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.

Monday, September 12, 2011

Strategic CSR - The Jevons Paradox

The article in url below makes you want to throw your hands up in resignation. It focuses on the unforeseen consequences of energy efficiency, particularly in consumer products, such as appliances or cars. While the article does not dispute the more efficient use of energy by these products, it makes a compelling argument that the net energy consumption as a result of their use is often zero (i.e., unchanged) or even positive (i.e., an increase in overall energy use):

The problem is known as the energy rebound effect. While there's no doubt that fuel-efficient cars burn less gasoline per mile, the lower cost at the pump tends to encourage extra driving. There's also an indirect rebound effect as drivers use the money they save on gasoline to buy other things that produce greenhouse emissions, like new electronic gadgets or vacation trips on fuel-burning planes.

There is a term for these unforeseen consequences – the Jevons Paradox:

“… named after a 19th-century British economist who observed that while the steam engine extracted energy more efficiently from coal, it also stimulated so much economic growth that coal consumption increased.

While generally dismissed by environmentalists today, there are important policy implications from this work:

“… if your immediate goal is to reduce greenhouse emissions, then it seems risky to count on reaching it by improving energy efficiency. To economists worried about rebound effects, it makes more sense to look for new carbon-free sources of energy, or to impose a direct penalty for emissions, like a tax on energy generated from fossil fuels. Whereas people respond to more fuel-efficient cars by driving more and buying other products, they respond to a gasoline tax simply by driving less.

I think the issue of unintended consequences is one of the most important issues for the CSR community to face – particularly in relation to sustainability. I see it again and again; whether it is a government subsidy or tax break for a particular kind of alternative energy, or a new technological innovation that interacts with some other factor (or is applied inappropriately) to generate an unexpected result.

In short, good intentions that seek to subvert market forces and established market practices often result in net neutral or other counterproductive outcomes.

Take care
David

Friday, September 9, 2011

Strategic CSR - FCPA

This article caught my eye, if for no other reason than it is surprising.

The article reports a conviction of three employees from Lindsey Manufacturing Co. under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for paying bribes in Mexico. The surprising thing is that this is “the first time a company has been convicted at a U.S. trial in a foreign bribery case.

Specifically:

[The] conviction marks the first time a company has been convicted at trial for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which bans the bribery of foreign officials for business purposes. In the law's 34-year history, companies had always pleaded guilty or signed non- or deferred-prosecution agreements with the Justice Department.

This case reinforces a trend in recent years (starting with the Bush administration) of a more aggressive enforcement of the FCPA by the Justice Department (see Newsletters: January 26, 2011, November 23, 2009, and September 16, 2009), which has resulted in a significantly larger number of investigations being initiated and now, apparently, in the first ever successful prosecution.

Have a good weekend.
David

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Strategic CSR - Alternative Energy

The article in the url below ties together a series of recent accidents/disasters in a way I had not thought of before reading it:

In April 2010, an explosion in one of Massey Energy's coal mines killed 29 workers. Just weeks later, BP's Macondo well started gushing millions of barrels of oil into the gulf. And more than a month after Japan's large earthquake, the Fukushima nuclear plant is still leaking radiation.

Add to that the recent report of the spill of contaminated water by Chesapeake Energy in Pennsylvania and you can add natural gas and fracking to the list of problematic traditional energy sources and extraction methods:

“…the spill will galvanize critics of hydraulic fracturing, a process that releases natural gas from shale rock by blasting it with water, sand and chemicals.

In theory, the market potential for alternative energies is significant due to the problems with existing energy sources. In reality, the current low market share, inadequate distribution infrastructure, and reliance on subsidies mean there is a great deal of inertia to overcome:

In America, for instance, wind and solar power still provide just 1.4 percent of the nation's total energy diet. And although alternative sources are becoming cheaper, in many cases they still need subsidies.

The article presents this as an opportunity, rather than a constraint. It could have also argued that we are running out of time to treat this decision as an option.

Take care
David

Monday, September 5, 2011

Strategic CSR - J&J

The article in the url below presents a pretty damning picture of recent activity at J&J. For example:

On Aug. 26 last year, DePuy [a unit of Johnson & Johnson] announced a voluntary recall for two types of ASR hips, … but only after 93,000 had been implanted in patients worldwide, including 37,000 in the U.S. … Accusations of selling bum hips are bad enough; the lawsuits allege worse: that DePuy continued to push the hips even after it received preliminary numbers as early as 2007 indicating rising failure rates for both ASR models.

