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.

Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts

Thursday, May 2, 2024

Strategic CSR - AMZN

 
This is the last CSR Newsletter of the Spring semester.
Have a great summer and I will see you in the Fall!


This video is a fascinating resource for anyone interested in the waste-driven online retail economy we have created – both the reality of e-commerce and its long-term implications:


One of the notable quotes about online returns, most of which end up in a landfill:

"E-commerce results in 25 percent of all goods sold being returned. Brick and mortar is about 7 and a half percent."

Of course, although there is no immediate cost to the consumer of returning an unwanted item, the cost of providing that convenience is built into the system, whether internalized in the price of future items, or externalized in the environmental impact of all that economic activity.

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Where Online Returns Really End Up And What Amazon Is Doing About It
January 27, 2022
CNBC
 

Thursday, January 18, 2024

Strategic CSR - Welcome back!


Welcome back to the Strategic CSR Newsletter!
The first newsletter of the Spring semester is below.
As always, your comments and ideas are welcome.
 

In the aftermath of the consumption and materialistic fueled holiday season, the video in the url below reveals the extent of waste that is embedded in the growing economy of online retail:


The video features Amazon, but really applies to all online retail and fast fashion (e.g., see Strategic CSR – Fast fashion and Strategic CSR – Casper). While the video clearly identifies a problem, however, it also suggests Amazon is fully aware of the problem and, encouragingly, is trying to do something about it.

Have a great semester.
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Where Online Returns Really End Up and What Amazon Is Doing About It
January 27, 2022
CNBC
 

Thursday, November 11, 2021

Strategic CSR - Anonymity

The article in the url below is interesting because it is tackling online trolls. Specifically, it addresses the idea that allowing anonymity online increases the overall tension and amount of abuse that we see every day on social media:

"In early July, when England's soccer team lost the European Championship final to Italy on its home turf, the crushing defeat was followed by a torrent of racist abuse on social media directed at the team's Black players. … this episode renewed calls for tech companies to enforce identity verification for their users. A petition of the British government demanding that it make 'verified ID a requirement for opening a social media account' has more than 688,000 signatures. 'We have rights to free speech and association, but as real people, not fake people,' wrote Paul Mason, a columnist for The New Statesman."

Instead, the article questions whether online anonymity is even possible:

"After a decade in which online identity came under increasingly centralized control, in which various digital and offline identities were mingled, and during which personal data became a hot global commodity, control over one's identity is starting to look more like a threatened privilege than a right. To exist online is to be constantly asked to show yourself."

More important, however, the article reports research suggesting that anonymity (or, more likely, "pseudonymity" – the use of a pseudonym to mask our real identity) is not as obvious a cause of online abuse as people might think. First, the author reports research suggesting that anonymity online does not produce the behavior that is commonly attributed to it:

"In studies, for example, anonymous actors tend to be more, not less, sensitive to group norms. More than half of victims of online harassment already know their harassers. While there is scant evidence that 'real name' policies mitigate abuse, there is plenty suggesting that asking people to expose more private information can intensify it. Researchers have found that, in some contexts, the most aggressive commenters have been observed to be more likely to reveal their identities."

Second, the author makes the case that, even if being forced to engage online under our true identities would reduce online abuse for some, it would raise the prospect of real-life abuse for other, more vulnerable groups:

"Writing in response to recent calls for the end of anonymity, the journalist Hussein Kesvani reiterated concerns that compelling identifying information from the most vulnerable could leave them worse off. He also pointed to smaller but more universal losses. … Mr. Kesvani, who recently published a book on the online life of young Muslims, said his research subjects described anonymity and pseudonymity as ways to avoid the gazes of their families, to explore beyond their denominational communities and to socialize — in other words, more or less the same reasons any young person might desire privacy, online or off."

