The article in the url below makes some interesting points regarding the threat to an organization’s long term mission from the dilution of ownership caused by public listing, but is also a bit of a polemic:
“Stewardship means a sense of responsibility for that which you own and handle every day. It implies that the business should be around for generations, and that the owner is responsible for handing it on to the next generation in better shape than he or she inherited it.”
The author makes sizable assumptions about the motivations of executives, directors, and shareholders of public firms, as well as the consequences of these motivations for the long term health of the organization, which lead the reader to the position he is advocating:
“With the separation of ownership from control in the listed company, stewardship does not disappear, but it does erode. In US markets particularly, the chief executive is judged by shareholders on his or her dependability in “hitting the numbers” – or meeting quarterly earnings targets. There is little room for sentimentality about where the company has come from or whether it will still be around in its current form for the next generation.”
Rather than ownership (private, family owned businesses are just as likely to be managed inefficiently as public companies are likely to be focused on the short term), however, I think that the more important distinction in terms of a threat to the organization’s mission is between different kinds of shareholders (Figure 1.4: The Shareholder Shift—From Investor to Speculator, p14). While investors are more likely to take a longer term perspective, speculators/gamblers take a short term position on whether the share price will rise or fall, irrespective of whether or not it deserves to rise or fall.
Take care
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Essay: Ownership and sustainability – Are listed companies more responsible?
Owners used to be stewards of their company’s future, but this idea has faded in modern publicly-listed companies.
Mark Goyder
July 14, 2008
http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=6004
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
Strategic CSR - The Daily Show vs. CNBC
For those of you who missed Jon Stewart’s lambasting of CNBC on The Daily Show last week, his interview with Jim Cramer (host of Mad Money, http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838459) last Thursday is compelling TV:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=220533
As usual, Stewart employs comedy to great effect. In addition, however, he confronts Cramer with an honesty and directness that you rarely see on current affairs TV in the U.S. Stewart articulates succinctly the behavior of Wall Street that got us into this mess, but also skewers Cramer (and CNBC) for becoming part of the problem, rather than being the journalists they purport to be. As a result, the interview is both entertaining and uncomfortable to watch because Stewart so completely undermines what it is that must get Cramer out of bed every morning to do his show.
Take care
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=220533
As usual, Stewart employs comedy to great effect. In addition, however, he confronts Cramer with an honesty and directness that you rarely see on current affairs TV in the U.S. Stewart articulates succinctly the behavior of Wall Street that got us into this mess, but also skewers Cramer (and CNBC) for becoming part of the problem, rather than being the journalists they purport to be. As a result, the interview is both entertaining and uncomfortable to watch because Stewart so completely undermines what it is that must get Cramer out of bed every morning to do his show.
Take care
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Friday, March 13, 2009
Strategic CSR - Google
The article in the url below outlines a business service run by Google for its staff. Started in 2004, the service is one of the many famous perks of working for Google. Beyond convenience, however, another reason why the firm introduced the scheme was to reduce the number of cars its employees use to commute to and from work:
“Now, four years later, about 1,200 staff ride the internet company's buses every day.”
Rising fuel costs and commute times in certain areas are increasing the popularity of buses, pushing other firms (such as Microsoft) also to introduce similar services:
“Google and Microsoft's buses are technology playgrounds. Both companies' vehicles have free WiFi, so passengers can check e-mail while they commute, and power outlets for those tecchies who can not do without their gadgets.”
Recent reports indicate that some of Google’s perks are being cut as a result of the economic downturn. Which perks are cut and how stringent the cuts are, will be somewhat indicative of Google’s underlying priorities.
Have a good weekend.
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Sit back, relax and enjoy the ride . . . to work
By Rhymer Rigby
732 words
27 May 2008
Financial Times
USA Ed1
12
http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto052620081502011638
An additional article of relevance to this Newsletter:
Perk Place: The Benefits Offered by Google and Others May Be Grand, but They're All Business
Published: March 21, 2007 in Knowledge@Wharton
Free gourmet food, 24-hour gym, yoga classes, in-house doctor, on-site haircuts, dry cleaner, nutritionist, swimming pool ... .These are just some of the perks Google -- and many other organizations -- offer employees. Companies have their reasons, of course: They want to attract and retain the best knowledge-workers they can, help them work long hours by feeding them gourmet meals on-site and handling time-consuming personal chores, and show them that they are valued members of the team. But, as Wharton faculty point out, there may be a potential downside to all this largesse.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/1690.cfm
“Now, four years later, about 1,200 staff ride the internet company's buses every day.”
Rising fuel costs and commute times in certain areas are increasing the popularity of buses, pushing other firms (such as Microsoft) also to introduce similar services:
“Google and Microsoft's buses are technology playgrounds. Both companies' vehicles have free WiFi, so passengers can check e-mail while they commute, and power outlets for those tecchies who can not do without their gadgets.”
Recent reports indicate that some of Google’s perks are being cut as a result of the economic downturn. Which perks are cut and how stringent the cuts are, will be somewhat indicative of Google’s underlying priorities.
Have a good weekend.
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Sit back, relax and enjoy the ride . . . to work
By Rhymer Rigby
732 words
27 May 2008
Financial Times
USA Ed1
12
http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto052620081502011638
An additional article of relevance to this Newsletter:
Perk Place: The Benefits Offered by Google and Others May Be Grand, but They're All Business
Published: March 21, 2007 in Knowledge@Wharton
Free gourmet food, 24-hour gym, yoga classes, in-house doctor, on-site haircuts, dry cleaner, nutritionist, swimming pool ... .These are just some of the perks Google -- and many other organizations -- offer employees. Companies have their reasons, of course: They want to attract and retain the best knowledge-workers they can, help them work long hours by feeding them gourmet meals on-site and handling time-consuming personal chores, and show them that they are valued members of the team. But, as Wharton faculty point out, there may be a potential downside to all this largesse.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/1690.cfm
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Strategic CSR - Advertising
The article in the url link below adopts a provocative stance regarding the emotive issue of advertising to children (Issues: Advertising, p151; Brands, p153). On the one side of the argument is the knee-jerk, easy-to-defend position adopted by many campaigners:
“Whenever we conduct research with consumers into whether they think companies should be able to target promotional messages directly at children the overwhelming reaction is that this is something that no responsible company would do. … Bring in anything that could be construed as marketing in schools and the arguments intensify.”