The article is based on a separate list of all the products J&J has had to recall over the past 3 years (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b4223066662101.htm). The accusation is that the firm is no longer making best practice decisions based on its stakeholder-focused Credo (http://www.jnj.com/connect/about-jnj/jnj-credo/), but is making business decisions based on projected profit and loss and in the absence of moral/ethical factors:

With $28 billion in holdings of cash and short-term securities at the end of 2010, J&J will surely weather the financial blowback from the bad hips. More troubling to customers and stakeholders, however, is that the DePuy recalls may be symptoms of a systemic quality-control problem at the 125-year-old corporation.

It is hard to put the numbers in this article in perspective without fully knowing the scale of J&J’s operations and how many products it produces and expected industry recall rates, but, at first glance, the numbers seem shocking:

The DePuy crisis is one of more than 50 voluntary product recalls that J&J has issued just since the start of 2010, covering brand names that read like an inventory of the family medicine cabinet. … In the year ended Mar. 8, 2011, J&J was involved in at least 11 major recalls, as defined by the FDA, almost twice as many as Pfizer, the world's largest health-care-products company by revenue, or Procter & Gamble, the world's largest consumer-products company. "I'm not familiar with another company that has had this many debacles in a very short period of time," says Ira Loss, an analyst at investment research firm Washington Analysis who has followed the FDA for more than three decades.

It gets worse:

Moreover, J&J's woes aren't confined to the last couple of years. During the last decade, the company has been repeatedly confronted with claims that it sold a product that was defective, or that carried risks J&J downplayed in its marketing. It has been accused of paying kickbacks and using other financial incentives to promote off-label use of drugs and devices. It has been cited by federal authorities for trying to avoid the publicity of a recall by quietly buying up tainted products. And it frustrated FDA regulators who were urging the company to strengthen quality control at the factories that produced many of the recalled over-the-counter products. J&J has steadfastly denied these claims, but its own annual report for 2010 contains eight pages detailing government criminal and civil investigations and thousands of private lawsuits covering a wide range of drugs, devices, and business practices.

The article makes a compelling case that J&J has been skirting, or just plain ignoring, best practice in its approach to researching and testing large numbers of its products. The implicit argument is that it is cost-cutting that has driven the change in business practices at the firm. What is ironic, of course, is that J&J’s 1982 Tylenol recall generated probably the most-cited CSR/ethics/crisis management case-study of how to respond to a defective product (Chapter 2: A Stakeholder Perspective, p43). The Credo and the way it shapes (or was thought to shape) behavior within J&J is presented as best-practice in prioritizing among competing stakeholder needs in a way that maximizes both economic and social value. Tellingly:

At Harvard Business School, however, faculty "became uncomfortable" teaching the popular Tylenol-poisoning case study amid all the J&J recalls, [HBS faculty Sandra] Sucher says. Last month it added another study to the curriculum: "On Weldon's Watch: Recalls at Johnson & Johnson From 2009 to 2010."

Take care
David

Friday, September 2, 2011

Strategic CSR - News Corp


There are two aspects of the Rupert Murdoch/News Corp scandal that unfolded in the UK over the summer that I think are important, but have not been widely discussed:

1.       While I am certainly no defender of Murdoch, at the time the News of the World was closed it was the largest selling English-language newspaper in the world. Clearly, not only did its readership have no problem with the content of the stories published by the paper (or seem to care how the paper uncovered the information), but they actively sought it out and were willing to pay for it. As such, who is more at fault—Murdoch for providing the content people wanted to read, or the public for continuing to buy it? This speaks to a broader theme we introduced in the second edition of Strategic CSR—the idea of Corporate Stakeholder Responsibility. Until a firm’ stakeholders begin demanding better behavior (and the evidence of unethical behavior has long surrounded Murdoch’s newspapers), we should not be surprised if firms continue to be less than socially responsible.

2.       Of course, the key to the story, as with all good scandals, is to follow the money. This is especially true now that the FBI and U.S. Justice Department have become interested in the case. In addition to investigating whether Murdoch’s journalists hacked into the voicemails of 9/11 victims, the FBI and Justice want to know whether money was paid to the UK police. If true, News Corp (as a U.S.-listed firm) is likely in breach of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act for paying money (bribes) to a foreign government official to gain some form of competitive advantage. Although the British newspapers are important to Murdoch, the U.S. is where the largest News Corp assets are located and so how the U.S. authorities react to the case will determine its eventual impact on the firm.

