Strategic CSR - Joy

Among the unrelenting crises and accusations of corruption that seem to fill the newspapers every day, the article in the url below caught my eye. Not only is it, unusually, a good news story, but it profiles a job I didn't realize existed:

"For 12 years now, Anita Pires has been working at the call centre for Camelot, the company that runs the UK's national lottery. She is one of a staff of 30 who answer calls from potential lottery winners, checking their numbers for prizes that range from £5 to the multi-millions. … According to a 2016 report, more than 700,000 people in the UK are employed by call centres. The work is often tough: it can be a difficult mix of monotony, stress and the emotional labour of staying friendly for hour upon hour of calls. But for a few call-centre employees such as Pires, the work is pure joy."

What comes across in the article is that, if anything, the people making these good news calls seem to get as much out of the exchange as those receiving them:

"The next step in the lottery process for major winners – anything over £50,000 – is to be referred to a winners' adviser; a team of seven who speak to the winners and then visit them to ensure the cash transfer. … Katie Garrett has been an adviser for almost 10 years. 'Ever since I started I've been bowled over by the difference this news we share makes to people's lives,' she says, 'I remember one 20-year-old who won £50,000 and who was about to be kicked out of his flat with his mum because she had been made redundant. This money changed everything. No two winners are the same and I always get that warm, fuzzy feeling when I get to speak to them.'"

The article lists several of these jobs that involve people calling others to give them news that will transform their lives (almost always for the better). Whether it is lottery winnings or exam results or a major lifetime achievement, such as the Nobel Prize, the sense of responsibility and wonderment among the people who get to inform the winners of the news is consistent:

 

"Michael Kelleher has been the director of the Windham Campbell prize, one of the largest literary awards, since its inception in 2013 and has called each of the annual winners to share the news that they have won $165,000. … When Kelleher does manage to convince a writer of his authenticity, 'people are always speechless,' he says. 'One winner burst into tears – his phone was going to be cut off the following day because he couldn't afford the bill. We really saved him and had a huge impact in allowing him to keep practising his art.' Kelleher has made the call many times but still finds it nerve-racking. 'If anything, I get more nervous now,' he says, 'because I know how much it means to people and how life-changing the acclaim and the money can be. It's a job I never take for granted.'"

 

It seems clear that these people take great pride in what they do, but also find it immensely fulfilling:

 

"One of the most momentous cold-calling tasks each year is undertaken by Göran K Hansson, who, as secretary general of the Royal Swedish Academy, informs Nobel prizewinners of their triumph. He has made the call to 44 laureates in the past 10 years. … Hansson says he feels genuine elation in being able to pass on such career-defining news. … 'All I do in my work now is make people happy – how many people can say that? You form a special bond with that person, even though it is through a phone call, and with many of them we become good friends afterwards.'"

The article reminded me of research that shows the uplifting benefits of spreading joy in the world. For example, I remember reading about an experiment where people were given a small amount of money, say $20, and asked to either spend it or donate it, and were then asked later about issues like wellbeing or self-esteem. The results revealed that people who had given the money away scored much higher on such metrics than those who had spent the money on themselves. The article also reminded me of research on firefighters, for whom working on holidays to serve the community (sacrificing the time with their families) was something core to their identity in which they took great pride.

These anecdotes reinforce in me the idea that those who find specific meaning in their jobs are more likely to be happier and more productive than those who don't see the point of what they are doing. Which, of course, is why firms should strive to build and sustain such purpose. I remember an ad by GE a few years ago where the people who made the jet engines for the Boeing Dreamliner plane were taken to the inaugural launch to reinforce the essential role they had played in the process – a role they may lose sight of if they just remain in the factory focusing on their specific task. Here is a similar ad for employees who made the engines for a new 747 (https://youtu.be/z9SnDrUhZxQ).

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: http://studysites.sagepub.comstudy.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/ 

From the lottery to Nobel prize: Meet workers who make life-changing phone calls

By Ammar Kalia

August 18, 2019

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/18/call-centre-camelot-lottery-nobel-prize

 

Strategic CSR - Amazon

The article in the url below details some of the downsides to Amazon's ruthless approach to business. In particular, it focuses on the accidents caused by the drivers who deliver packages for Amazon (although they usually work for contractors):

 

"In its relentless push for e-commerce dominance, Amazon has built a huge logistics operation in recent years to get more goods to customers' homes in less and less time. As it moves to reduce its reliance on legacy carriers like United Parcel Service, the retailer has created a network of contractors across the country that allows the company to expand and shrink the delivery force as needed, while avoiding the costs of taking on permanent employees. But Amazon's promise of speedy delivery has come at a price, one largely hidden from public view. An investigation by ProPublica identified more than 60 accidents since June 2015 involving Amazon delivery contractors that resulted in serious injuries, including 10 deaths. That tally is most likely a fraction of the accidents that have occurred: Many people don't sue, and those who do can't always tell when Amazon is involved."