On the other side, however, is a more subtle argument:
“Marketing to children is certainly something that needs to be carefully considered and controlled, and any activity in schools doubly so. Leading companies that take their responsibilities in this area seriously have developed detailed guidelines for how to market to children and in what circumstances, and these are strictly enforced. … But to suggest that companies should not communicate with children at all is narrow-minded and shortsighted – not to mention deeply impractical: do you rule out billboard advertising altogether?”
The advantage of this argument is that it is more likely to lead to engagement with firms and the advertising industry, rather than forcing them onto the defensive. And, it is genuine engagement, backed-up by effective oversight, that is most likely to lead to a sustainable solution:
“The potential to effect positive change holds true across all child-friendly brands. Messages on bullying, or the environment, or online safety that come from a cool brand – like Hello Kitty – can have far more impact than the strictures of parents and schools.”
Take care
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
BrandWatch focus: marketing to children – Why brands should sell to kids
To say that brands should not promote their products ignores the positive ways companies can influence young people
Giles Gibbons
July 16, 2008
http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=6013
“Whenever we conduct research with consumers into whether they think companies should be able to target promotional messages directly at children the overwhelming reaction is that this is something that no responsible company would do. … Bring in anything that could be construed as marketing in schools and the arguments intensify.”
On the other side, however, is a more subtle argument:
“Marketing to children is certainly something that needs to be carefully considered and controlled, and any activity in schools doubly so. Leading companies that take their responsibilities in this area seriously have developed detailed guidelines for how to market to children and in what circumstances, and these are strictly enforced. … But to suggest that companies should not communicate with children at all is narrow-minded and shortsighted – not to mention deeply impractical: do you rule out billboard advertising altogether?”
The advantage of this argument is that it is more likely to lead to engagement with firms and the advertising industry, rather than forcing them onto the defensive. And, it is genuine engagement, backed-up by effective oversight, that is most likely to lead to a sustainable solution:
“The potential to effect positive change holds true across all child-friendly brands. Messages on bullying, or the environment, or online safety that come from a cool brand – like Hello Kitty – can have far more impact than the strictures of parents and schools.”
Take care
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
BrandWatch focus: marketing to children – Why brands should sell to kids
To say that brands should not promote their products ignores the positive ways companies can influence young people
Giles Gibbons
July 16, 2008
http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=6013
Monday, March 9, 2009
Strategic CSR - SRI funds
The short article and corresponding graphics in the url below provide some interesting statistics regarding the recent performance of Socially Responsible Investment mutual funds (Issues: Investing, p184):
“Socially responsible investing, such as avoiding tobacco, defense, or other stocks for ethical reasons, is increasing in popularity among individual investors. The assets of these funds hit $202 billion in 2007. In the recent downturn, their returns have declined less than the broader market's.”
It is interesting in the ‘Activism vs. the Market’ graph (the last one) that, while SRI funds did not perform as well as the S&P 500 in a rising market (3-5 years ago), they have held their value better than the S&P 500 in the more recent declining market. Such lower volatility is something that should appeal to investors and, perhaps, indicates more fundamentally sound organizational management.
Take care
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
DO-GOOD INVESTMENTS ARE HOLDING UP BETTER
By Tara Kalwarski
183 words
14 July 2008
BusinessWeek
15
Volume 4092
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/07/0703_numbers/index.htm
“Socially responsible investing, such as avoiding tobacco, defense, or other stocks for ethical reasons, is increasing in popularity among individual investors. The assets of these funds hit $202 billion in 2007. In the recent downturn, their returns have declined less than the broader market's.”
It is interesting in the ‘Activism vs. the Market’ graph (the last one) that, while SRI funds did not perform as well as the S&P 500 in a rising market (3-5 years ago), they have held their value better than the S&P 500 in the more recent declining market. Such lower volatility is something that should appeal to investors and, perhaps, indicates more fundamentally sound organizational management.
Take care
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
DO-GOOD INVESTMENTS ARE HOLDING UP BETTER
By Tara Kalwarski
183 words
14 July 2008
BusinessWeek
15
Volume 4092
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/07/0703_numbers/index.htm
Friday, March 6, 2009
Strategic CSR - Bottled Water
The article in the url below reports a dramatic recent fall in the sales of bottled water:
“Sales of the world's best-known brands, … have tumbled in some countries as weakening economies take a toll on household incomes and consumers become more concerned about the environmental impact of throwing away the plastic packaging of a liquid that can be drunk for free.”
Growth in the industry is only 1% in the year to September:
“This compares with growth of 11 per cent over the same period last year, and more than 21 per cent in 2006.”
I would like to think this drop in sales is a result of increasing environmental awareness. It will be interesting, therefore, to see whether or not sales recover when the economic situation improves.
Have a good weekend.
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Sales of bottled water go flat as consumers return to the tap
By Jenny Wiggins
395 words
15 September 2008
Financial Times
London Ed1
17
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/763c04d0-82bc-11dd-a019-000077b07658.html
“Sales of the world's best-known brands, … have tumbled in some countries as weakening economies take a toll on household incomes and consumers become more concerned about the environmental impact of throwing away the plastic packaging of a liquid that can be drunk for free.”
Growth in the industry is only 1% in the year to September:
“This compares with growth of 11 per cent over the same period last year, and more than 21 per cent in 2006.”
I would like to think this drop in sales is a result of increasing environmental awareness. It will be interesting, therefore, to see whether or not sales recover when the economic situation improves.
Have a good weekend.
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Sales of bottled water go flat as consumers return to the tap
By Jenny Wiggins
395 words
15 September 2008
Financial Times
London Ed1
17
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/763c04d0-82bc-11dd-a019-000077b07658.html
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Strategic CSR - Eco Police
The article in the url below offers some hope for the future. It explains how children are beginning to hold their parents accountable for their behavior regarding sustainability issues (Issues: Environmental Sustainability, p171):
“Ms. Ross's children are part of what experts say is a growing army of ''eco-kids'' -- steeped in environmentalism at school, in houses of worship, through scouting and even via popular culture -- who try to hold their parents accountable at home. … They pore over garbage bins in search of errant recyclables. They lobby for solar panels. And, in a generational about-face, they turn off the lights after their parents leave empty rooms.”
One of the people interviewed for the article claims that an important driver of this behavior is children’s unfiltered view of the world:
“One of the fascinating things about children is that they don't separate what you are doing from what you should be doing.”