Have a good weekend.
David


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

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Strategic CSR - Walmart (II)

The best comment I saw on the dismissal of the class action sex discrimination suit against Walmart over the summer was the op-ed article in the url below. Although the link between the argument presented by the author and the legal standing of the class-action suit in the Walmart case is a bit tenuous at times, the author raises some insightful points about how some of the current policies in place at Walmart seem to present more challenging barriers to promotion for women to overcome than men. For example:

Recognizing that workers steeped in that culture make poor candidates for assistant managers, who are the front lines in enforcing labor discipline, Wal-Mart insists that almost all workers promoted to the managerial ranks move to a new store, often hundreds of miles away. For young men in a hurry, that’s an inconvenience; for middle-aged women caring for families, this corporate reassignment policy amounts to sex discrimination.

In essence, the policy:

… forces ambitious workers to choose between job and family.

A second example:

The workweek for salaried managers is around 50 hours or more, which can surge to 80 or 90 hours a week during holiday seasons. Not unexpectedly, some managers think women with family responsibilities would balk at such demands, and it is hardly to the discredit of thousands of Wal-Mart women that they may be right.

Reading through the article, I thought it would make a good ethical dilemma for in-class discussion. For example, I can see how Walmart would think it more effective for employees recently promoted to a position of authority in charge of discipline if they did not have close social ties with the employees they now have to oversee. It also seems clear, however, that insisting on such a policy firm-wide would be a much more substantial barrier to progress for employees who are least mobile for whatever reason (although family commitments would seem to be a common reason). Is this discrimination, as the author states, or is it an effective business policy derived from years of experience with a particular issue (i.e., how best to enforce discipline in a standardized way across a huge corporation)? Discuss.

BTW: I thought the graphic used in the article to support the author’s political message does so in a powerful way:

Monday, August 29, 2011

Strategic CSR - Walmart (I)

In case you missed it over the summer, the article in the url below reports the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the Walmart discrimination case that the firm has been fighting for the past decade:

The Supreme Court on Monday threw out an enormous employment discrimination class-action suit against Wal-Mart that had sought billions of dollars on behalf of as many as 1.5 million female workers. The suit claimed that Wal-Mart’s policies and practices had led to countless discriminatory decisions over pay and promotions.

While not deciding the merits of the case (i.e., whether Walmart actually discriminated against some of its female employees in terms of equal pay and promotion opportunities), the Court decided that the case cannot proceed as a class action. Essentially, this means that, in the eyes of the Court, there was insufficient evidence that Walmart had pursued a systematic policy of discrimination, centrally coordinated.

Walmart’s defense against the class-action was that, because it devolved most hiring and promotion decisions to the local store manager, although individual instances of discrimination may have occurred, they were not a result of the firm’s policies and practices.

Additional background to the case and its possible implications (both for Walmart and for the possibility of future class-actions being brought against all firms) appeared in two additional stories in the paper on the same day:

Friday, August 26, 2011

Strategic CSR - Japan

The article in the url below contains one of the more amazing facts from the aftermath of the Japanese earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear power disaster that occurred earlier this year:

Japanese citizens, long renowned for their diligence in returning lost items, have turned in more than $78 million in cash, most of it from lost wallets that washed ashore and some of it from safes found under rubble, in the aftermath of the devastating March earthquake and tsunami.

I have often thought that a good indicator of the strength of a society is how quickly it breaks down under stress. When you think about what happened in New Orleans after Katrina and the recent riots and looting in the UK, it is a phenomenal comment on Japanese society that it remained so strong when so much was thrown at it.

I lived and worked in Japan for six years and know that there are significant disadvantages as well as advantages to such strong social rules and norms. I am enormously proud of my ties to Japan, however, when the advantages are on display as an inspiration to other societies greatly in need of a little more structure and discipline.

Have a good weekend.
David

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Strategic CSR - Welcome Back!



