Strategic CSR - Plastic

The article in the url below is both hopeful and depressing at the same time. Hopeful because it suggests nature can adapt to our harmful behavior, but depressing because this reported mutation occurred in response to the damage we have already inflicted on the natural environment:

"Microbes in oceans and soils across the globe are evolving to eat plastic, according to a study. The research scanned more than 200m genes found in DNA samples taken from the environment and found 30,000 different enzymes that could degrade 10 different types of plastic."

I read the article's headline and my immediate reaction was, "oh, great, some hope" and then my second thought was, "oh, crap, we're such idiots." Nevertheless, the ability of nature to adapt is fascinating. The research is able to isolate the effects, which vary according to the location, because the evolution of the bacteria is specific to the nature of the local pollution:

"The study is the first large-scale global assessment of the plastic-degrading potential of bacteria and found that one in four of the organisms analysed carried a suitable enzyme. The researchers found that the number and type of enzymes they discovered matched the amount and type of plastic pollution in different locations."

Irrespective, we are neck-deep in plastic and need all the help we can get to reverse the damage that has been done:

"Millions of tonnes of plastic are dumped in the environment every year, and the pollution now pervades the planet, from the summit of Mount Everest to the deepest oceans. … But many plastics are currently hard to degrade and recycle. Using enzymes to rapidly break down plastics into their building blocks would enable new products to be made from old ones, cutting the need for virgin plastic production. The new research provides many new enzymes to be investigated and adapted for industrial use."

As the researchers note, the evolution is an indicator both of the scale of the problem, and the length of time we have been causing it:

"The explosion of plastic production in the past 70 years, from 2m tonnes to 380m tonnes a year, had given microbes time to evolve to deal with plastic, the researchers said."

And, of course, given the opportunity and knowledge that nature has given us, we are tweaking:

"The first bug that eats plastic was discovered in a Japanese waste dump in 2016. Scientists then tweaked it in 2018 to try to learn more about how it evolved, but inadvertently created an enzyme that was even better at breaking down plastic bottles. Further tweaks in 2020 increased the speed of degradation sixfold. Another mutant enzyme was created in 2020 by the company Carbios that breaks down plastic bottles for recycling in hours. German scientists have also discovered a bacterium that feeds on the toxic plastic polyurethane, which is usually dumped in landfills."

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/

Bugs across globe are evolving to eat plastic, study finds

By Damian Carrington

December 14, 2021

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/14/bugs-across-globe-are-evolving-to-eat-plastic-study-finds

 

Strategic CSR - Fungibility

The article in the url below is an interesting discussion about the consequences of a high oil price for fossil fuel consumption and the switch to renewables:

"With oil costing more than $100 a barrel, and Russia's war in Ukraine underscoring the risk of relying on fossil fuel, it would seem like a great time to speed up the transition away from the polluting fuel. The reality isn't so simple. Public support for climate action is higher than ever in most countries, but that doesn't ease the economic pain when everything from food to transport gets more costly. … That reliance makes any imbalance between supply and demand a source of price volatility, including the current spike."

Like everything else, the pandemic threw a wrench into pricing in the oil industry:

"In 2020, oil giants drastically pulled back on investments to increase production on the assumption that Covid-19 lockdowns would depress demand for their product. But the quick rollout of vaccines in developed nations led to a faster-than-expected recovery and a shortfall in supply. Now Russia's invasion of Ukraine has added risk to oil supply, with economic sanctions growing. Analysts say the longer the war goes on, the greater the chance the price of oil remains above the $100 mark."

The result is that 'change' to the industry is coming a lot slower than required. Partly that is due to the necessary shift in mindset, partly due to the lifecycle of infrastructure (hard to justify replacing infrastructure before it wears out), and partly resistance from those who do not agree with the case for change and the urgency to act sooner rather than later. For example, take the sale of EVs, which have been doing particularly well in Norway:

"Yet clean energy has merely slowed down the growth of fossil fuel demand, and hasn't yet led to substantial decrease in oil consumption in most countries. … Consider what's happening in Norway, where 65% of all vehicles sold in 2021 were electric and yet oil demand has fallen less than 10% since 2013. Plus, there's rising demand from developing countries that need more energy to fuel growing economies."

In illustrating the point, this chart caught my attention. It demonstrates the fungible nature of oil but, to me, it signifies a more serious problem. In essence, the chart suggests that, in spite of the rapid increase in EV sales, oil consumption remains relatively stable:

 

If these data are correct, and play out across all nations, then we are in bigger trouble than I thought. I have long thought there are three categories of actions we are taking in response to climate change:

1. Complete deception
2. Well-intentioned, but ineffective
3. Making a difference

I had been filing the rise of EVs under the 'making a difference' heading (which was the smallest bucket of the three). If it turns out that EVs should really be housed under category 2, then the number 3 bucket becomes even lighter. And none of that, of course, includes all the rare earths and other materials that are going into making the batteries that make EVs much more environmentally intensive straight off the lot (see Strategic CSR – EVs).