Given that the children featured in the article are more sensitive to issues surrounding the environment than their parents, where are they learning about this? The article claims that one important source of information is the classroom:
“[My son will] come over and turn [the light] off and say, 'Every day is Earth Day,' '' Ms. Schmidt said. ''He learned it at school.”
Other sources cited in the article include the movies (e.g., Wall-E) and Girl Scouts. As 12 year old Elly puts it:
“I wouldn't be happy if [my parents] bought an S.U.V. because they're not fuel efficient, and they pollute more than other cars.”
Take care
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Pint-Size Eco-Police, Making Parents Proud And Sometimes Crazy
By LISA W. FODERARO
1469 words
10 October 2008
The New York Times
Late Edition - Final
27
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/nyregion/10green.html
“Ms. Ross's children are part of what experts say is a growing army of ''eco-kids'' -- steeped in environmentalism at school, in houses of worship, through scouting and even via popular culture -- who try to hold their parents accountable at home. … They pore over garbage bins in search of errant recyclables. They lobby for solar panels. And, in a generational about-face, they turn off the lights after their parents leave empty rooms.”
One of the people interviewed for the article claims that an important driver of this behavior is children’s unfiltered view of the world:
“One of the fascinating things about children is that they don't separate what you are doing from what you should be doing.”
Given that the children featured in the article are more sensitive to issues surrounding the environment than their parents, where are they learning about this? The article claims that one important source of information is the classroom:
“[My son will] come over and turn [the light] off and say, 'Every day is Earth Day,' '' Ms. Schmidt said. ''He learned it at school.”
Other sources cited in the article include the movies (e.g., Wall-E) and Girl Scouts. As 12 year old Elly puts it:
“I wouldn't be happy if [my parents] bought an S.U.V. because they're not fuel efficient, and they pollute more than other cars.”
Take care
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Pint-Size Eco-Police, Making Parents Proud And Sometimes Crazy
By LISA W. FODERARO
1469 words
10 October 2008
The New York Times
Late Edition - Final
27
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/nyregion/10green.html
Monday, March 2, 2009
Strategic CSR - Chiquita
The article in the url link below provides an update on the costs to Chiquita (Issues: Litigation, p245) resulting from the firm’s admission last year that it made protection payments to a Colombian paramilitary group:
“Although Chiquita voluntarily disclosed payments it made to a Colombian to the US Department of Justice in March 2007, the company paid a $25 million fine. It continues to face numerous cases in civil court from the families of victims allegedly murdered by the paramilitaries paid by Chiquita.”
Instead of being commended for their transparency, however, and in spite of being urged to come forward by the Department of Justice, it seems that the only prosecutions being made are against self-confessed transgressor firms. And, they are being hit hard:
“… the top five recent penalties levied in the US foreign corrupt practices act arena were in cases involving voluntary disclosure, including $44 million from Baker Hughes and $28.5 million from Titan Corporation.”
It is difficult to know what the ‘best’ course of action is. While it is fair to expect Chiquita to be punished for the bribes it paid, it is also clear that such punitive action by the government, compounded by the civil litigation Chiquita faces, will only serve to discourage others from coming forward. If the goal is to eradicate the practice (in this case, bribery), it is easy to see that this approach will likely result in less success, not more:
“But Alexandra Wrage, president of TRACE International, a non-profit membership association that specialises in anti-bribery due diligence reviews and compliance training, says many ultimately conclude it was the wrong decision to voluntarily disclose. Wrage says many self-reporters don’t believe they have received any kind of measurable benefit, while facing stiff downsides to the decision, including fines, remedial action and vast reputational damage.”
Take care
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Chiquita – Voluntary disclosure’s banana skin
Coming clean on bribes doesn’t seem to really pay off for US companies
Lisa Roner, North America Editor
July 16, 2008
http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=6011
“Although Chiquita voluntarily disclosed payments it made to a Colombian to the US Department of Justice in March 2007, the company paid a $25 million fine. It continues to face numerous cases in civil court from the families of victims allegedly murdered by the paramilitaries paid by Chiquita.”
Instead of being commended for their transparency, however, and in spite of being urged to come forward by the Department of Justice, it seems that the only prosecutions being made are against self-confessed transgressor firms. And, they are being hit hard:
“… the top five recent penalties levied in the US foreign corrupt practices act arena were in cases involving voluntary disclosure, including $44 million from Baker Hughes and $28.5 million from Titan Corporation.”
It is difficult to know what the ‘best’ course of action is. While it is fair to expect Chiquita to be punished for the bribes it paid, it is also clear that such punitive action by the government, compounded by the civil litigation Chiquita faces, will only serve to discourage others from coming forward. If the goal is to eradicate the practice (in this case, bribery), it is easy to see that this approach will likely result in less success, not more:
“But Alexandra Wrage, president of TRACE International, a non-profit membership association that specialises in anti-bribery due diligence reviews and compliance training, says many ultimately conclude it was the wrong decision to voluntarily disclose. Wrage says many self-reporters don’t believe they have received any kind of measurable benefit, while facing stiff downsides to the decision, including fines, remedial action and vast reputational damage.”
Take care
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Chiquita – Voluntary disclosure’s banana skin
Coming clean on bribes doesn’t seem to really pay off for US companies
Lisa Roner, North America Editor
July 16, 2008
http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=6011
Friday, February 27, 2009
Strategic CSR - Ecological Agony Aunt
The article in the url below provides a resource for those who feel that it isn’t easy being green:
"Think of the imponderables. What roach killer should one use? How should one deal with environmentally oblivious in-laws? ... Why is bisphenol-A -- a chemical found in children's sippy cups and other plastic containers -- considered a toxic villain by some but not by the Food and Drug Administration? Confused? Ask Umbra, the arch online sage of the new green age."
Umbra’s column, which appears twice a week on grist.org (http://www.grist.org/) is proving to be very popular and has spawned imitators elsewhere:
"Similar columns, blending authority and insouciance, have popped up elsewhere, including ''Ask Pablo'' on Salon.com, ''Green Lantern'' on Slate.com, ''Earthtalk'' on E Magazine's site and ''Mr. Green'' on the Sierra Club's Web site."
Blending science and activism, the columnists aim to provide insight into consumer confusion as they attempt to navigate through the maze of genuine uncertainty about environmental best practice and duplicitous behavior by firms that seek to take advantage of consumer interest in sustainability through greeenwashing.