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



Over the summer, a number of important CSR stories emerged,  some of which I will comment on in upcoming Newsletters. Among the doom and gloom of ongoing financial crises, political incompetence, and corporate malfeasance, however, is the enduring belief that for-profit firms remain the beacon of hope for the CSR project. If we are to plot a sustainable future moving forward, it is corporations that possess the capability to mobilize sufficient resources in ways that can make a difference. While a lot of the negative stories seem to find their way into these Newsletters (the media latches onto negative stories more readily than positive stories), this article from The Economist at least starts us off on the right track!

The article in the url below attempts an interesting exercise—to compare the relative influence of IBM and the Carnegie Foundation over the last 100 years. Both organizations were founded in 1911 and, as such, both turn 100 years old in 2011. The Economist’s goal is to identify which organization (for-profit or non-profit) has “done more for society” during its lifespan.

Two things struck me reading the article. First, that it is not a very close contest. While the Carnegie Foundation certainly did some good things early on in its life, it has faded significantly in recent decades. The clinching argument for me was that:

IBM, by contrast, is now as influential as it has ever been, with a stockmarket value of around $200 billion and nearly 427,000 employees, many of them in the developing world. … Its corporate philanthropy has grown steadily, so that its annual grants now exceed those of the Carnegie Corporation.

Second, I think the article speaks volumes of how far The Economist has come regarding CSR that it was willing to even attempt the exercise. I think The Economist of 10 years ago is not even interested in this question and would consider the answer a foregone conclusion. Instead, it makes a valiant attempt to compare the two organizations; so much so that I felt the Carnegie Corporation remained in the running longer than it should have. Rather understating the case for IBM (after pointing out many of the errors made by the firm over the years, including its brush with Hitler and the Holocaust), The Economist concludes:

Judged on the past 50 years, there is a strong case for saying IBM has had more impact than Carnegie—especially if you count its accidental contribution to philanthropy by incompetently failing to stop Mr Gates from creating Microsoft. In part this is because its business, the management of information, has unusually large social benefits, and causes relatively few social or environmental costs.

Ultimately, the weight of evidence sits strongly in favor of IBM. The advantage of the for-profit firm is its ability to adapt and re-invent itself, while the Carnegie Foundation has found its enthusiasm slowly wane over time:

Another reason for Carnegie’s relative decline may be that 100 years is too old for a philanthropic foundation. The absence of an existential threat may have made it too comfortable. IBM transformed itself under Lou Gerstner when it nearly ran out of cash in the early 1990s, and again more recently under Mr Palmisano when Indian rivals threatened to steal its business. By contrast, it is not clear what, if anything, keeps the people in charge of the Carnegie Corporation awake at night. The passage of time saps a foundation of the unique energy of its founder. Carnegie said of the unknown future leaders of his foundation that “they shall best conform to my wishes by using their own judgment.” That much they have done, but he would probably have fared better.

The article is an interesting thought-experiment, but, ultimately, reaffirms that, regarding CSR, while for-profit firms are a big part of the problem, they are also the main hope for a solution.

Take care
David


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


The Centenarians Square Up: IBM v Carnegie Corporation
June 11, 2011
The Economist
Late Edition - Final
64-66

Friday, May 6, 2011

Strategic CSR - Citizenship



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


Along with Christopher Caldwell in the FT, David Brooks (NYT) is one of the columnists who I try and read every week. Brooks’ recent columns have been heavily influenced by a book that he has just published, The Social Animal, which is an effort to use more social science research (particularly sociology and psychology) to inform policy making. For those interested, Brooks was interviewed about the book recently on PBS’ Newshour:


I am forwarding Brooks’ column in the url below because he has some thoughts on the relatively recent rise in self-centered individualism in U.S. society and what implications this may have for the broader concept of citizenship:

Citizenship, after all, is built on an awareness that we are not all that special but are, instead, enmeshed in a common enterprise. Our lives are given meaning by the service we supply to the nation. I wonder if Americans are unwilling to support the sacrifices that will be required to avert fiscal catastrophe in part because they are less conscious of themselves as components of a national project. Perhaps the enlargement of the self has also attenuated the links between the generations. Every generation has an incentive to push costs of current spending onto future generations. But no generation has done it as freely as this one. Maybe people in the past had a visceral sense of themselves as a small piece of a larger chain across the centuries. As a result, it felt viscerally wrong to privilege the current generation over the future ones, in a way it no longer does.