Perhaps more controversially, the author also argues that we already adopt different norms and standards of behavior in the many different facets of our real world lives:

"Of course people might want to construct a new identity [online], out of sight of, say, teachers or co-workers. In this context, asking why someone might say or do something online that they wouldn't in person is as absurd as asking if they'd act the same way in front of their closest friends as they would in front of their parents."

And, then there are developing norms within certain communities where even the concept of your 'real' name is complicated:

"In 2014, during a push to enforce a 'real name' policy across its platform, Facebook found itself directly at odds with transgender users, among many others, for whom chosen names were a condition of using the platform safely, or at all."

Evolving technology, however, threatens to render much of this discussion moot, in a way that is not reassuring:

"Today, it's hard to overstate just how thoroughly connected a typical internet user's various identities — legal, chosen, assigned — have become. … Facial-recognition technology threatens to tie together all of our identities, everywhere and always."

In other words, while you might be able to 'mask' your true identity in one forum, the idea that everything is connected and someone always knows who you are, is a reality that does not seem far away.

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2020

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Rethinking the Divide Over Psudonymity Online
By John Herrman
August 1, 2021
The New York Times
Late Edition – Final
ST9
 

Friday, November 20, 2020

Strategic CSR - Food stamps

The article in the url below details yet another example of how Amazon is able to adapt to and take advantage of our growing desire to shop online:

"Ian Babcock used to take the bus from his home in northern Michigan to get groceries, a trip that was inconvenient before the pandemic made it dangerous. For the last several months, he's been using his food-stamp benefits to get groceries delivered by Amazon."

Demonstrating great flexibility, it seems that the government agency in charge of administering food stamps in the U.S. (the Department of Agriculture) was responsible for allowing them to be used for online shopping, an option that is now available "for shoppers in 46 states and the District of Columbia." It has clearly been beneficial for many in navigating the pandemic and associated lockdowns this year:

"Babcock is among one million-plus U.S. households now using government benefits each month to buy groceries online. Their numbers spiked 50-fold this year after the spread of Covid-19 prompted the U.S. Department of Agriculture to make it easier for food-stamp recipients to shop on the web."

Perhaps predictably, the greatest beneficiaries of this move (beyond the customers themselves) is those companies large enough to deal with the bureaucracy of the U.S. government:

"While the USDA declined to provide an industry breakdown of such purchases, the main beneficiaries are Amazon.com Inc. and Walmart Inc. -- the only retailers in most states to take part in the agency's online shopping pilot."

And why would Amazon and Walmart bother with this? Of course because it increases their market share, but also because there is a lot of money to be made in serving the needs of those who have been hit the hardest by the pandemic and subsequent recession:

"For Seattle-based Amazon, the USDA program is an opportunity to get a chunk of the $55 billion that food-stamp recipients spent last year, purchasing that surged 20% in the first four months of 2020. It also lets the company court a cohort that has traditionally patronized Walmart or other discount grocers. Amazon is nearing saturation with higher-income U.S. households and has few other sources of new, potentially loyal customers in its most important market."

The spread of the U.S. government's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) program, and the obvious value it is creating for those in need, is apparent in the graph that accompanies the article:
 


As with Walmart, and any other large retailer that dominates its market, Amazon is succeeding because it is delivering what people want and, in cases such as this, cannot get elsewhere:

"When Michigan joined the program in May, Babcock, who suffers chronic health problems and has a suppressed immune system, started using his benefits to buy groceries on Amazon. The 55-year-old former financial planner, computer programmer and self-described veteran of Detroit's hardcore punk scene, also has a discounted Prime membership available to holders of Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) cards. Referring to Amazon Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bezos, he said 'the guy is making money hand over fist, but he's providing a service I can't get elsewhere.'"

What started out as a pilot program by the USDA looks set to become even more popular as the virus rages on. It is difficult to imagine people shedding the convenience once life returns to something resembling normal:

"Ruth Ilano, a comic artist in Massachusetts with multiple sclerosis, was making a quick trip to the store in May when she collapsed. She hasn't gone inside a supermarket since and is using SNAP benefits to help pay for groceries online. 'Online delivery was previously a nice touch,' she said. 'But now it's absolutely essential to my life.'"