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/

Why $100 a Barrel Oil Could Be Bad for the Energy Transition

By Akshat Rathi and Will Mathis

March 2, 2022

Bloomberg

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-02/why-100-a-barrel-oil-could-be-bad-for-the-energy-transition

 

Strategic CSR - Sharks

Here's a good thought for the day – a relatively simple innovation that makes a difference:

"LED lights can save more than energy. A first-of-its kind study found that when attached to fishing nets, they dramatically reduce the incidental killing of sharks and other top predators that help keep marine ecosystems healthy and seafood on dinner plates."

The problem:

"Global shark populations have plummeted 71% since 1970, largely due to overfishing and the inadvertent capture of the species in fishing nets."

An extremely simple, yet effective, solution:

"The biomass of this 'bycatch' of sharks and rays, however, fell 95% when researchers placed green LED lights on more than 16,000 feet of nets off Mexico's Pacific coast."

Moreover:

"The researchers from the United States and Mexico found that overall bycatch declined 63% compared to control nets that were not lighted. That included a 51% drop in the killing of endangered loggerhead turtles and an 81% drop in the capture of giant Humboldt squid, another top predator. That meant that fishers improved their productivity as they spent 57% less time untangling unwanted species from their nets, according to the researchers."

But, one frustrating reason why this effective solution will probably not be widely adopted:

"[The] fishers in Mexico embraced the LEDs as the drop in bycatch allowed them to return to port faster and more profitably sell their catch as it was fresher. Still, obstacles to the widespread deployment of the lights remain. Each LED costs about $7 and runs on batteries that must be frequently replaced by fishers."

Some hope:

"[The researchers] have developed a solar-powered LED that can operate for a week on an hour of sunlight and is currently being tested in Mexico."

And, future research that is currently being planned:

"'There are critical questions that need to be answered — namely what wavelengths of light work best and how do different species respond to different wavelengths,' … 'Some are attracted to light, others are repelled by light — hence this could cause complications in some mixed species fisheries.'"

Hope you have a good weekend

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/

How the Fishing Industry Can Save Sharks and Seafood with LED Lights

By Todd Woody

January 25, 2022

Bloomberg Businessweek

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-25/led-lighted-nets-reduce-bycatch-of-sharks-species-threatened-by-climate-change

 

Strategic CSR - Unilever

I am divided on the importance of the article in the url below – an announcement by Unilever that it plans to give shareholders a regular vote on its sustainability plan (see also Strategic CSR – Unilever):

"Unilever PLC said it would become the first major company to voluntarily give shareholders a vote on its efforts to reduce carbon emissions, seeking greater engagement with investors on climate issues."

On the one hand, it is inflating the importance of shareholders in company decisions, while not giving a similar level of access/influence to other stakeholders. On the other hand, however, it is an acknowledgement that Unilever feels the issue of sustainability has evolved to the point where it will generally win these votes; it also is a smart strategic move to wrest the initiative away from shareholders and control the way debates on this issue are handled at the firm's AGM:

"The owner of Dove soap and Ben & Jerry's ice cream said Monday it would seek approval from investors every three years on its plan to mitigate its carbon impact and the risks of climate change on its business. However, the vote would be only advisory and doesn't require Unilever to make changes. Major investors say they are putting more emphasis on addressing the threats posed by climate change, with shareholder resolutions on the issue becoming more common. By proposing its own climate resolutions for shareholders to vote on—which take into account the challenges and realities of achieving them—Unilever is in the driving seat, said one big investor."

And, then again, perhaps Unilever is just resigned to the inevitable:

"BlackRock Inc., one of Unilever's largest investors, said earlier this year that it would be increasingly likely to vote against management and boards if companies don't disclose climate-change risks and plans in line with key industry standards."

Alternatively, perhaps it is better for Unilever to proactively instigate this change, which allows it to constrain the vote as "advisory" only, while continuing to stretch its own performance on this issue:

"A Unilever spokeswoman said investor interest in managing the transition to net zero was growing and that the company wanted to send a signal that it was serious about meeting these targets."