Have a good weekend.
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
(c) Sage Publications, 2006
Talking Directly, and Kindly, To Believers in the Eco Life
By FELICITY BARRINGER
1079 words
26 August 2008
The New York Times
National Edition
12
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/us/26advice.html
"Think of the imponderables. What roach killer should one use? How should one deal with environmentally oblivious in-laws? ... Why is bisphenol-A -- a chemical found in children's sippy cups and other plastic containers -- considered a toxic villain by some but not by the Food and Drug Administration? Confused? Ask Umbra, the arch online sage of the new green age."
Umbra’s column, which appears twice a week on grist.org (http://www.grist.org/) is proving to be very popular and has spawned imitators elsewhere:
"Similar columns, blending authority and insouciance, have popped up elsewhere, including ''Ask Pablo'' on Salon.com, ''Green Lantern'' on Slate.com, ''Earthtalk'' on E Magazine's site and ''Mr. Green'' on the Sierra Club's Web site."
Blending science and activism, the columnists aim to provide insight into consumer confusion as they attempt to navigate through the maze of genuine uncertainty about environmental best practice and duplicitous behavior by firms that seek to take advantage of consumer interest in sustainability through greeenwashing.
Have a good weekend.
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
(c) Sage Publications, 2006
Talking Directly, and Kindly, To Believers in the Eco Life
By FELICITY BARRINGER
1079 words
26 August 2008
The New York Times
National Edition
12
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/us/26advice.html
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Strategic CSR - New Balance
I bought a new pair of running shows over the summer. I almost always buy Nike shoes, but I bought New Balance for the first time (and the last time, but that is another issue). I was interested to read the label that was attached to the shoes (the red highlighting is in the original):
“Many of our shoes are produced in one of six United States factories. While most of the footwear industry has moved its production overseas to take advantage of low labor costs and generally cheaper production costs, we continue to have many of our shoes made in the United States and have expanded production substantially. Since 1995, we have increased our manufacturing jobs by 65%. We at New Balance are proud to provide jobs to the U.S. workforce, and proud of our well educated, high quality associates who can compete with anyone in the world.”
In general:
“New Balance remains committed to producing jobs for American workers and to supporting domestic manufactures and suppliers where possible.”
Three questions immediately come to mind:
1. Are New Balance consumers aware of the firm’s intended point of differentiation?
2. Are non-New Balance consumers aware of New Balance’s position?
3. Do any consumers alter their purchasing decisions because of this position?
As a non-U.S. national living in the U.S., I do not draw a moral distinction between a U.S. job and one overseas. I think a worker from India, China, Vietnam, or any other country, should have the equal right to work for any company that wants to hire him or her. As a result, I am ambivalent (from a nationalistic perspective) regarding the outsourcing debate. I do think, however, that it is perfectly legitimate for consumers to be strategic in their purchasing decisions and ‘country of origin’ is as good a reason for buying a product as most of the other reasons people use (Issues: Country of Origin, p223). It would be interesting to know, therefore, whether New Balance, Saturn, or any other firm that employs nationalism as a marketing strategy is rewarded for its efforts.
Take care
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
“Many of our shoes are produced in one of six United States factories. While most of the footwear industry has moved its production overseas to take advantage of low labor costs and generally cheaper production costs, we continue to have many of our shoes made in the United States and have expanded production substantially. Since 1995, we have increased our manufacturing jobs by 65%. We at New Balance are proud to provide jobs to the U.S. workforce, and proud of our well educated, high quality associates who can compete with anyone in the world.”
In general:
“New Balance remains committed to producing jobs for American workers and to supporting domestic manufactures and suppliers where possible.”
Three questions immediately come to mind:
1. Are New Balance consumers aware of the firm’s intended point of differentiation?
2. Are non-New Balance consumers aware of New Balance’s position?
3. Do any consumers alter their purchasing decisions because of this position?
As a non-U.S. national living in the U.S., I do not draw a moral distinction between a U.S. job and one overseas. I think a worker from India, China, Vietnam, or any other country, should have the equal right to work for any company that wants to hire him or her. As a result, I am ambivalent (from a nationalistic perspective) regarding the outsourcing debate. I do think, however, that it is perfectly legitimate for consumers to be strategic in their purchasing decisions and ‘country of origin’ is as good a reason for buying a product as most of the other reasons people use (Issues: Country of Origin, p223). It would be interesting to know, therefore, whether New Balance, Saturn, or any other firm that employs nationalism as a marketing strategy is rewarded for its efforts.
Take care
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Monday, February 23, 2009
Strategic CSR - Activitist Shareholders
The article in the url below indicates an increased willingness on the part of large firms to engage NGOs and other activist shareholders on issues related to the environment (Issues: Stakeholder Relations, p138; NGO and Corporate Cooperation, p192):
"Of 57 [climate change-related shareholder] resolutions filed by a range of socially concerned investors, almost half were withdrawn after companies ranging from Continental Airlines to El Paso made commitments on setting targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other issues."
The article also claims that support among shareholders, in general, for the resolutions that went to a vote is also increasing, putting greater pressure on those firms still resisting change:
"... the 24 resolutions that went to a vote secured a record high average of voting support of 23 per cent, up from just over 17 per cent for the resolution votes two years ago."
Take care
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Climate resolutions 'having big impact'
By Jonathan Birchall in New York
414 words
21 August 2008
Financial Times
London Ed2
19
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8ddcc100-6f17-11dd-a80a-0000779fd18c.html
"Of 57 [climate change-related shareholder] resolutions filed by a range of socially concerned investors, almost half were withdrawn after companies ranging from Continental Airlines to El Paso made commitments on setting targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other issues."
The article also claims that support among shareholders, in general, for the resolutions that went to a vote is also increasing, putting greater pressure on those firms still resisting change:
"... the 24 resolutions that went to a vote secured a record high average of voting support of 23 per cent, up from just over 17 per cent for the resolution votes two years ago."
Take care
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Climate resolutions 'having big impact'
By Jonathan Birchall in New York
414 words
21 August 2008
Financial Times
London Ed2
19
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8ddcc100-6f17-11dd-a80a-0000779fd18c.html
Friday, February 20, 2009
Strategic CSR - Factory Farms
The video in the url below presents a disturbing view on factory farming from inside the Meatrix (http://www.themeatrix.com/inside/):
“Want to know more about problems with factory farming while finding healthier food for you and your family? Learn, discuss, get involved - inside The Meatrix.”