Have a good weekend
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2020

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Amazon Lures Food-stamp Shoppers as Online Buying Surges 50-fold
By Matt Day
November 11, 2020
Bloomberg Businessweek

Thursday, February 6, 2020

Strategic CSR - Amazon

The articles in the two urls below (which appeared soon after each other, either side of Black Friday in the NYT) indicate some of the consequences of the growth in online purchases that need to be delivered to our houses. The first article discusses the closure of a convenience store in Manhattan that appears to offer everything you would want in a neighborhood store:
 
"On Ninth Avenue in Manhattan, not far from where I live, there's a small neighborhood hardware store called Chelsea Convenience Hardware. … Inside, tools and supplies are piled to the ceiling, and when you enter, the owner, Naum Feygin, an immigrant from Boris Yeltsin's Russia, looks up to ask you what you need. The 'convenience' in the store's name is no misnomer, for the place is extraordinarily efficient. It is cheaper and faster than ordering from Amazon and offers expert advice that reduces the risk of buying the wrong thing. It is all too easy on Amazon, for example, to buy halogen bulbs that don't fit your lamp base; Mr. Feygin has spared me many such headaches. And the store's small size is a virtue: Unlike at Home Depot, you can be in and out in 10 minutes."
 
In spite of being more convenient, Mr Feygin's store is in trouble and is due to close. The author argues this doesn't make sense, but is also symptomatic of the online shopping world in which we now live:
 
"The closing is of no great economic significance, other than to Mr. Feygin. But it is a microcosm of the forces reshaping the United States economy, often paradoxically and for the worse. Why is a less efficient, less personalized and more wasteful way of buying screws and plungers — ordering online — displacing the local hardware store?"
 
The author answers his own question by arguing it is the perception of convenience (rather than actual convenience) that appears to be driving more people to prefer to shop online:
 
"Here we can see how an ideology of convenience is reshaping the economy. Ordering things like tape or bolts online is rarely cheaper or faster than popping down to the local hardware store — not to mention the wasteful packaging — but many of us do it anyhow. Clicking on a product from the comfort of your couch seems more convenient — and that impression of ease can have more influence on our behavior than better service, quicker acquisition and lower prices."
 
Mr Feygin sums this up more succinctly:
 
"'Amazon, eBay,' he explains. 'People ordering without advice.' They might not get what they need, but still they order online."
 
The second article comments on a more surprising consequence of our online economy (at least in terms of the scale of the problem). It reports the massive number of packages that go missing on a daily basis in the U.S. I was shocked to see the number of packages that never arrive in Manhattan:
 
"In New York City, where more orders are delivered than anywhere else in the country, over 90,000 packages a day are stolen or disappear without explanation, up roughly 20 percent from four years ago, according to an analysis conducted for The New York Times."
 
But, this is not just a big-city phenomenon:
 
"About 15 percent of all deliveries in urban areas fail to reach customers because of package theft and other less frequent issues, like deliveries to the wrong house, according to transportation experts. In suburbs and rural areas, thieves often follow delivery trucks and snatch just-delivered packages from homes, often out of sight of neighbors."
 
The result is what must be a major headache for Amazon (and other online retailers):
 
"Around the country, more than 1.7 million packages are stolen or go missing every day – adding up to more than $25 million in lost goods and services, according to an analysis for The Times. … In a new survey by insuranceQuotes.com, an online insurance service, nearly 1 in 5 respondents nationally reported having had a package stolen."
 
The article contains some of the solutions both people receiving the packages and the companies sending them are trying to implement in response. Although there is not much data to go on, however, it appears to be a problem that is increasing and is set to get worse:
 
"Most police departments do not track package thefts, but those that have examined the problem have reported notable increases. The Denver Police Department started compiling data on package thefts in 2015, and has seen a 68 percent increase in reported cases, to 708 last year, from 421 four years ago. In Washington D.C., 1,846 cases of package theft were reported as of mid-November, already exceeding last year's total of 1,546 cases, according to police records."
 