I suspect this same effect translates to the organizational level of analysis and explains much of the resistance to the changes necessary to establish a more sustainable and socially responsible society.

Interestingly, Brooks’ view of the younger generation runs counter to the more popular narrative I see often repeated that the Millennials are more concerned with sustainability, more keen to take ethics classes at university, and more willing to hold corporations to account for their levels of social responsibility. While this greater concern regarding issues such as sustainability, on the surface, appears to be genuine (higher levels of recycling, etc.), in terms of self-perception (self-importance) and the role of the individual in society (rights versus responsibilities), I see more evidence in support of Brooks’ perspective.

Have a good weekend
David


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


The Modesty Manifesto
By DAVID BROOKS
851 words
11 March 2011
The New York Times
Late Edition - Final
27

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Strategic CSR - Agribusiness

If anyone doubts the hold that agribusiness has over the regulation of the U.S. food industry, the article in the url below presents food for thought (pun intended). It reports the passage of a bill through the Iowa legislature that is designed to prevent the release of illicitly-shot video by animal rights activists revealing the conditions under which animals are raised and our food supply produced:

In Iowa, where agriculture is a dominant force both economically and politically, such undercover investigations could soon be illegal. A bill before the Iowa legislature would make it a crime to produce, distribute or possess photos and video taken without permission at an agricultural facility. It would also criminalize lying on an application to work at an agriculture facility ‘with an intent to commit an act not authorized by the owner.’

The article reports that:

Similar legislation is being considered in Florida and Minnesota.

The bill has stalled in the Iowa legislature, but not due to a lack of political support:

The Iowa bill was approved by a wide margin by the House and was passed by the Senate Agriculture Committee. It stalled after the attorney general's office raised concerns that prohibiting the possession and distribution of images … infringed on free speech. Supporters are working on compromise language.

That the first amendment right to free speech is seen as a stumbling block that needs to be worked around indicates that it is business interests, rather than the sanctity of the food production process, that is the politicians’ primary concern. As John Kibbie, Democrat and president of the Senate, puts it:

‘Agriculture is what Iowa is all about,'' Mr. Kibbie said. ''Our economy would be in the tank, big time, if it wasn't for agriculture.’

Take care
David


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


States Look to Ban Efforts to Reveal Farm Abuse
By A. G. SULZBERGER
1197 words
14 April 2011
The New York Times
Late Edition - Final
15

Monday, May 2, 2011

Strategic CSR - BP

The value-laden complexity of decisions taken by firms on a day-to-day basis indicates the precarious foundation on which much of the argument in favor of CSR rests. Progress depends on things improving month-by-month, year-by-year; over time, firms and individuals will continue to become more socially responsible.

But this optimistic viewpoint depends on individuals/firms making broadly responsible decisions among the myriad choices and conflicting interests that buffet us every day. As long as the intentions are net positive (i.e., more responsible than irresponsible decisions are made) we are making progress. Given the many opposing temptations, however, ‘progress’ should not be taken for granted. In this light, consider the article in the url below, where Mallen Baker (Foreword, pxvii) suggests that:

Don’t take it for granted which tendency will win out. It is possible we may have passed the high mark for corporate responsibility and it’s downhill from here. But there is still everything to play for.

Baker argues that it is difficult economic times “that is the real test of which companies will hold the line on their values when things get tough.” To illustrate his point, Baker discusses BP’s recent decision to explore for oil in Russia in partnership with the Russian oil firm, Rosneft – a rational decision:

“… so long as you’re not overly concerned about where Rosneft got some of its assets, and are prepared to go through meetings without mentioning the word “Yukos”.

Resources are becoming increasingly scarce worldwide. As a result, firms have to search for them in increasingly difficult to reach locations. Who do we want in charge of extracting these resources – BP, or another, potentially less law-abiding firm? Even if you are willing to grant BP a second (third, fourth…?) chance, the difficulties are apparent:

“… what happens when it’s do or die? When you need to secure those resources, and the only people that have got them don’t much care about anything other than lining their own pockets? Are you prepared to turn to the people that work for you and tell them that you’re laying them off in order to remain consistent with your values?

As the man said:

“… there is still everything to play for.

Take care
David


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


Corporate values: Keep hold of hard-won business responsibility
Making ethical choices is harder in touch economic times, but we still need to make them
Mallen Baker
January 27, 2011
Ethical Corporation Magazine