Strategic CSR - 40-hour workweek

The article in the url below charts the development of the 40-hour workweek in the U.S. As the author argues, while the story of its evolution is interesting, it is more interesting that something we take for granted today is a relatively recent innovation. In spite of some industry-specific legislation, along with experiments by companies such as Ford, the norm for workers in the early 20th Century remained long hours and a six-day week -- a situation that only really changed with The Great Depression:

"Amid mass unemployment, a bipartisan consensus developed in Washington around work sharing: more people working shorter hours. In 1938, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act into law. It set a minimum wage of 25 cents an hour and a standard workweek of 44 hours initially, reduced to 40 hours by 1940, with anybody who worked longer hours being entitled to time-and-a-half overtime pay."

This idea spread after the end of WWII:

"In postwar America, the 40-hour week became the norm for millions of workers, with overtime pay acting as a disincentive for employers to require longer hours."

Having won this progress, the author argues that the U.S. worker is now voluntarily surrendering it. Starting in the 1970s, the average workweek has increased in length, and all in the name of individual freedom:

"In the new millennium, the U.S. workweek varies widely for different kinds of workers. Email and the internet, laptops and smartphones, and tools like Zoom and Slack have liberated many office workers from the physical office, but at the cost of an increasingly porous boundary between work and home life."

In other words, you can work whenever you like, as long as it is most of the time:

"A 2025 Gallup poll found that 40% of full-time employees work 40 hours in a typical week, while 38% work from 41 to 59 and 15% work more than 60 hours a week. Only 8% work less than 40 hours."

But, as some begin to question whether the level of productivity is correlated positively with the quantity of hours worked, a few companies are experimenting with a 4-day week (see Strategic CSR — 4-day workweek and Strategic CSR — Microsoft). The research on this so far suggests there are real benefits for organizations:

"Employers participating in the trial saw improvements in employee retention, with resignations falling from 1.8 a month before implementing the four-day week to 1.4 a month afterward. Sick and personal days declined from one day per employee a month to 0.8."

There are also benefits for workers:

"For employees, meanwhile, the main benefits were in well-being and work-life balance. … For example, 69% of participants experienced reduced burnout, nearly 40% were less stressed and anxious, 42% reported better mental health, and 37% percent saw improvements in physical health."

 

The latest twist in the story is the evolution of A.I, of course, which promises to reduce the amount of total work needed. But, it is unclear to the author if that promise will ever be realized, and whether whatever the new norm becomes will be beneficial for workers:

“… it’s not a foregone conclusion that the productivity gains from AI will usher in the age of 15-hour workweeks and abundant leisure time predicted somewhat prematurely by John Maynard Keynes back in 1930."

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (6e)

© Sage Publications, 2023

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e  

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

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

 

How Did We Get A 40-hour Workweek?

By Andrew Blackman

December 1, 2025

The Wall Street Journal Report: The Business of Work

Late Edition – Final

R17

https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/workplace/labor-activism-40-hour-work-week-edcd8305

Strategic CSR - Walmart

Here are a few charts from the article in the url below about Walmart's turnaround that I find encouraging. Collectively, I believe (hope?) that the charts tell a story of an emerging stakeholder perspective and, in particular, the value of an organization treating its employees as its primary stakeholder. First is Walmart's decision, made back in 2009 and in response to extensive external pressure, to raise the hourly pay of its employees – a decision that played out gradually, over time:

Second is the growth in Walmart's annual sales, with a more motivated workforce, covering roughly the same period:

 

Finally, lagging behind, is the company's share price. Initially, the stock market responded negatively to Walmart's announcement of its intention to increase employee pay. This changed when the value of the company treating its employees well became apparent:

 

Much of the data in the article is taken from an upcoming HBS case that focuses on the decision by Walmart to improve the working conditions of its employees as driving its subsequent success. Perhaps even HBS has now come around to the benefits of a stakeholder perspective (and the value of an organization treating its employees as its primary stakeholder), after so many damaging decades of promoting shareholder primacy.