Take care
David
 
David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2020
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
 

Better, Cheaper and Faster than Amazon

By Tim Wu
November 24, 2019
The New York Times
Late Edition – Final
SR10
 

Battling Thieves, When 90,000 Packages a Day Go Missing

By Winnie Hu and Matthew Haag
December 3, 2019
The New York Times
Late Edition – Final
A21
 

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

Strategic CSR - Facebook

The article in the url below expands the debate about the damaging effects of social media by discussing the pros/cons of scientific progress:
 
"Seeing science and the tools and connections it provides as a good in itself is profoundly dangerous and wrong."
 
More specifically, the author relates his critique to the dangers posed by the IT companies that currently dominate our economies:
 
"Founded by young computer engineers, Facebook, Google and other Silicon Valley companies have been happy to view their powerful inventions as neutral platforms. … These companies have converted an engineer's disregard for real-world outcomes into a libertarian ideology that belittles the harms that stem from their platforms and rejects rules and regulations meant to prevent those harms."
 
In this light, is the offer of a free internet connection (with strings attached) in the developing world an act of altruism or a step closer to world domination?
 
"And when India rejected a proposal from Facebook to introduce a free version of internet access that was limited to Facebook and a small assortment of other sites, Mark Zuckerberg, the company's chief executive, responded more in sorrow than anger. 'History tells us that helping people is always a better path then shutting them out,' he explained, gliding past the Indian government's argument that introducing incomplete access to the internet was a worse path."
 
It seems that times have changed in the Facebook universe:
 
"… with the announcement last week by Mr. Zuckerberg that the company felt 'a responsibility to make sure our services aren't just fun to use, but also good for people's well-being.' In practical terms, this means that Facebook will be reducing the amount of so-called public content — often provocative posts from businesses and news organizations — in favor of personal content, posts from friends and family."
 
The interesting question this back-and-forth raises is whether the good intentions of Facebook, combined with the libertarian ideology of free and unlimited online access, helps or hinders society as a whole:
 
"The public faces the unsatisfying question: Is it better to suffer an engineer's neglect or an engineer's concern?"
 
One reason for concern is that Facebook has been using data to manipulate its users ever since its inception:
 
"Since Facebook's earliest days, Mr. Zuckerberg has been fascinated by the power to understand and manipulate users by applying algorithms to the data it collects. … Through this deep knowledge of its users, Mr. Zuckerberg explained, Facebook could determine 'what actually matters to each person on a more granular level.' More than a decade later, Facebook is still using these social-engineering tools to probe its users' psyches. Now, however, the company, which reported $4.7 billion in profits in the third quarter, assures us that these tools will be refashioned to take account of the health of our society."
 
The trouble is that Facebook's own engineers cannot calculate whether the net effects of social media on society are positive or negative. As the company concluded in a report late last year:
 
"'When people spend a lot of time passively consuming information — reading but not interacting with people — they report feeling worse afterward," the company said. By contrast, "actively interacting with people — especially sharing messages, posts and comments with close friends and reminiscing about past interactions — is linked to improvements in well-being.'"
 
Do we trust Mark Zuckerberg this time around?
 
"Mr. Zuckerberg says Facebook will be steering users to healthier interactions. 'I expect the time people spend on Facebook and some measures of engagement will go down,' he wrote in a post on Facebook. 'But I also expect the time you do spend on Facebook will be more valuable. And if we do the right thing, I believe that will be good for our community and our business over the long term too.'"
 
For that to be true, we need to trust that Zuckerberg can achieve his goals (without too much collateral damage) and that his determination of 'good' is something we can all agree on. Or, at least, live with:
 
"Turns out, an enlightened, socially engaged Facebook has a similar outlook as the amoral, audience-seeking Facebook. Each sees connecting online as key to the good life. In other words, don't count on Facebook to disrupt Facebook any time soon."
 