Have a good weekend.
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Inside the Meatrix
Date: 06-25-2008
Type: video
Category: Sustainability
Source: Sustainable Table
http://vcr.csrwire.com/node/8842
“Want to know more about problems with factory farming while finding healthier food for you and your family? Learn, discuss, get involved - inside The Meatrix.”
Have a good weekend.
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Inside the Meatrix
Date: 06-25-2008
Type: video
Category: Sustainability
Source: Sustainable Table
http://vcr.csrwire.com/node/8842
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Strategic CSR - Supply Chain
The advice column in the url below addresses the issue of a firm’s responsibility for its extended supply chain (Issues: Cultural Conflict, p160). It cites two recent examples in the UK (Primark and Tesco) where evidence suggests a systematic abuse of human (child laborers) and employment (low pay) rights in factories that supply both firms. The column then asks for advice from four different perspectives in response to the following questions:
“Is it ever possible for companies with suppliers in developing economies to guarantee that their goods have been produced in ethically acceptable conditions? And what kind of audit system could provide consumers with such a guarantee?”
In relation to the first question, I was pleasantly surprised to see the position taken that consumers shouldn’t be surprised when they pay such relatively low prices for clothes that it then emerges that the clothes did not cost much to produce:
“Consumers massage their consciences, crying crocodile tears when an abused producer is found by an intrepid journalist, but show their true colours shopping for underwear.”
In addressing the second question, the general response was also refreshing (in terms of its perceptiveness), suggesting that (a) firms should not be surprised that suppliers in developing countries try and deceive auditors and (b) that they only have themselves to blame because, while firms might say that they want their suppliers to adhere to certain standards, they incentivize them to minimize costs. Until firms become serious about providing financial incentives for suppliers to adhere to their codes of conduct and punish transgressors, they are unlikely to see the kind of behavior they say they seek:
“That means engaging the supply chain in good corporate social responsibility practices rather than relying on spot checks. It means getting suppliers to recognise that adhering to sound employment practices is in their own interests and helping suppliers develop policies and practices that will make them a trusted supplier and build a long-term relationship.”
The absence of a choice for many workers in the developing world is also a point well made:
“Poor parents in India, Pakistan or Vietnam cannot choose between sending their children to a school or a factory. The real choice is between eating or going hungry.”
The upshot is that the column does not provide many specific answers, but at least everyone is realistic in terms of the situation on the ground.
Take care
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Moral maze for retailers reliant on developing world suppliers
872 words
2 July 2008
Financial Times
London Ed1
16
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f5771c20-47d0-11dd-93ca-000077b07658.html
“Is it ever possible for companies with suppliers in developing economies to guarantee that their goods have been produced in ethically acceptable conditions? And what kind of audit system could provide consumers with such a guarantee?”
In relation to the first question, I was pleasantly surprised to see the position taken that consumers shouldn’t be surprised when they pay such relatively low prices for clothes that it then emerges that the clothes did not cost much to produce:
“Consumers massage their consciences, crying crocodile tears when an abused producer is found by an intrepid journalist, but show their true colours shopping for underwear.”
In addressing the second question, the general response was also refreshing (in terms of its perceptiveness), suggesting that (a) firms should not be surprised that suppliers in developing countries try and deceive auditors and (b) that they only have themselves to blame because, while firms might say that they want their suppliers to adhere to certain standards, they incentivize them to minimize costs. Until firms become serious about providing financial incentives for suppliers to adhere to their codes of conduct and punish transgressors, they are unlikely to see the kind of behavior they say they seek:
“That means engaging the supply chain in good corporate social responsibility practices rather than relying on spot checks. It means getting suppliers to recognise that adhering to sound employment practices is in their own interests and helping suppliers develop policies and practices that will make them a trusted supplier and build a long-term relationship.”
The absence of a choice for many workers in the developing world is also a point well made:
“Poor parents in India, Pakistan or Vietnam cannot choose between sending their children to a school or a factory. The real choice is between eating or going hungry.”
The upshot is that the column does not provide many specific answers, but at least everyone is realistic in terms of the situation on the ground.
Take care
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Moral maze for retailers reliant on developing world suppliers
872 words
2 July 2008
Financial Times
London Ed1
16
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f5771c20-47d0-11dd-93ca-000077b07658.html
Monday, February 16, 2009
Strategic CSR - Advertising
The article in the url below is a report about the level and nature of “eco-friendly claims” in the advertising industry (Issues: Advertising, p151; Brands, p153). While the environment was the focus of attention at the 2007 International Advertising Festival at Cannes, in 2008 this issue was pushed to the background:
“… Mr. Gore was nowhere to be found, and the party buzz was about the American presidential election, the Euro 2008 soccer tournament and even the business of advertising itself. Green marketing, while booming, had lost some of its cachet.”
The article argues that this is largely due to greenwashing by firms that overreach in their environmental claims, which has resulted in a negative reaction and increasing skepticism among consumers:
“The sheer volume of these ads -- and the flimsiness of many of their claims -- seems to have shot the messenger. At best, it has led consumers to feel apathetic toward the green claims or, at worst, even hostile and suspicious of them.”
This growing consumer backlash/disillusionment is measured in terms of complaints submitted to various national advertising standards organizations:
“The Advertising Standards Authority, an industry-financed group that monitors ad content in Britain, said it had received 561 complaints from consumers about green claims in 410 ads in 2007, up from 117 complaints about 83 ads the year before. The European Advertising Standards Alliance, an umbrella group for similar organizations across Europe, reported sizable increases in complaints in other countries, including in Belgium and the Netherlands, particularly involving automotive advertising.”
To the extent that firms perceive CSR to be a fad to which they need to pay lip-service, while minimizing their level of substantive action, the danger facing the CSR community seems twofold. First, if firms do not genuinely believe that CSR provides them with a competitive advantage, they are more likely to make claims that are not supported on closer inspection. And, second, especially in a deteriorating economic environment, the CSR department/budget in such firms is more likely to be cut back. Either way, the economic downturn and the idea that CSR is a fad whose time will pass are significant threats to the gains made in recent years.
