in the U.S. per 100,000 people as of 2013, the most recent data available, and the newest car from Tesla Motors Inc. isn't scheduled to begin shipping until late 2017. That leaves at least 18 months during which one among the hundreds of thousands of Model 3 hopefuls could be found at the supercharger station in the sky. What's more, owners of Tesla's pricier Model S sedans have tended to be overwhelmingly male and over the age of 45, according to data from Edmunds.com, so we aren't exactly speculating about an actuarially invincible cohort here."
 
The lease governing the refundable deposits for the new Model 3 suggests the company did not think of this in advance – another indication that the success of the Model 3's launch vastly exceeded expectations:
 
"A deceased Model 3 buyer will have plopped down a refundable $1,000 deposit to hold a place on Tesla's waitlist, agreeing to a one-page contract that explicitly blocks transfers to another buyer. A particularly forward-looking person on the Model 3 waitlist might list the reservation in his or her will, but death doesn't invalidate the terms."
 
It seems that the deposit, in itself, does not provide the right to purchase a car – a clause in the contract designed to prevent a different problem:
 
"The contract warns that a 'reservation is not transferrable or assignable to another party without the prior written approval of Tesla,' and a Tesla representative said these terms are designed to prevent line squatters from hoarding reservations with plans to sell them off to the highest bidder as shipping day approaches."
 
Reassuringly:
 
"So far there have been no known deaths on the Model 3 waitlist."
 
Take care
David
 
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler4e
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
 
 
What Happens When You Die Waiting for a Tesla?
By Polly Mosendez
July 13, 2016
Bloomberg Businessweek
 

Thursday, November 3, 2016

Strategic CSR - GMOs

The article in the first url below provides an update on the Vermont law that went into effect earlier this year requiring firms to label products containing GMO ingredients (see Strategic CSR – GMOs). Rather than have firms deal with piecemeal legislation, state-by-state, Congress has now acted to pass federal law that supersedes any individual state's legislation. Unfortunately, the new law looks as though it is a victory for large companies and their lobbying budgets, rather than clarity for consumers:
 
"In a victory for food companies, Congress has passed a federal requirement for labeling products made with genetically modified organisms that will supersede tougher measures passed by one U.S. state and considered in others. The bill will require labels to be reworked or updated to show whether any of the ingredients had their natural DNA altered, but will take years to phase in and will give companies the option of using straightforward language, digital codes or a symbol to be designed later. The terms are in contrast to a law that went into effect this month in Vermont. That law required food manufacturers and grocers selling prepared foods explicitly to label items that contained GMO ingredients by January. Companies that violate the law face fines of as much as $1,000 a day."
 
By the time this law takes effect, at least in the US, it is going to be hard to find any food without ingredients that have "had their natural DNA altered" in some way:
 
"GMOs, used in the U.S. for about two decades with federal approval, are crops whose genes have been engineered to make them resistant to pests, better able to withstand drought and otherwise hardier. Federal regulators have approved the GMO seeds on the market, but environmentalists and natural food supporters say they can hurt the environment and rely on herbicides that could harm consumers. The vast majority of corn and soybeans grown in the U.S. is genetically engineered, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association trade group estimates that 70% to 80% of foods eaten in the U.S. contain ingredients that have been genetically modified."
 
While I support the science behind GMOs (which is pretty clear that there are no demonstrated negative effects from producing and consuming foods containing GMOs), I also believe that consumers should be able to decide for themselves whether they choose to ingest these products. As a general rule, transparency is always a good thing in communication between firms and all their stakeholders. Hopefully, those firms sufficiently progressive to see where the national debate is heading will voluntarily begin labelling their products accurately:
 
"Some big companies including Campbell Sound Co., General Mills Inc., Kellogg Co. and Mars Inc. went ahead and began placing GMO-labeled items on store shelves several months ago nationwide either in response to consumer demand or Vermont's law. Danone SA said on Thursday that it would also begin to label GMO ingredients in yogurts made for the U.S. market. A Campbell spokeswoman said the U.S.'s largest soup manufacturer will continue to print labels with words related to GMO ingredients, and the company is in discussions with federal regulators about the language. A Mars Inc. spokesman said the company is sticking with the text it has applied to products containing engineered ingredients for now. General Mills will review the regulations and assess consumer preference before developing its long-term plan on labeling, a spokesman said."
 
The article in the second url below reports on a more recent executive order that further standardizes what is considered to be a 'genetically-modified organism' and stipulates how companies will have to convey this information to their customers, even while breaking them in gently:
 
"The new law mandates that the Department of Agriculture define what constitutes a genetically modified food ingredient and then requires food manufacturers to label products that contain them. Disappointment among labeling proponents stems from the latitude the law gives food companies in how this labeling is done."
 
As the article concludes, however, GMOs are only one (and far from the most pressing) among many issues surrounding food quality and labeling:
 
"Of course, there is much more we could know about our food than whether it was genetically engineered. Now that we're 'allowed' to know about G.M.O.s, there are some other questions about the food we buy that we might like answered. For example: Where are the ingredients from? Were antibiotics routinely administered to animals? What pesticides and other chemicals were used, and do traces of these chemicals remain? Was animal welfare considered, and how? What farming practices were used? How much water was required? Let's really get down to it. Were the workers who sweated to put food on my table paid at least minimum wage? Did they get health benefits? Overtime? Were they unionized? Protected from pesticide exposure?"
 
Take care
David
 
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler4e
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
 
 
Congress Sets Rules for GMO Labels
By Heather Haddon
July 15, 2016
The Wall Street Journal
Late Edition – Final
B3
 
G.M.O. Labeling Law Could Stir a Revolution
By Mark Bittman
September 2, 2016
The New York Times
Late Edition – Final
A19