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/
 
 
Facebook Doesn't Like What It Sees in the Mirror
By Noam Cohen
January 17, 2018
The New York Times
Late Edition – Final
A19
 

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Strategic CSR - Facebook

The article in the url below tackles the issue of online privacy, focusing particular on the relationship we have as consumers with social media:
 
"FACEBOOK. Instagram. Google. Twitter. All services we rely on — and all services we believe we don't have to pay for. Not with cash, anyway. But ad-financed Internet platforms aren't free, and the price they extract in terms of privacy and control is getting only costlier."
 
The price the author is referring to is our privacy, which we surrender in terms of the information that we provide in return for the service. The problem, the author argues, is that online ads are not very effective unless they are expertly targeted, which requires a great deal of information about the user:
 
"Mr. Zuckerberg points out that Facebook makes about 20 cents per user per month in profit. This is a pitiful sum, especially since the average user spends an impressive 20 hours on Facebook every month, according to the company. This paltry profit margin drives the business model: Internet ads are basically worthless unless they are hyper-targeted based on tracking and extensive profiling of users. This is a bad bargain, especially since two-thirds of American adults don't want ads that target them based on that tracking and analysis of personal behavior."
 
Because, even when targeted, ads do not generate much revenue, only those firms with the largest customer bases can be profitable using this business model. This therefore incentivizes companies to prioritize increasing member numbers and the amount of time each person stays on their website, rather than necessarily developing the best product:
 
"Ad-based businesses distort our online interactions. People flock to Internet platforms because they help us connect with one another or the world's bounty of information — a crucial, valuable function. Yet ad-based financing means that the companies have an interest in manipulating our attention on behalf of advertisers, instead of letting us connect as we wish. Many users think their feed shows everything that their friends post. It doesn't. Facebook runs its billion-plus users' newsfeed by a proprietary, ever-changing algorithm that decides what we see. If Facebook didn't have to control the feed to keep us on the site longer and to inject ads into our stream, it could instead offer us control over this algorithm."
 
The solution that the author offers is for those users who do not want to sacrifice control over their privacy to pay an amount equal to that generated by the online ads:
 
"What to do? It's simple: Internet sites should allow their users to be the customers. I would, as I bet many others would, happily pay more than 20 cents per month for a Facebook or a Google that did not track me, upgraded its encryption and treated me as a customer whose preferences and privacy matter."
 
The argument against a fee-based service is why should the user pay for something they currently get for free. The author argues this logic only holds if you discount the value of the information the user provides in return. A broader definition of 'value' reframes the debate about the costs associated with our use of social media.
 
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/
 
 
What 'Free' Really Costs
By Zeynep Tufekci
June 4, 2015
The New York Times
Late Edition – Final
A23
 

Monday, October 19, 2015

Strategic CSR - The internet

The article in the url below questions the value of the internet from a society-wide perspective. It is a review of a book titled The Internet Is Not The Answer, which takes a broad look at how the internet has changed us and the way we interact, and questions whether we are better off as a result:
 
"Andrew Keen should proudly wear the label of 21st-century Luddite. His new book … is a packed compendium of all the ways digital life casts aside basic human virtues in favor of a rapacious, winner-takes-all economy."
 
The review highlights two aspects of Keen's argument – the effects of the internet on economic exchange and on social exchange. In terms of commerce, Keen notes that the most successful internet companies today employ a fraction of the people of the companies they are replacing:
 
"He points to what he describes as Amazon's brutally efficient business methodology, which has squeezed jobs out of every sector of retail, according to a 2013 Institute for Local Self-Reliance report that Keen cites. The report says brick-and-mortar retailers employ 47 people for every $10 million in sales, while Amazon employs only 14. … [Also] consider that the 700-person start-up Airbnb, which allows users to rent their apartments like hotel rooms, was valued at $10 billion this past spring [now $40 billion], about half as much as the Hilton corporation, which employs 152,000 people. Meanwhile, … the car-sharing company Uber employs 1,000 people and is valued at $18.2 billion, which gives it about the same valuation as Avis and Hertz combined — except that those two car-rental companies employ almost 60,000 people."
 