Either way, the timing of the announcement was fortuitous, given yesterday's announcement by the SEC that it will start requiring firms to report the environmental impact of operations and the risk climate change poses to the business. Unilever is more progressive on such issues than most companies – a position that is reflected in the timelines and targets the firm is pursuing:

"The consumer-goods giant is among the growing number of companies setting public targets for cutting carbon emissions over the next few years. London-based Unilever has promised to eliminate emissions from its own operations by 2030 and to do the same from sourcing to point of sale by 2039. It also plans to halve the footprint of its products in the next decade, which involves the more difficult process of cutting emissions from consumers using its products."

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/

Unilever Allows Climate Input

By Saabira Chaudhuri

December 15, 2020

The Wall Street Journal

Late Edition – Final

B6

https://www.wsj.com/articles/unilever-to-give-investors-advisory-vote-on-climate-change-plan-11607971421

 

Strategic CSR - Sharing

I like the article in the url below because it explains how market forces are being used to solve a societal problem. The problem is the misallocation of resources (people have more of certain things than they need and other things they don't want), but solves it through the barter system (instead of the exchange of money):

"Who on earth wants fish tank wastewater, chicken poo, tumble-dryer lint, loo roll tubes, 'a plaster mould of a Komodo dragon's foot' or half a broken toilet? No one, you might think, but the Buy Nothing community begs to differ: these are all real 'gifts' snapped up by more than 5 million members worldwide, who give away their unwanted items in the local community."

For example:

"There is nothing unique or original about giving and getting stuff for free. It's a practice as old as humanity. The juggernaut giveaway network Freecycle was founded in 2003 – but what distinguishes the Buy Nothing project … is that the emphasis is less on stuff, per se, and more on community. In what Buy Nothing describes as its 'hyperlocal gift economies,' users are encouraged to let items 'simmer' rather than giving them away to the first person who asks, perhaps suggesting they share a joke or provide a story explaining why they would like the item. In addition to 'gifts' and 'asks,' users are encouraged to post 'gratitude,' with a message or a picture showing what a gifted item has meant to them."

The project has radical roots:

"It's a 'social experiment,' explain the project's founders, Rebecca Rockefeller and Liesl Clark, from their respective living rooms in Washington state, effecting a fundamental shift in our attitude to material goods by building a sense of community, and treating items as community-owned and shared. 'If you come at it from an angle of joy and human connection,' says Rockefeller, "you're more likely to inspire lasting change than when you come at it from telling people: 'You have to do without this.'"

And, the underlying philosophy appears to be realistic, rather than idealistic:

"There's no expectation or even aspiration that users will somehow forge a fully cashless economy. Indeed, during the pandemic, Buy Nothing changed its rules to allow members to give gifts of cash. 'Quite literally, that's a lifesaving gift you can give another person in a lot of cases,' says Rockefeller. 'This was never meant to be an exercise in purity: that doesn't serve us well. What serves us well is flexibility. A banana, a chunk of concrete or $10 – those are all good gifts.'"

For more on the buy nothing phenomenon, see: https://youtu.be/T2Saa_NVotY

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/

'A banana, concrete – these are good gifts': The recycling group turning strangers into friends

By Emma Beddington

January 13, 2022

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/jan/13/a-banana-concrete-those-are-good-gifts-recycling-group-turning-strangers-into-friends

 

Strategic CSR - Meat

An issue that has long been frustrating with the U.S.-centric model of capitalism is the declining level of competition within industries. Less competition today has been caused by antitrust regulators failing to enforce antitrust regulations over decades. In the face of this concentration, how do we begin to turn back the tide? The article in the url below tackles that question in the context of the meatpacking industry, where competition is woefully lacking:

"Corporate concentration is a growing problem across the economy, but meatpacking is especially afflicted. Four companies produce more than 80 percent of the nation's beef, and their dominance has come at the expense of cattle farmers, meatpacking workers and American consumers, who eat an average of 55 pounds of beef each year."

In response, a single cattle farmer (Chad Tentinger) is attempting to rally a number of small farmers to build their own meatpacking facility. The challenge is that, while the potential payoff is large, the effort requires a sizeable investment, at considerable risk to the individual farmers:

"The price tag for the plant is $450 million, about a third of which Mr. Tentinger hopes to raise from other farmers. He says he'll start building this spring with or without federal support, but government subsidies, in the form of grants, low-cost loans or loan guarantees, would improve the chances of survival."

The project is also challenging in ways that are not simply financial:

"It won't be quick … Mr. Tentinger doesn't plan to open his meatpacking operation until 2024. It also won't be easy. The government still needs to tighten regulation of existing producers, not least to prevent the big firms from buying up new meatpackers or pushing them out of business. And the Biden administration's approach is less likely to find a foothold in the chicken and pork industries, where corporate concentration has left fewer independent farmers."