 

While it wants none of the legal responsibility for such accidents, however, Amazon wants all of the control:

 

"Even as Amazon argues that it bears no legal responsibility for the human toll, it maintains a tight grip on how the delivery drivers do their jobs. Their paychecks are signed by hundreds of companies, but often Amazon directs, through an app, the order of the deliveries and the route to each destination. Amazon software tracks drivers' progress, and a dispatcher in an Amazon warehouse can call them if they fall behind schedule. Amazon requires that 999 out of 1,000 deliveries arrive on time, according to work orders obtained from contractors with drivers in eight states."

 

I'll just repeat that for emphasis:

 

"Amazon requires that 999 out of 1,000 deliveries arrive on time."

 

But, any mistakes are deemed to be the responsibility of the companies that contract out this work from Amazon:

 

"Amazon has repeatedly said in court that it is not responsible for the actions of its contractors, citing agreements that require them, as one puts it, to 'defend, indemnify and hold harmless Amazon.' Just last week, an operations manager for Amazon testified in Chicago that it signs such agreements with all its 'delivery service partners,' who assume the liability and the responsibility for legal costs. The agreements cover 'all loss or damage to personal property or bodily harm including death.'"

 

And, if you have read anything about the way that Jeff Bezos does business, you will not be surprised to know that:

 

"Amazon vigilantly enforces the terms of those agreements. In New Jersey, when a contractor's insurer failed to pay Amazon's legal bills in a suit brought by a physician injured in a crash, Amazon sued to force the insurer to pick up the tab."

 

The article goes on and on, listing examples of how Amazon places severe constraints on its partner companies, but will not accept responsibility for any of the consequences of its business model. This approach is reminiscent of the argument Nike used in the 1990s to combat allegations of sweatshop abuse of workers—legally, you see their point but, behaviorally, you know the firm's constraints are shaping the resulting outcomes. Nike essentially said that the workers are not Nike workers (they work for contractors) and, all Nike does is stipulate its expectations in a contract, which the contractors willingly sign. Nike used to put very strict schedules on the delivery of its shoes, occasionally make last-minute changes to the designs, and then shrug their shoulders when it turned out that the contractors were requiring employees to work too much overtime (against Nike's contractual obligations) in order to meet the new deadline. Apple has been accused of similar negligence in its relationship with Foxconn. The exact same framing is being used by Amazon today. Whether we have learned to respond any differently, however, is another story.

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


When Fast, Free Shipping Delivers Heartbreak

By Patricia Callahan

September 5, 2019

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

A1, A18

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/05/us/amazon-delivery-drivers-accidents.html

 

Strategic CSR - Naturalization

You will have no doubt noticed that the tone and level of civility in public discourse has declined notably in recent years. I think the drivers of this shift are complex and largely operate at the societal level. Any particular individual is a symptom of the problem, rather than being any kind of cause. Of course, we can all exacerbate (or salve) divisions and, at some level, have to live with those decisions that we make on a micro level, every day.

 

This afternoon, I was sworn in as a U.S. citizen. I had been looking forward to the ceremony for several weeks – of course on an individual level, but also as a social scientist.

 

As expected, it was emotional for many who were there. And, it was quite a group – extremely diverse on every metric you can think of. I remember that, when attending my final interview appointment, the waiting room was like a United Nations gathering. This sense of the world coming together was enhanced at today's ceremony. We were told that, among the 50 people being sworn in, 25 countries were represented. Two thoughts, in particular, came to mind:

 

First, the event was a very visible (and visceral) demonstration of the extent to which immigration is embedded in this country – central to everything it stands for and will achieve, going forward.

 

But second, I think the emotion of those being naturalized demonstrates the value of U.S. citizenship to those who come from countries around the world that are, relatively, in a much worse state. Of course, there was relief because a long and complicated process had come to an end, which provides security. But, I think there was also a sense of security (pride?) that comes from belonging to something larger than the individual and that has meaning – an idea or project that represents a greater purpose.