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (6e)

© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e  

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

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

A Decade-Old Flop Is Now Held Up As Walmart's Shining Success

By Sarah Nassauer

October 18-19, 2025

The Wall Street Journal

Late Edition – Final

B1, B11

https://www.wsj.com/business/retail/walmart-employee-treatment-success-f96761f4

Strategic CSR - Disabilities

The article in the url below frames a challenging debate by asking, "Is it ever right to pay disabled workers pennies per hour?" Although, on the face of it, the answer seems like an emphatic 'no,' the article suggests the reality is more complex (see also Strategic CSR – Discrimination and Strategic CSR – Dementia):

"Jeffrey Pennington sits at a desk packing ten-piece sets of zip ties. A diagram on a piece of paper helps him count before he drops the ties into a resealable bag and begins again. Mr Pennington, who has Down's syndrome and autism and struggles to speak, once dreamed of waiting tables at Wendy's, a fast-food joint. Today he is one of 77 disabled people working in 'the shop' at Creative Enterprises, a Georgia non-profit. Mr Pennington and his co-workers assemble allergy-test and home-repair kits for big companies. Each week Mr Pennington proudly takes home a pay cheque, but after about ten hours' work it amounts to only about $3.00."

According to the article, the federal government in the U.S. can certify companies like Creative Enterprises to pay their employees with disabilities less than the minimum wage. These certifications were created by legislation passed in 1938 that was intended to create employment opportunities for disabled veterans:

"Today these workers—most of whom are intellectually disabled—make hotel beds, do corporate laundry, pack pharmaceutical pill boxes and shred files, among other jobs. Because they are paid based on their productivity rather than time worked, some, like Mr Pennington, earn mere cents each hour. Roughly half of those employed in these 'sheltered workshops' … make under $3.50 an hour, … or less than half the federal minimum wage."

Understandably, advocates for the disabled argue strongly against these certificates. Jill Jacobs, who leads the National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities, for example, protests on the grounds that such employment is abusive and unconstitutional, but also because it is anti-competitive:

"Barely having to pay for labour, she says, allows [these companies] to undercut other bidders for competitive contracts with companies like Amazon. Georgia advocates point to Creative Enterprise's $1.6m profit last year … as evidence for this view."

In contrast, the CEO at Creative Enterprises, Leigh McIntosh, argues that this legislation creates opportunities for people who otherwise would be hard-pressed to find work:

"By her estimation those at Creative are about 15% as productive as standard workers, and it would not be economically viable to pay them a full hourly wage. Each year she places about 40 people from her non-profit in outside jobs. Those who choose to stay, who tend to have much lower abilities, take pride in their work."

By this point in the article, I was still on the side of those seeking to ban "sheltered workshops," which is currently the case in 18 states in the U.S. (and is under consideration in a few other states, such as Georgia). But, the article finishes with representations from the parents of these employees, implying that they support these opportunities for their children who face extreme levels of discrimination elsewhere in society:

"Mr Pennington's mother says he loves his job and does not know the difference between $0.25 and $25. She feels frustrated by disability activists insisting that someone like her son can do more and ought to be treated like a regular worker. 'He has the mental capacity of a kindergartener,' she says as her eyes well with tears. 'How could a five-year-old work at Target?'"

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (6e)

© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e  

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

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

The zip ties that bind

April 5, 2025

The Economist

Late Edition – Final

21

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/04/03/is-it-ever-right-to-pay-disabled-workers-pennies-per-hour

 

Strategic CSR - Taylor Swift

The article in the url below offers a contemplation on what it means to be a successful artist, in terms of a commentary on Taylor Swift's dominant year in the mainstream popular conversation:

"Did you know you'll soon be able to take a course in Taylor Swift at Queen Mary University of London? There's already one of these at a university in Belgium: it's called Literature: (Taylor's Version), and starts this autumn. In February, academics will gather in Australia for a high-level 'Swiftposium.' In the US, meanwhile, people fret over the pop star's political power. Last week, with a single Instagram post, she helped register 35,000 new voters in a day. Others concern themselves with Swiftonomics: where Taylor steps, businesses grow and bloom. Three concert nights in Chicago were enough to revive its tourism industry, according to the governor of Illinois. News recently got out that Swift is dating NFL player Travis Kelce. Sales of his jersey are up 400%."

But, the article is also an insight into distorted economies, where an extremely small minority take a lion's share of the wealth generated in those economies:

"'If Swift were an economy,' the president of a major online research company has said, 'she'd be bigger than 50 countries… her loyalty numbers mimic those of subjects to a royal crown.'"