Among the attempts to make the possible facility more friendly for farmers and workers, there are a number of innovations being considered. What caught my eye is that:

"Mr. Tentinger's company, Cattlemen's Heritage, aims to process about 400,000 head of cattle per year, or roughly 1 percent of the nation's beef. It's not the volume that makes the plant so intriguing — it's the business model. The company is offering a better financial deal to farmers, and if it succeeds, it's not hard to imagine other groups of farmers organizing to build more plants. (Indeed, a group in Nebraska already is working to build a similar plant.) Mr. Tentinger also is offering a better deal to workers. He chose Council Bluffs in the hopes of wooing workers from meatpacking plants across the river in Omaha with the promise of higher wages and better working conditions, including on-site day care. Consumers could benefit too. If productivity rises, prices could fall."

The project requires the vision to see past the upfront costs and hassle associated with innovation and through to the other side to a better meat processing industry. And it is better simply because it would make the industry that much more competitive.

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/

Building a Better Meatpacking Industry

By Binyamin Appelbaum

January 16, 2022

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

SR8

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/15/opinion/meat-meatpacking-industry.html

 

Strategic CSR - Climate inaction

I saw this chart on LinkedIn yesterday, and found the url online, here. The chart plots the cumulative carbon concentration in the atmosphere against time, noting all the significant attempts by various bodies to raise awareness about climate change and initiate action. No commentary needed, I think:

Beyond frustrating.

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 - Fast fashion

The article in the url below presents stark evidence to suggest that our love of fast fashion is an unsustainable trend:

"Between 1990 and 2018, the latest annual data available, real prices of footwear and clothing halved in the U.S., an analysis by Cambridge Econometrics shows. In the U.K., where consumers can't get enough of cheap fashion brands, prices fell by three quarters."

The trouble is that cheaper clothes appears to encourage consumers to purchase more of them, even while their overall costs decline:

"U.S. consumers spend just 3% of their disposable income on clothing, down from 10% in the 1960s, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data."

The result is incredible amounts of waste:

"Of the roughly 100 billion items of clothing produced each year, more than 50 billion are thrown away and subsequently burned or landfilled within 12 months of being made, according to a recent UBS report."

But, after making this case, the article takes an interesting turn (particularly so, perhaps, because the article appears in the WSJ):

"The situation seems unsustainable, yet investors in fashion stocks face a conundrum: Consumers don't seem to care. The amount of clothing and footwear sold globally fell 10% in 2020, Euromonitor data shows, but that is easily explained by the pandemic-related lockdowns that kept shops shut. Before the Covid-19 outbreak, the amount sold globally was increasing steadily at around 3% a year."

Moreover:

"For now, there is no direct threat of a regulatory crackdown either. The fashion sector's long supply chain cuts across multiple countries and sectors, including petrochemicals for fibre manufacturing, making it more complex for governments to rein in. That is despite the fact that the fashion industry contributes up to 10% of global carbon emissions. By comparison, commercial aviation generates just 2% to 3%, according to Citi analysts."

Yet, in spite of these indicators that there is no impediment to continuing with the status quo, the article introduces a note of caution for existing or potential investors in the industry:

"Environmental, social, and governance risks don't appear to be priced into the share prices of publicly traded fashion companies, even as analysts report that investors are asking more questions about sustainability. That might help explain isolated examples of extreme share-price volatility. Last year, a scandal about labor conditions at British fast-fashion company Boohoo Group wiped 40% off its market value in three trading days."

In other words, just because you can get away with something today does not mean you should; nor does it mean you always will be able to get away with it:

"It is possible that shoppers aren't yet aware of the climate impact of their sartorial choices. … But that could easily change. … Take Sweden, where 'flygskam,' or flight shaming, became a trend in 2018. That led to a 3% fall in domestic passenger travel that year, followed by an 9% drop in 2019, official data shows."

The article concludes by showing however reluctant society is to wake up to the unsustainability of our fashion choices today, the fact that the developing world consumes fractions of what the developed world consumes suggests the industry will need to be more sustainable in the very near future:

"In 2006, Chinese shoppers bought 14 items of apparel every year, but this number had more than doubled by 2019, according to UBS. Americans' purchases also increased over the period, but not by as much—from 48 to 54 items a year."

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/

Cheap Clothes May Prove Costly

By Carol Ryan

May 22-23, 2021

The Wall Street Journal

Late Edition – Final

B12

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hidden-cost-of-cheap-fashion-could-catch-up-to-investors-zara-old-navy-11621556298

 

Strategic CSR - Carbon capture

The article in the url below reports renewed interest from venture capitalists in carbon capture technology. The same article, however, also reveals how difficult it can be to produce such innovation and, perhaps what matters most, scale it for meaningful impact:

"More than 80% of proposed commercial carbon-capture efforts around the world have failed, primarily because the technology didn't work as expected or the projects proved too expensive to operate, according to a 2020 study."