In terms of social exchange, Keen focuses on what David Brooks has called the "culture of me" (see Strategic CSR – Moral character):
 
"In a chapter called 'The Personal Revolution,' he describes our descent into 'the pre-Copernican belief' that the universe revolves around us: Social networks such as Instagram, Facebook and Twitter encourage an ahistorical mentality, and while they promise to get us in touch with others, they usually breed narcissists instead. … Consider: 'Almost 50% of the photos taken on Instagram in the United Kingdom by 14-21-year-olds are selfies, many of whom use this medium to reify their existence.'"
 
In conclusion, the reviewer states:
 
"The Internet is, indeed, not the answer. It is, rather, the all-consuming question of the first half of the 21st century."
 
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/
 
 
No, the Web isn't making the world a better place
By Michael Harris
January 2, 2015
The Washington Post
Late Edition – Final
36
 

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Strategic CSR - Addictions

The article in the url below is an interesting reflection on our relationship with the internet, in general, and the electronic devices that allow us to access the internet, in particular. As the author notes, we are connected online today in ways that would have been unimaginable only a few years ago:
 
"It is reckoned that four-fifths of smartphone owners check their devices within 15 minutes of waking up, and that the typical user does so 150 times a day."
 
The core issue in the article is the extent to which the manufacturers of these devices are aware of our growing addiction and deliberately design their products to take advantage of it. Their intention, it is suggested, is to increase our dependence:
 
"Internet entrepreneurs devote a lot of thought to getting people hooked on their products. How else can they survive in a world in which hundreds of new ones are launched every day? And smartphones and tablets have helped greatly: what could be more habit-forming than devices that are always evolving, always there and always buzzing with fresh diversions?"
 
As the tobacco companies realized a long time ago, of course, the advantage of an addictive product is that it is very good at generating loyal consumers and, therefore, predictable revenues:
 
"Habit-forming products help companies squeeze more money or information out of their customers. Some video-game makers get players hooked and then charge them for virtual products. … Google specialises in useful apps, from Gmail to Google Maps, that gently squeeze data from users, the better to serve them ads. … Getting started on Twitter or Facebook is simple; but the more you tweet, the better and more popular your Twitter account becomes, and the more you search for friends and family on Facebook the more useful it is."
 
Ultimately, however, the author has a more specific point that he wants to make:
 
"Should the makers of habit-forming products be praised as innovative entrepreneurs? Or shunned as the immoral equivalents of drug pushers?"
 
Taken to the extreme, the line seems fine between meeting consumers' needs and taking over our lives:
 
"As smartphones become loaded with ever more sensors, and with software that can interpret their users' emotional states, the scope for manipulating minds is growing. The world is also on the cusp of a wearable revolution which will fix Google Glasses to people's skulls and put smart T-shirts onto their torsos: the irresistible, all-knowing machines will be ever more ubiquitous. And the trouble with insatiable desires is that the struggle to sate them leaves everyone as exhausted as they are unfulfilled."
 
Defenders of the industry note that the distinction between habit and addiction is valid and important:
 
"Creating a habit-forming product is in fact very hard. There have been plenty of digital products, such as Farmville, that were crazes for a while but went out of fashion. There is an important distinction between a habit and an addiction: only about 1% of people who regularly play slot machines, one of the most habit-forming technologies ever created, can reasonably be described as addicted. The proportion is surely lower for Twitter and the like."
 
I don't know about you but, even if the 1% number is true (and I suspect it is higher), 1% of a 300 million active users (Twitter) or 1.2 billion active users (Facebook) seems quite a lot of people.
 