While those artists who earn the majority of the wealth are arguably the most talented, their success is undoubtedly disproportionate. In other words, an artist that is only slightly less talented receives a very small fraction of the wealth of those who are the most talented (or popular):

"Swift, like Bob Dylan, to whom she is often compared, is probably a genius. But is she really 50 countries more of a genius than all those almost-Taylors, artists whose economies still amount to the size of a room in their parents' basements? For Swift stands a Gulliver among Lilliputians: the prize for being one scintilla less talented or lucky is, generally, a life scraping minimum wage. And there's another world too, perhaps a mere breath from this one, where a 33-year-old Swift still struggles in country music clubs and another artist is reigning king or queen."

As in any competitive market, the incentive is to win, and if you win then, increasingly it seems, you do so disproportionately:

"One per cent of musicians hog 90% of the takings. Gaming looks similar, as do the visual arts. As these industries are increasingly globalised, things are getting worse. There is no striving middle class."

This commentary is all an excuse to get to the quote that I found the most alarming in the article:

"On Spotify, artists need 6m streams to achieve the equivalent of a year on the UK's minimum wage."

This evidence is taken from a much drier document – evidence submitted to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Parliamentary Select Committee, in the UK:

"Taking Spotify as an example, it is estimated that on average an artist will receive £0.0028 per stream. That means that it would take roughly 3000 steams to make one hour of the UK minimum wage. If you were to have a full-time job, you would work somewhere in the region of 2000 hours a year, with that in mind to make the minimum living wage for the year in the UK you would need 6 Million streams."

I knew Spotify was hard going for artists, but not that hard going. It places a lot in perspective around the economics of music streaming, and why so many content producers see it as a double-edged sword, even while us content consumers revel in the technological advances that are breaking down barriers to access. I always suspected that, while the music is free to me, the cost was being paid by others elsewhere in the system – artists who do not have anywhere near the success of Taylor Swift, even though many of them are nearly as talented (or maybe even as talented, but not as lucky) as she has been in her amazing career.

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (6e)

© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 

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

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

We should celebrate Taylor Swift. But her success shouldn't crowd out others

By Martha Gill

September 30, 2023

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/30/taylor-swift-reaps-country-sized-riches-other-artists-squeezed-out

Strategic CSR - Value

The article in the url below is a radio interview, held a decade after the 2008 Financial Crisis, with the author of a book that had just been released, The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy (2018). The author's goal in writing the book, and why I found it interesting, was to redefine (or perhaps 'recapture' is more accurate) what we understand to constitute value.

To summarize: In calling for a broader theory of value in a wide ranging discussion (in the interview), the author draws a distinction between value determining price (previously) and price determining value (today) – a change she argues has occurred over the last couple of hundred years. In other words, previously, the more we valued the way something was produced, the more we would be willing to pay for it (emphasizing trades people and artisanal skills). This compares to today, where the author argues we now have it backwards because we interpret the price itself as determining how much we should value the product or service – in other words, things that are expensive are, by definition, more valuable to us than things that are cheaper. This same logic can be extended to resources such as labor, which is today valued by wage levels (generally determined at the intersection of demand and supply), rather than necessarily the nature of the work that is performed. In other words, we reward rarity, simply for the sake of being rare, rather than rewarding the work that delivers the most happiness or social value, or some other metric, which we used to do and the author thinks is a more commonsensical understanding of what we should value.

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (6e)

© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 

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

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

A New Way to Calculate Economic Value

The Brian Lehrer Show

September 10, 2018

WYNC

https://www.wnyc.org/story/new-way-calculate-economic-value/

 

Strategic CSR - McDonald's

The headline of the article in the url below is a bit misleading, since there is a crew working behind the scenes, but the implication is clear:

"The first mostly non-human-run McDonald's is open for business just outside Fort Worth, Texas. At just one location so far, customers can drive to the golden arches and expect to be served a Big Mac or a Happy Meal by a food and beverage conveyor instead of an actual, real-life human being."