 

The more I think about this second point, in particular, the more I think that all Americans should witness one of these ceremonies at some point, so they do not lose sight of what this country means to the rest of the world. I would start with those who seem so opposed to immigration (for whatever reason), but I would extend it to everyone in this massive country. John Oliver was very good on this topic last Sunday:

 

https://youtu.be/tXqnRMU1fTs

 

If nothing else, a broader understanding of the immigration process in this country provides common ground that all Americans should be able to support. And, as such, it forms the basis for a little more agreement and a little less conflict.

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

 

Strategic CSR - Prayers

The article in the url below deals with the issue of religious prayer offered on behalf of others, particularly in the aftermath of a public/national crisis of some kind. In particular, it is an attempt by economists to price such prayers for those who may be the object of such divine intervention. Perhaps not surprisingly, the value of someone else's "thoughts and prayers" depended on the beliefs of the person who was asked. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, however, for some in the study, the value was negative:

 

"Rather than settling on one price for all, the study found the value of a compassionate gesture depended overwhelmingly on a person's beliefs. While Christian participants were willing to part with money to receive thoughts and prayers from others, the idea made nonbelievers baulk. Instead of shelling out to receive the gestures, on average they were willing to pay to avoid them."

 

The researchers were trying to understand public reactions to offers of prayer by prominent people (e.g., politicians) following disasters. While many appreciate the sentiment, there are some that are offended and react more viscerally:

 

"The study … focused on 436 residents of North Carolina, the state most affected by Hurricane Florence last year. The participants were given $5 (£4) 'in support of their hardship' and asked how much, if any, they were willing to exchange to receive thoughts and prayers from strangers, most of whom were recruited over the internet."

 

As noted above, many certainly valued receiving the thoughts and prayers of others:

 

"Prayers from a priest were worth $7.17 to the average Christian in need. Prayers from less exalted Christians were valued at $4.36, while mere thoughts from another Christian were cheaper still at $3.27. The researchers used statistical models to estimate prices people would pay above the $5 they had."

 

Others, however, placed a negative value on the offer:

 

"Atheists and agnostics, meanwhile, were averse to 'thoughts and prayers.' On average, they were willing to pay a priest $1.66 not to pray for them, and more than twice that, $3.54, to ensure a run-of-the-mill Christian similarly refrained."

 

I find this all quite amusing and very human. Of course, if you are an atheist, then why would you pay to alter the thoughts of others, which you do not believe have any effect on you or anybody else? The more important point about the paper, however, is that politicians are perceived to be using the offer of "thoughts and prayers" to cover for their unwillingness to act. As one activist seeking to prevent gun violence in the U.S. put it:

 

"'What we're hearing today at the Capitol and the White House are thoughts and prayers,' he said. 'Your thoughts and prayers aren't going to stop the next shooting. Only action and leadership will do that.'"

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Economists calculate monetary value of 'thoughts and prayers'

By Ian Sample

September 16, 2019

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/16/economists-calculate-monetary-value-thoughts-and-prayers

 

Strategic CSR - Carbon Tax

I thought the article in the url below was worth bringing to your attention (it is an open letter), simply because of the people who have signed-onto it:

 

"Editor's note: This statement is signed by 27 Nobel economic laureates, all four living former chairs of the Federal Reserve, 15 former chairmen of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and two former Treasury secretaries."

 

That is quite a group – and, if they can agree on anything, there is hope that the government can, one day, return to the job of legislating. The article opens with this statement:

 

"Global climate change is a serious problem calling for immediate national action. Guided by sound economic principles, we are united in the following policy recommendations."

 

It then goes on to list five policies. Here is the first line of each statement:

 

I. "A carbon tax offers the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed that is necessary."

II. "A carbon tax should increase every year until emissions reductions goals are met and be revenue neutral to avoid debates over the size of government."

III. "A sufficiently robust and gradually rising carbon tax will replace the need for various carbon regulations that are less efficient."

IV. "To prevent carbon leakage and to protect U.S. competitiveness, a border carbon adjustment system should be established."

V. "To maximize the fairness and political viability of a rising carbon tax, all the revenue should be returned directly to U.S. citizens through equal lump-sum rebates."