Take care
David
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Cooling Off on Dubious Eco-Friendly Claims
By ERIC PFANNER
883 words
18 July 2008
The New York Times
Late Edition - Final
3
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/business/media/18adco.html
“… Mr. Gore was nowhere to be found, and the party buzz was about the American presidential election, the Euro 2008 soccer tournament and even the business of advertising itself. Green marketing, while booming, had lost some of its cachet.”
The article argues that this is largely due to greenwashing by firms that overreach in their environmental claims, which has resulted in a negative reaction and increasing skepticism among consumers:
“The sheer volume of these ads -- and the flimsiness of many of their claims -- seems to have shot the messenger. At best, it has led consumers to feel apathetic toward the green claims or, at worst, even hostile and suspicious of them.”
This growing consumer backlash/disillusionment is measured in terms of complaints submitted to various national advertising standards organizations:
“The Advertising Standards Authority, an industry-financed group that monitors ad content in Britain, said it had received 561 complaints from consumers about green claims in 410 ads in 2007, up from 117 complaints about 83 ads the year before. The European Advertising Standards Alliance, an umbrella group for similar organizations across Europe, reported sizable increases in complaints in other countries, including in Belgium and the Netherlands, particularly involving automotive advertising.”
To the extent that firms perceive CSR to be a fad to which they need to pay lip-service, while minimizing their level of substantive action, the danger facing the CSR community seems twofold. First, if firms do not genuinely believe that CSR provides them with a competitive advantage, they are more likely to make claims that are not supported on closer inspection. And, second, especially in a deteriorating economic environment, the CSR department/budget in such firms is more likely to be cut back. Either way, the economic downturn and the idea that CSR is a fad whose time will pass are significant threats to the gains made in recent years.
Take care
David
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Cooling Off on Dubious Eco-Friendly Claims
By ERIC PFANNER
883 words
18 July 2008
The New York Times
Late Edition - Final
3
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/business/media/18adco.html
Friday, February 13, 2009
Strategic CSR - Greed
The article in the url below presents an admirable defense of ‘greed.’ The author argues that ‘greed’ is a relative term that is easy to identify in excess, but much harder at points in-between:
“Over the last three decades, the average compensation for chief executives of major American corporations has gone from 35 times the average pay of American workers to 275 times. That increase, it is suggested, or at least implied, constitutes greed. But what if the increase had ''only'' been to 100 times? Would that have signaled greed? What about 50 times? And why wasn't 35 times itself a sign of greed?”
The focus of the article is the argument that by applying the label ‘greed’ to actions that are really only self-interest (i.e., by equating the two), we are ignoring the economic benefits that self-interest and the pursuit of profit bring, while diminishing the power of the accusation of ‘greed’:
“Economics has given us a lot of better words, from self-interest to incentive to profit. They do not mean the same thing as greed, but they have displaced it, obscured it -- and certainly demoted it from being a deadly sin.”
Have a good weekend.
David
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Modern Market Thinking Has Devalued a Deadly Sin
By PETER STEINFELS
969 words
27 September 2008
The New York Times
Late Edition - Final
19
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/us/27beliefs.html
“Over the last three decades, the average compensation for chief executives of major American corporations has gone from 35 times the average pay of American workers to 275 times. That increase, it is suggested, or at least implied, constitutes greed. But what if the increase had ''only'' been to 100 times? Would that have signaled greed? What about 50 times? And why wasn't 35 times itself a sign of greed?”
The focus of the article is the argument that by applying the label ‘greed’ to actions that are really only self-interest (i.e., by equating the two), we are ignoring the economic benefits that self-interest and the pursuit of profit bring, while diminishing the power of the accusation of ‘greed’:
“Economics has given us a lot of better words, from self-interest to incentive to profit. They do not mean the same thing as greed, but they have displaced it, obscured it -- and certainly demoted it from being a deadly sin.”
Have a good weekend.
David
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Modern Market Thinking Has Devalued a Deadly Sin
By PETER STEINFELS
969 words
27 September 2008
The New York Times
Late Edition - Final
19
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/us/27beliefs.html
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Strategic CSR - Zimbabwe
The article in the url below outlines the difficult decisions faced by firms operating in a country when world opinion moves in favor of sanctions and pressure on multi-nationals to withdraw (Issues: Cultural Conflict, p160; Companies Trying to Do CSR Well: Shell, p302):
“Doing business with Zimbabwe at a time when the world's media are showing the violent suppression of dissent can damage their reputations - as many found during the apartheid years in South Africa. Yet withdrawal could hurt ordinary people while having little impact on the government - and might delay recovery when democracy is eventually restored.”
The article cites a number of examples of western firms that provide meaningful employment to hundreds of Zimbabweans. The UK supermarket, Waitrose, for example, imports fish that are fair- trade certified from its Zimbabwe supplier. This firm:
“… employs 450 people, paying them "substantially more" than the minimum basic wage, according to Waitrose. They are also given other cash allowances, free lunches and HIV/Aids support, with medical insurance and membership of pension schemes for permanent employees.”
The article also raises the difficult case of the mining firm Anglo-American, which is currently investing in Zimbabwe to establish a platinum mine. As one source is quoted as saying, withdrawal represents:
"gesture politics . . . If Anglo American pulled out, their shoes would be filled very quickly by the Chinese. The precedent was set in Sudan, where the Chinese moved in after the imposition of western sanctions."
Ultimately, continued involvement legitimizes the current administration and, while life remains bearable for ordinary people, there is little hope of bottom-up regime change. On the other hand, however, withdrawal can cause real pain and can hamper recovery once change occurs. The ‘best’ decision is not apparent and, unfortunately, media coverage tends toward the emotional, rather than helping make the ‘best’ decision for those most affected—in this case, the Zimbabwean people.
Take care
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Mangetout and Mugabe; Multinationals wrestle with their Zimbabwe role
By John Willman, Business Editor
1469 words
5 July 2008
Financial Times
Asia Ed1
10
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6b315526-49fb-11dd-891a-000077b07658,dwp_uuid=70bd196c-ffc3-11dc-825a-000077b07658.html
“Doing business with Zimbabwe at a time when the world's media are showing the violent suppression of dissent can damage their reputations - as many found during the apartheid years in South Africa. Yet withdrawal could hurt ordinary people while having little impact on the government - and might delay recovery when democracy is eventually restored.”
The article cites a number of examples of western firms that provide meaningful employment to hundreds of Zimbabweans. The UK supermarket, Waitrose, for example, imports fish that are fair- trade certified from its Zimbabwe supplier. This firm:
“… employs 450 people, paying them "substantially more" than the minimum basic wage, according to Waitrose. They are also given other cash allowances, free lunches and HIV/Aids support, with medical insurance and membership of pension schemes for permanent employees.”