This is the 'future' for McDonald's and it doesn't take a genius to figure out why the firm is pressing for greater automation – it is a response to increasing calls for the minimum wage in fast-food restaurants to be raised, which would of course increase McDonald's costs:

This creates a conundrum for those advocating for higher minimum wages. Either the stakeholders of those firms are able to signal a willingness to pay higher prices for a personal/human touch, or firms will push for automation wherever they can introduce it. Lowering costs is just another way of becoming more efficient, which is what customers seem to say they want from firms, even though McDonald's currently pays about as low a wage as it is possible to get away with in the US:

"In Texas, the minimum wage is $7.25 an hour and hasn't increased in nearly a decade. It ranks above only Georgia and Wyoming's minimum wage of $5.15, which is $2.10 less than the US federal minimum wage. Five other states have not adopted a set minimum wage: Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee. … McDonald's is one of 300 publicly held companies with the lowest median worker wages, according to a 2021 Institute for Policy Studies report."

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (6e)

© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 

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

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

Touchscreens, conveyor belts: McDonald's opens first largely automated location

By Erum Salam

December 23, 2022

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/dec/23/mcdonalds-automated-workers-fort-worth-texas

 

Strategic CSR - $70,000 (II)

The article in the url below follows up on an encouraging story from 2015 (see Strategic CSR - $70,000):

"Six years ago, Dan Price, the founder and CEO of credit-card processing company Gravity Payments. made waves when he announced that he was raising the firm's minimum salary to $70,000 for his 120 employees. To accommodate the change, Price slashed his own $1 million salary."

Six years later, the results are in:

"In the following years, revenue soared, and staff had many more babies and bought more homes, Price [said]."

And these results are contrary to what many predicted at the time:

"The move inevitably drew skepticism. 'The media in general said we would fail. Or even in some cases, rooted for us to fail,' Price said. But he believes he's proved them wrong: 'It's been over six years and we've had really fantastic results. We've had a 10 times increase in the number of first-time homeowners every year and 70% of our employees were able to pay down debt,' Price said. About a third of his staff reported they were debt-free. 'Our employees had a 10x boom in terms of the number of babies they were having. We went from having between 0-2 babies born per year among the entire team, to over 65 born or announced over the last six years,' he added."

Having survived the COVID pandemic, Price believes the lesson from the exercise is pretty clear:

"His employee-centric business model, which includes unlimited parental leave and unlimited paid time off, has led to more than 300 applications per vacancy this year. 'It gives a little perspective that paying a living wage is a huge factor in keeping and finding employees,' Price said."

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/

After this CEO raised his company's minimum wage to $70,000, he said the number of babies born to staff each year grew 10-fold and revenue soared

By Zahra Tayeb

February 15-16, 2020

Business Insider

https://www.businessinsider.com/gravity-payments-dan-price-ceo-raise-minimum-wage-revenue-2021-8

Strategic CSR - Amazon

I have long noted that we get the companies we deserve, in the same way that we get the politicians we deserve. In other words, as non-agentic entities, companies reflect the collective set of values (or votes) of all stakeholders, who make decisions based around perceived self-interest to advance their interests within the boundaries of what we call 'the firm.' The article in the url below makes the same point, arriving at its destination in a round-about way, perhaps without meaning to and definitely using different rhetoric, but the same point nonetheless. It begins with the usual pedestrian criticism of Amazon and how it operates:

"Here are some of the ways that people who have worked inside Amazon's warehouses describe the experience: 'The job crushed my spirit and crippled my body.' 'The lowest point in my life.' An 'isolating colony of hell.' 'They're killing people mentally and physically.' 'I began to hate my day-to-day life.' 'The way Amazon pushes people is not moral.' 'I had whole days where I didn't talk to anyone.' 'The systematic devaluing of human bodies.' Few of these accounts are new. But persistent horror stories have done nothing to diminish Amazon's geometric growth. In 2017, the company's head count surpassed 500,000 employees. In 2020, Amazon added that many new workers, very likely a record level of hiring for a company in a single year. Today, nearly 1.3 million people work at Amazon, making it the country's second-largest private employer, after Walmart. The majority toil in its sprawling fulfillment operations — they are the people who pick, pack, drive and deliver your stuff."

The author appears to be discovering his story as he writes it. These reports "persist," of course, because the majority of Amazon's stakeholders are completely fine with the current arrangement:

"Are these workers happy? Is this good work? Should we rejoice about a company that can hire so many people in the midst of pandemic-induced mass unemployment? And one that, in 2018, instituted a minimum hourly wage of $15, pushing Walmart, Target and other competing retailers to raise their pay, too? Or should we recoil at the way Amazon has swept the apparent brutality of its operations under a haze of public-relations opportunism — the way it paints itself as a high-minded savior of American labor while its workers are so pressed for time that they must urinate and defecate in bags and bottles?"