 

There are more details to each policy in the article itself, but this is interesting stuff from an impressive group! A more critical response appears in the article in the second url below:

 

"A carbon tax is not a miracle solution. There aren't any. We will be living with some amount of climate change due to the highly uncertain effects of rising CO2 levels for the foreseeable future. The difference between a happy and unhappy outcome for humanity will come down to our ability to maintain economic progress in the face of our extraordinarily daunting debt challenges."

 

Perhaps, but this does not discount the fact that a carbon tax is widely acknowledged to be the best tool we have to make rapid progress on reducing the amount of carbon we emit into the atmosphere.

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: http://studysites.sagepub.comstudy.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Economists' Statement on Carbon Dividends

January 17, 2019

The Wall Street Journal

Late Edition – Final

A13

https://www.wsj.com/articles/economists-statement-on-carbon-dividends-11547682910

Big Names Bake a Climate Pie in the Sky

By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.

January 19-20, 2019

The Wall Street Journal

Late Edition – Final

A13

https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-names-bake-a-climate-pie-in-the-sky-11547853413

 

Strategic CSR - Oversight

The article in the url below acknowledges how, by some measures, companies today face greater scrutiny than ever before:

 

"Chief executives are now exposed to all that the digital, connected world can throw at them. Social media provide a torrent of feedback from customers, ranging from the quality of sausages to customers' stance on Chinese intellectual-property laws. Companies' supply chains, whether mines in the Congo or sewing factories in Bangladesh, are watched and documented by activists, who ask difficult questions about pollution and labour conditions that many firms once chose to ignore."

 

But, the article questions whether this is the 'right' kind of scrutiny. In many ways, firms remain opaque – held to account on superficial metrics, but not sufficiently challenged on the details of day-to-day operations:

 

"Yet even as those theatrical forms of scrutiny have soared, the other kind [by financial analysts] – methodical, detailed, financial and often dry – is declining. This is harder to spot than grandstanding, but is no less important. People who depend on share prices rising or falling are among the best at holding firms to account. They ask the questions that chief executives find most awkward to answer. The work required to do that can be achingly dry; the best financial analysis is rigorous to the point of rigor mortis. But some information that seeps out serves a wider purpose. An investor might demand that a company's management detail how its underfunded pension pot will impact results in the third quarter, for example."

 

The article attributes this decline in oversight to two main reasons – first, increased regulation has constrained what executives can or cannot say about their firm, which encourages them "to say as little as possible," especially when pressed or the issue is 'controversial.' And second, the number of the kind of analysts who usually initiate these interrogations ("sell-side analysts") "has tumbled" in recent years as multiple financial crises have highlighted the fact that "they could be prone to conflicts of interest:"

 

"The biggest firms still get lots of attention, for now. But firms in the FTSE 250 index of mid-sized British companies, have seen coverage dwindle to seven analysts each, down by over a fifth in a decade."

 

The decline of this detailed oversight (combined with the increase of more superficial 'governance') has consequences – for example, it explains how United Airlines can face a massive online backlash to its less than ideal customer service, yet deliver record profits the next quarter (see Strategic CSR – United and Strategic CSR – United Airlines). A similar story played out for Uber (see Strategic CSR – Uber). Although a large part of strategic CSR focuses on diminishing the role of shareholders in business today, it still recognizes them as an important stakeholder – one of many, but important nonetheless. Detailed oversight of finances and operations is the most important role they can play:

 

"While the modern firm is constantly interrogated about its conduct and ethics, it is increasingly able to keep its performance under wraps. That makes companies look responsive but in the long run could mean the economy works less well for everyone."

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: http://studysites.sagepub.comstudy.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

One eye open, one eye shut

December 15, 2018

The Economist

Late Edition – Final

65

https://www.economist.com/business/2018/12/15/time-tested-ways-of-holding-business-to-account-are-crumbling

 

Strategic CSR - Anti-plastic

The article in the url below is useful because it maps out legislation to constrain the use of plastic across the U.S., state-by-state:

 

"Maine and Vermont just passed statewide bans on plastic bags, while Orlando, Fla., and Palo Alto, Calif., have both pushed through local restrictions on plastics this month."

 

What does this mean in the aggregate?

 

"Since the start of 2019, 200 bills related to single-use plastics have been introduced in state legislatures, according to the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators."