The article also raises the difficult case of the mining firm Anglo-American, which is currently investing in Zimbabwe to establish a platinum mine. As one source is quoted as saying, withdrawal represents:
"gesture politics . . . If Anglo American pulled out, their shoes would be filled very quickly by the Chinese. The precedent was set in Sudan, where the Chinese moved in after the imposition of western sanctions."
Ultimately, continued involvement legitimizes the current administration and, while life remains bearable for ordinary people, there is little hope of bottom-up regime change. On the other hand, however, withdrawal can cause real pain and can hamper recovery once change occurs. The ‘best’ decision is not apparent and, unfortunately, media coverage tends toward the emotional, rather than helping make the ‘best’ decision for those most affected—in this case, the Zimbabwean people.
Take care
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Mangetout and Mugabe; Multinationals wrestle with their Zimbabwe role
By John Willman, Business Editor
1469 words
5 July 2008
Financial Times
Asia Ed1
10
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6b315526-49fb-11dd-891a-000077b07658,dwp_uuid=70bd196c-ffc3-11dc-825a-000077b07658.html
Monday, February 9, 2009
Strategic CSR - Companies and NGOs
The article in the url below maps out the advantages and disadvantages, for both sides, of alliances between NGOs and corporations (Issues: NGO and Corporate Cooperation, p192). On the one hand:
“What is in it for the companies? First, contact with NGOs provides intelligence. … Second, company executives have their own values; many privately agree with NGOs. … Third, companies think a relationship with an NGO gives them a seal of approval.”
On the other hand:
“What is in it for the NGOs? This one is simple: companies donate money. They also deliver. They have staff around the world, they operate across borders and have technical expertise.”
In terms of disadvantages:
“… there are dangers on both sides. Both companies and NGOs have reputations to protect.”
The interesting point that emerges from the article, however, is the recognition by both sides that the answer to any given problem lies within either corporations and/or NGOs. Government is viewed as an ineffective partner, at best, and an impediment to progress, at worst. This is particularly felt to be the case in tackling international issues. The article’s author, however, makes the point that the fact that corporations and NGOs increasingly have to take on responsibilities that previously would have been dealt with by governments is cause for concern:
“… because neither companies nor NGOs formally answer to us as citizens.”
Take care
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Why companies and campaigners collaborate
Skapinker, Michael
822 words
8 July 2008
Financial Times
Asia Ed1
11
http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto070720081430478718
“What is in it for the companies? First, contact with NGOs provides intelligence. … Second, company executives have their own values; many privately agree with NGOs. … Third, companies think a relationship with an NGO gives them a seal of approval.”
On the other hand:
“What is in it for the NGOs? This one is simple: companies donate money. They also deliver. They have staff around the world, they operate across borders and have technical expertise.”
In terms of disadvantages:
“… there are dangers on both sides. Both companies and NGOs have reputations to protect.”
The interesting point that emerges from the article, however, is the recognition by both sides that the answer to any given problem lies within either corporations and/or NGOs. Government is viewed as an ineffective partner, at best, and an impediment to progress, at worst. This is particularly felt to be the case in tackling international issues. The article’s author, however, makes the point that the fact that corporations and NGOs increasingly have to take on responsibilities that previously would have been dealt with by governments is cause for concern:
“… because neither companies nor NGOs formally answer to us as citizens.”
Take care
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Why companies and campaigners collaborate
Skapinker, Michael
822 words
8 July 2008
Financial Times
Asia Ed1
11
http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto070720081430478718
Friday, February 6, 2009
Strategic CSR - 10 Worst Corporations of 2008
The article in the url link below undoubtedly presents a subjective view of the corporate world, but it also makes for interesting reading:
“As we compiled the Multinational Monitor list of the 10 Worst Corporations of 2008, it would have been easy to restrict the awardees to Wall Street firms. But the rest of the corporate sector was not on good behavior during 2008 either, and we didn't want them to escape justified scrutiny.”
Identifying the Top 10 firms in any category, by definition, reflects the biases of the people doing the ranking (and CorpWatch certainly has its biases), but it is also hard to defend the actions highlighted in the article. One example:
“In 2001, Chevron swallowed up Texaco. It was happy to absorb the revenue streams. It has been less willing to take responsibility for Texaco's ecological and human rights abuses. In 1993, 30,000 indigenous Ecuadorians filed a class action suit in U.S. courts, alleging that Texaco over a 20-year period had poisoned the land where they live and the waterways on which they rely … . Chevron had the case thrown out of U.S. courts, on the grounds that it should be litigated in Ecuador, closer to where the alleged harms occurred. But now the case is going badly for Chevron in Ecuador -- Chevron may be liable for more than $7 billion. So, the company is lobbying the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to impose trade sanctions on Ecuador if the Ecuadorian government does not make the case go away.”
Have a good weekend
David
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
The 10 Worst Corporations of 2008
January 9th, 2009
What a year for corporate criminality and malfeasance!
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15275
“As we compiled the Multinational Monitor list of the 10 Worst Corporations of 2008, it would have been easy to restrict the awardees to Wall Street firms. But the rest of the corporate sector was not on good behavior during 2008 either, and we didn't want them to escape justified scrutiny.”
Identifying the Top 10 firms in any category, by definition, reflects the biases of the people doing the ranking (and CorpWatch certainly has its biases), but it is also hard to defend the actions highlighted in the article. One example:
“In 2001, Chevron swallowed up Texaco. It was happy to absorb the revenue streams. It has been less willing to take responsibility for Texaco's ecological and human rights abuses. In 1993, 30,000 indigenous Ecuadorians filed a class action suit in U.S. courts, alleging that Texaco over a 20-year period had poisoned the land where they live and the waterways on which they rely … . Chevron had the case thrown out of U.S. courts, on the grounds that it should be litigated in Ecuador, closer to where the alleged harms occurred. But now the case is going badly for Chevron in Ecuador -- Chevron may be liable for more than $7 billion. So, the company is lobbying the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to impose trade sanctions on Ecuador if the Ecuadorian government does not make the case go away.”
Have a good weekend
David
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
The 10 Worst Corporations of 2008
January 9th, 2009
What a year for corporate criminality and malfeasance!