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/
 
 
Getting hooked
By Schumpeter
January 3, 2015
The Economist
Late Edition – Final
53
 

Monday, March 18, 2013

Strategic CSR - Code for America

The article in the url below reveals the power of the internet, as well as providing a way to reinstall faith in government. In particular, it discusses the idea of “Government 2.0,” which draws on “online power to tackle offline problems from city hall on up.” One nonprofit highlighted is Code for America:
 
“… a kind of Peace Corps for geeks. This Gov 2.0 standout handpicks a team of sprightly tech stars each year to give up their lives and jobs for 12 months, offer their services to local governments nationwide and bring the Web to the wide-eyed. This year there are 26 fellows for eight cities, and 550 have applied for the 25 to 30 spots next year. Average age: 28.”
 
Given the opportunity, these young programmers bring innovative approaches to solving long-standing social problems in fractions of the time that government agencies take to introduce solutions that are half as effective:
 
“CfA fellows have designed more than 35 apps, for everything from urban blight to school buses. In New Orleans, they coded a system to more accurately sort the backlog of properties for demolition. In Santa Cruz, Calif., they're streamlining the application process to open a business. The group runs an Accelerator for civic start-ups. Its work presses governments to make information more visible (530 data sets liberated) and helps communities to mobilize (write-a-thons with 2,500 people).”
 
Some of the solutions are simple and some more complex, but all seem to be effective and have broad applicability:
 
“In Boston, snowed-in fire hydrants were a safety hazard. So CfA coded a gamelike Web app inviting locals to adopt hydrants and keep them clear for firefighters. That app went viral: CfA adapted it for Honolulu's tsunami warning sirens (which require battery checks), Seattle's clogged storm drains and Chicago's snow-piled sidewalks.”
 
Part of the initiative’s secret is to treat the group as a start-up firm, rather than a government agency:
 
“Government spending on information technology in 2012 is set at $79.5 billion federally and $55.4 billion for state and local. Meanwhile, to complete one government project—estimated at two years and $2 million—it took a couple of CfA fellows just 2½ months. Here's the trick: CfA fellows are based in an airy warehouse in San Francisco. They bond with each other, not with local bigwigs. … Then, when they fan out to do five-week research residencies within city governments across the country, they act less like sufferers from Stockholm syndrome than a stealth team of computer-savvy SEALs.”
 
The innovation is bringing an open source mentality to local government:
 
“Opaque is out. Openness is the next generation's default setting when they're up against big problems. And their attitude isn't just easygoing; it gets results.”
 
Take care
David
 
 
Instructor Teaching Site: http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
 
 
A Peace Corps for Civic-minded Geeks
By Holly Finn
August 25-26, 2012
The Wall Street Journal
C12
 

Friday, November 23, 2012

Strategic CSR - Facebook

The article in the url below is interesting because it raises the issue of human death and virtual life:

“As the dividing line between our online and offline lives continues to fade, more and more of what happens in the ‘real’ world is also seeping into the online world—and that includes death. So how should we deal with it when our friends or loved ones die?”

The author raises this issue because he recently attended a friend’s funeral and live-tweeted about it during the ceremony. Some of his friends felt this was inappropriate. Another quandary arose when he continued to receive Facebook updates from his deceased friend (his friend’s family had memorialized his Facebook page and continued to send messages to it) and struggled with the decision of whether to delete his friend from his ‘friends’ list’:

“But then I thought about how difficult it had been deleting another friend’s contact information from my cell phone after he died (this was before Facebook became popular) and how it felt as if I were deliberately forgetting about that person, which didn’t feel right. It occurred to me that we often keep photos of loved ones in our wallets or in picture frames on our mantelpieces, as a way of remembering them after they are gone. … So why does it feel so different when we see that person’s avatar pop up in our Facebook feed or a chat window? Perhaps because social media is inherently about communication—and in most cases real-time communication—and that person can no longer be communicated with.”