 

The rest of the article focuses on identifying the differences among the various laws and regulations, highlighting areas where they are working and, also, areas where there are problems. I am particularly interested in the unintended consequences of laws passed as a result of good intentions. For example, one benefit of single-use plastics (and the main reason they spread) is hygiene. In applications like medical devices, this can mean life or death, in terms of consumer goods, it has become more convenient than anything else. Either way, there are consequences of eradicating these essential items without finding a comparable alternative:

 

"Plastic bags help protect people from illnesses brought on by contact with meat or produce, said Grant Kidwell, director of the energy, environment and agriculture task force at the American Legislative Exchange Council. The nonprofit, comprised of conservative state legislators, helped produce a model for pre-emptive legislation prohibiting plastics bans."

 

I also have sympathy with the argument that we are taking baby steps here. Partly, this is due to the complexity of replacing fossil fuels in our lives, but it is also because we want to convince ourselves we are doing something without having to make any real sacrifices:

 

"Matt Seaholm, executive director of the American Progressive Bag Alliance, which represents plastic-bag manufacturers and lobbies against bans and fees, said while he is open to having conversations about broader waste-reduction, plastic bags have become a 'low-hanging fruit.'"

 

Ultimately, the federal system of government in the U.S. means that laws, such as these, that should be uniform throughout the country are, instead, left to each state to decide individually. Add onto that complexity cities and metropolitan areas, which also want a say:

 

"More city ordinances have helped influence state-level work. At least 414 local ordinances related to plastic bags have been passed in 28 states and Washington, D.C., according to … plasticbaglaws.org, a website that tracks these issues."

 

The result is almost always a more confused, and therefore less effective, approach to something we should be tackling comprehensively and together:

 

"'If we just continue on this path toward banning everything, you end up with a hodgepodge of local laws that don't work for consumers, don't work for businesses and miss the mark on the environment,' Mr. Seaholm said."

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: http://studysites.sagepub.comstudy.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/ 


Curbs on Plastic Items Take Root in Many States

By Jennifer Calfas

June 24, 2019

The Wall Street Journal

Late Edition – Final

A3

https://www.wsj.com/articles/plastic-bans-what-you-need-to-know-11561195802

 

Strategic CSR - Plastics

The article in the url below presents the 'war on plastics' from the perspective of those companies that produce the plastics:

 

"The backlash against single-use plastic has engulfed straws, bags and takeout containers, but the plastics industry is fighting back, arguing alternatives can be worse for the environment and disruptive for businesses. Trade groups are spending more on lobbying, reaching out to consumers and promoting recycling amid mounting regulation. Their message: Plastic bans target only waste and don't take account of environmental negatives associated with raw materials and the production of alternatives."

 

What I found interesting were the graphics in the story, which compare the carbon footprint of various alternative types of bags to the single-use plastic bag. For example:

 

"Cotton bags must be used 131 times for their carbon footprint to drop below that of a single-use plastic bag."

 

In other words (putting symbolic value aside), if we assume, generously, that cotton shopping bags are used twice a week, then that equates to over two years' worth of consistent use before these bags make more sense than single-use plastic bags. And that presumes the plastic bag is only used once, rather than multiple times, in reality. Similarly, bags made from "more durable plastic" must be used 11 times before they beat the single-use plastic bag, while a paper bag must be used 3 times. In other words, while the article does not gloss over the extent to which plastic pollutes our environment, it also questions whether alternatives are necessarily less polluting. Nevertheless, plastic bags have received a great deal of attention from those focused on imposing specific outcomes:

 

"A United Nations report shows 127 countries of 192 reviewed had adopted bans or other laws to manage plastic bags as of July. New York recently joined California in passing a state ban on single-use plastic bags. Advocates say bans cut plastic consumption and litter without a significant burden on consumers and businesses."

 

Firms, of course, might disagree with that last thought – protesting they are often caught in the middle of their various stakeholders, who are pulling them in different directions:

 

"McDonald's Corp. scrapped plastic straws in the U.K. last year but now faces a backlash. More than 44,000 people recently signed a petition calling for the fast-food chain to bring back plastic straws, complaining that paper replacements go soggy and make it hard to drink milk shakes."

 

In short, like many aspects of the CSR/sustainability debate, the article demonstrates that working out which outcomes create the optimal social value is complicated.

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: http://studysites.sagepub.comstudy.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


In Plastics War, the Industry Fights Back

By Saabira Chaudhuri

May 21, 2019

The Wall Street Journal

Late Edition – Final

B5

https://www.wsj.com/articles/plastics-industry-pushes-back-against-bans-11558358911