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15275
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Strategic CSR - Chemicals
The article in the url link below provides an update on the implementation of the EU legislation REACH (Issues: Research and Development, p130). The legislation presents a distinctly different approach to product safety, in general, and chemicals, in particular, than the current U.S. model. While the burden in the U.S. lies with objectors to prove a chemical is dangerous, the EU legislation requires producers to prove a chemical is safe before it will be approved for use in certain kinds of products:
“The changes come at a time when consumers are increasingly worried about the long-term consequences of chemical exposure and are agitating for more aggressive regulation. In the United States, these pressures have spurred efforts in Congress and some state legislatures to pass laws that would circumvent the laborious federal regulatory process.”
Needless to say, U.S. firms (in particular) are protesting the measures which, they claim, “will add billions to their costs.” In many respects, however, the legislation, which will be phased in over a number of years, is already having its desired effect:
“It is difficult to know exactly how the changes will affect products sold in the United States. But American manufacturers are already searching for safer alternatives to chemicals used to make thousands of consumer goods, from bike helmets to shower curtains.”
The article argues that the legislation represents a fundamentally different philosophical approach between the U.S. and Europe regarding the role of for-profit firms in society:
“From its crackdown on antitrust practices in the computer industry to its rigorous protection of consumer privacy, the European Union has adopted a regulatory philosophy that emphasizes the consumer. Its approach to managing chemical risks, which started with a trickle of individual bans and has swelled into a wave, is part of a European focus on caution when it comes to health and the environment.”
In the U.S., on the other hand:
“… laws in place for three decades have made banning or restricting chemicals extremely difficult. The nation's chemical policy, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, grandfathered in about 62,000 chemicals then in commercial use. Chemicals developed after the law's passage did not have to be tested for safety. Instead, companies were asked to report toxicity information to the government, which would decide if additional tests were needed. In more than 30 years, the Environmental Protection Agency has required additional studies for about 200 chemicals, a fraction of the 80,000 chemicals that are part of the U.S. market. … The EPA has banned only five chemicals since 1976.”
Take care
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Chemical Law Has Global Impact
by Lyndsey Layton, Washington Post
June 12th, 2008
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15092
“The changes come at a time when consumers are increasingly worried about the long-term consequences of chemical exposure and are agitating for more aggressive regulation. In the United States, these pressures have spurred efforts in Congress and some state legislatures to pass laws that would circumvent the laborious federal regulatory process.”
Needless to say, U.S. firms (in particular) are protesting the measures which, they claim, “will add billions to their costs.” In many respects, however, the legislation, which will be phased in over a number of years, is already having its desired effect:
“It is difficult to know exactly how the changes will affect products sold in the United States. But American manufacturers are already searching for safer alternatives to chemicals used to make thousands of consumer goods, from bike helmets to shower curtains.”
The article argues that the legislation represents a fundamentally different philosophical approach between the U.S. and Europe regarding the role of for-profit firms in society:
“From its crackdown on antitrust practices in the computer industry to its rigorous protection of consumer privacy, the European Union has adopted a regulatory philosophy that emphasizes the consumer. Its approach to managing chemical risks, which started with a trickle of individual bans and has swelled into a wave, is part of a European focus on caution when it comes to health and the environment.”
In the U.S., on the other hand:
“… laws in place for three decades have made banning or restricting chemicals extremely difficult. The nation's chemical policy, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, grandfathered in about 62,000 chemicals then in commercial use. Chemicals developed after the law's passage did not have to be tested for safety. Instead, companies were asked to report toxicity information to the government, which would decide if additional tests were needed. In more than 30 years, the Environmental Protection Agency has required additional studies for about 200 chemicals, a fraction of the 80,000 chemicals that are part of the U.S. market. … The EPA has banned only five chemicals since 1976.”
Take care
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Chemical Law Has Global Impact
by Lyndsey Layton, Washington Post
June 12th, 2008
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15092
Monday, February 2, 2009
Strategic CSR - Recycling
The article in the url below demonstrates the potential danger to the CSR debate in the face of an economic recession:
“Trash has crashed. The economic downturn has decimated the market for recycled materials like cardboard, plastic, newspaper and metals.”
The corresponding wild fluctuation in the market price for specific recycled materials mean that it is sometimes cheaper for firms to dispose of them (to avoid storage costs), than sell them on the market:
“On the West Coast, for example, mixed paper is selling for $20 to $25 a ton, down from $105 in October, according to Official Board Markets, a newsletter that tracks paper prices. And recyclers say tin is worth about $5 a ton, down from $327 earlier this year.”
The article makes the case that, while the market for recycled materials has always been sensitive to changing economic conditions, the sharp drop in demand from China in the current crisis has increased the extent of the price swings:
“China's influence is so great that in recent years recyclables have been worth much less in areas of the United States that lack easy access to ports that can ship there.”
The only thing saving city recycling programs in the US at present is that even though they are now paying to have recycled materials picked up (before they received money), it is still cheaper than having to pay to take them to the landfill.
Take care
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Back at Junk Value, Recyclables Are Piling Up
By MATT RICHTEL and KATE GALBRAITH
1395 words
8 December 2008
The New York Times
Late Edition - Final
1
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/08/business/08recycle.html
“Trash has crashed. The economic downturn has decimated the market for recycled materials like cardboard, plastic, newspaper and metals.”
The corresponding wild fluctuation in the market price for specific recycled materials mean that it is sometimes cheaper for firms to dispose of them (to avoid storage costs), than sell them on the market:
“On the West Coast, for example, mixed paper is selling for $20 to $25 a ton, down from $105 in October, according to Official Board Markets, a newsletter that tracks paper prices. And recyclers say tin is worth about $5 a ton, down from $327 earlier this year.”
The article makes the case that, while the market for recycled materials has always been sensitive to changing economic conditions, the sharp drop in demand from China in the current crisis has increased the extent of the price swings:
“China's influence is so great that in recent years recyclables have been worth much less in areas of the United States that lack easy access to ports that can ship there.”
The only thing saving city recycling programs in the US at present is that even though they are now paying to have recycled materials picked up (before they received money), it is still cheaper than having to pay to take them to the landfill.
Take care
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
Back at Junk Value, Recyclables Are Piling Up
By MATT RICHTEL and KATE GALBRAITH
1395 words
8 December 2008
The New York Times
Late Edition - Final
1
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/08/business/08recycle.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)