And these emotional issues pale into comparison with the web of legal conflicts that can arise concerning ownership of a digital profile:

“And Facebook is just one part of the equation when it comes to handling a person’s social media after they die. What about their Twitter account, or their Tumblr account, or even their e-mail? … There are also issues around who owns a user’s social content after he or she dies: Does Facebook own that person’s page and status updates and photos, and if so, what duty do they have to provide it to family members? What about iTunes?”

Ultimately:

“… perhaps it is too much to ask that our virtual worlds be any more comfortable around death than our offline ones are.”

Have a good weekend (and Happy Thanksgiving to those in the U.S.).
David


Instructor Teaching Site: http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Death and Facebook: Blurring the Line Between Real and Virtual
By Matthew Ingram
November 14, 2012
Bloomberg BusinessWeek

Friday, February 10, 2012

Strategic CSR - Slavery

The article in the url below features a website designed to highlight the extent to which slavery is still a component of the supply chain of many products we take for granted (http://www.slaveryfootprint.org/). In particular, the website is designed to address one question:

“Do you know how many slaves work on your behalf? While many people may assume the answer to that provocative and unsettling question is zero, the creators of a new Web site want to demonstrate how forced labor, especially overseas, is tantamount to slavery.”

The goal of the website is two-fold: first, to raise awareness of this issue and second, to mobilize a response:

“Ideally, they hope to get consumers engaged enough in the issue to do something about it, primarily hoping people demand that companies carefully audit supply chains to ensure, as best as they can determine, that no “slave labor” was used to manufacture its products.”

Using a set of eleven questions, the website calculates the role forced labor plays in manufacturing the products you use (“the average is 55”). As you progress through the survey, the website also generates specific facts to reinforce its message:

“There are at least 27 million slaves worldwide. That’s roughly the combined population of Australia and New Zealand. Crikey!”

More information about the Slavery Footprint website is at: http://www.ethicalcorp.com/supply-chains/ngowatch-november-2011

Have a good weekend
David

Monday, February 21, 2011

Strategic CSR - Facebook

The article in the url below, written by a Manager at Facebook, reflects on the negative consequences of anonymity for the general level of civility of online discourse. Anonymity diminishes the level of civil exchange online, the article reasons, because it removes accountability. You can’t be punished for something if no one knows you did it. Freed of these restraints, the extremes of human nature have a tendency to emerge:

“Psychological research has proven again and again that anonymity increases unethical behavior. Road rage bubbles up in the relative anonymity of one's car. And in the online world, which can offer total anonymity, the effect is even more pronounced. People -- even ordinary, good people -- often change their behavior in radical ways. There's even a term for it: the online disinhibition effect.”

The author advocates the removal of anonymity as the solution to the problem. At Facebook, real names and photos are posted next to online comments and the author advocates the widespread adoption of this convention by all online content providers.

The article resonated with me because I wondered if this phenomenon also helps explain why otherwise ethical individuals commit unethical acts at work. From falsifying financial accounts, to polluting rivers, to operating unsafe manufacturing plants, to misrepresentative product ads, there are plenty of examples of corporate actions committed by individuals that none of us would do at home or in our communities. The answer may be because at work people represent their organizations rather than themselves, because the blame for a poor decision is often difficult to assign retrospectively (when everyone is fighting to avoid being blamed), and because society does such a poor job of holding individuals to account for errors (accidental or criminal) committed by firms.

A degree of moral hazard enters the decision making process as a result. While individuals are rewarded for their behavior if they can get away with it (e.g., decreasing costs by avoiding crisis prevention planning for the rare eventuality), they are rarely held to full account if the “once-in-a-lifetime” disaster occurs.

Apart from Tony Hayward, can anyone name another individual at BP who has been held in any way responsible for the Gulf oil spill? Can anyone name anyone who has been held legally responsible?

Take care
David


Instructor Teaching Site: http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt
By JULIE ZHUO
1089 words
30 November 2010
The New York Times
Late Edition - Final
31