These projects are generally not super expensive (in the larger scheme of things) and, of course, are well-worth the effort, but the overall record is not encouraging:

"The U.S. has spent $1.1 billion on carbon-capture demonstration projects since 2009, with uneven results, according to a December report from the Government Accountability Office. None of the eight coal projects selected for $684 million of the funding during that time is operating, the researchers found. Projects to capture carbon from heavy industries met with some success."

One challenge that I had not considered is the market value of the carbon that is being captured. To the extent that it is a useful material, it would encourage greater effort to innovate. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case:

"While some early projects have demonstrated that it is technologically possible to collect carbon from power plants and industrial sites—or even directly out of the air—they have generally been very expensive. Many face a fundamental problem: there is no economic use for the carbon they capture."

Let's hope we are willing to alter our collective behavior and not rely 100 percent on science/technological innovation to bail us out of this mess.

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/

Carbon-Capture Efforts Resurface

By Jennifer Hiller and Collin Eaton

February 7, 2022

The Wall Street Journal

Late Edition – Final

B2

https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-concerns-revive-interest-in-carbon-capture-despite-checkered-history-11644235380

Strategic CSR - Shareholders

The article in the url below continues to challenge the prevailing narrative in large sections of the media and academia that stakeholder capitalism has arrived:

"Chief executives love to talk about 'stakeholder capitalism.' But when they face a final choice to sell a company and divide the spoils between workers and shareholders, guess who gets the money? You got it: Shareholders are the winners—along with the executives themselves."

A constant distortion of the decision making inside companies continues to be the structure of compensation, which defaults primarily to share price (via stock options). And, again, it is academics in the law school that are taking the lead in exposing the apparent hypocrisy among businesses:

"An analysis of takeover deals during the pandemic by academics at Harvard Law School reveals the priorities of America's corporate leaders. In public, they talk about the importance of employees, communities, the environment and other stakeholders in the business. In private, they negotiate deals they know will lead to job losses and closed offices but don't demand compensation for the losers."

The conclusion, of this author at least, is depressingly familiar:

"Stakeholder capitalism has turned out to be standard shareholder capitalism, with a smiley face. That should be a wake-up call for those listening to high-profile investors such as BlackRock Chief Executive Larry Fink, who wrote to fellow CEOs in January to advocate having a corporate purpose, and announced the creation of BlackRock's 'Center for Stakeholder Capitalism.'"

Specifically, the research demonstrates that:

"Out of 116 takeovers of companies worth more than $1 billion since April 2020, precisely none included any legally binding protection of jobs or guaranteed compensation for those who would be laid off. By contrast, executives of the target firms were able to negotiate an average takeover premium of 34% for shareholders, compared with the pre-deal price. As well as the gains on the stock they held, 98% of deals offered executives a takeover payout of some kind, and just under half changed compensation terms to reward top management further."

And, twisting the knife:

"The crumbs thrown to stakeholders were explicitly unenforceable, except for a tiny amount of required bonuses. The required and nonbinding bonus pools provided for in deal terms together amounted to 0.4% of the gains made by shareholders from the takeover, according to [the research paper]."

Where there are shifts, the author argues (persuasively, I think), they are driven by market forces, rather than any reconsideration of the values underpinning many of the corporations that signed the BRT statement (see Strategic CSR – BRT), as well (of course) of those that were not signatories:

"What's changed is that workers and customers, helped by social media and tight labor markets, are able to demand more from companies on issues they once let slide. When employees can easily find a job elsewhere, and customers are able to organize boycotts with a few tweets, it is easier to press complaints about child labor in the supply chain, treatment of minorities and women, carbon emissions and crass executive comments. Companies vulnerable to such issues—not all are, but most—need to pay attention, and are increasingly dressing up such attention as 'stakeholder' concerns."

The ultimate conclusion?

"… don't be fooled. CEOs still care primarily about the bottom line (and their bonus), because that is what they are motivated to care about. They will pay attention to stakeholder concerns only to the extent that they affect that bottom line, and in a takeover they rarely matter."

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/

Shareholders Reign Supreme Despite CEO Promises to Society

By James Mackintosh

February 11, 2022

The Wall Street Journal

Late Edition – Final

B1, B10

https://www.wsj.com/articles/shareholders-reign-supreme-despite-ceo-promises-to-society-11644496644