The key is to recognize that Amazon reflects the aggregated demands of its key stakeholders in the same way that all firms do. The explicit conclusion is that if the firm's stakeholders change what they see as being in their best interests, then Amazon will change to reflect that shift:

"The larger point is that Amazon is less the cause of American inequality than it is a consequence. Amazon is what you get when a country has systematically devalued workers and labor organizations to the benefit of billionaires. Amazon is what you get when a country has decided to import so many of its physical goods from abroad. And Amazon is what you get when states and cities compete with one another to lavish huge tax breaks upon corporations that pledge to create local jobs, without setting any requirements that they be good, safe, high-paying jobs."

The problem in this particular case, of course, is that Amazon's customers are perfectly happy with the current state of affairs, in which what they need and want is delivered to their door at the lowest possible price. As long as that is more important to Amazon's customers (and its other stakeholders) than the wellbeing of the firm's employees, then Amazon the company will continue to reflect those values. In short, 'Amazon' is not at fault – if there is any 'fault,' then the blame lies with us, all of us.

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/

The Force That Can Help Amazon's Workers? Amazon's Shoppers

By Farhad Manjoo

April 12, 2021

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

A19

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/10/opinion/amazon-warehouse-workers-rights-unions.html

 

Strategic CSR - $15 minimum wage

There is an interesting debate going on in the U.S. at the moment about whether the federal government should raise the national minimum wage to $15 per hour. My understanding of the large body of economics research on the effects of raising the minimum wage is that, overall, it is a wash – small, incremental increases essentially have little to no effect on jobs. The implication, however, is that a significant increase will have a more consequential impact. This position seems to be supported by the article in the url below, which frames the debate in terms of the effects of a raise on the national deficit:

"Raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour — a proposal included in the package of relief measures being pushed by President Biden — would add $54 billion to the budget deficit over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office concluded on Monday."

Putting aside the $54 billion price tag (which is relatively small in an overall package priced at $1.9 trillion), what is more interesting, I think, is the tradeoff between standard of living (for those who receive the wage increase) and job opportunities (for those who are not hired due to the higher costs for employers). The CBO also addresses this tradeoff in its report and, in the process, raises the moral stakes of the political vote:

"Progressives see the wage increase as a central weapon for fighting poverty and inequality, while conservatives often warn it will reduce jobs. The report in essence said both sides were right. It found a $15 minimum wage would offer raises to 27 million people and lift 900,000 people above the poverty line, but it would also cost 1.4 million jobs."

So, if we accept these predictions as largely accurate (and the Congressional Budget Office is apolitical), then is that a reasonable tradeoff to make? Is it worth costing 1.4 million people the opportunity to work in order to give a meaningful increase in the standard of living of 27,000,000 people, 900,000 of whom would be rescued from poverty? For many, that is any easy choice; for many others, it is more challenging. Hence, the political stalemate.

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/

$15 Minimum Wage Would Cut Poverty and 1.4 Million Jobs

By Jason DeParle

February 9, 2021

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

B5

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/08/us/politics/minimum-wage-cbo.html

Strategic CSR - Unilever

The article in the url below caught my eye, first because of the four day work week (at full pay), and then because it is Unilever making the announcement:

"Consumer goods giant Unilever will trial a four-day working week in New Zealand to enhance worker wellbeing and boost productivity."

Some detail:

"All 81 workers will be eligible to work for four days on full pay, New Zealand Managing Director Nick Bangs said in a statement Tuesday. Most of the staff are based at Unilever's Auckland headquarters and distribution center after the company closed manufacturing operations in 2015."

The motivation for the trial is the shift in working practices that have been accelerated by the pandemic. Unilever sees the 'old' way of working as gone, so plans to use the opportunity to try something new. What is interesting is that most of these kind of stories that I have seen recently tend to involve IT/Silicon Valley-type companies. Much less common to see manufacturing/consumer product companies being similarly adventurous:

"The trial, which starts this month and will run for a year, is limited to New Zealand at this stage. Unilever will work with Sydney's University of Technology Business School to measure results, and will explore the possibility of what it could mean on a broader scale. The company employs 150,000 people worldwide."

As the NZ director makes clear, this is solely a business decision:

"'Maintaining competitive edge, increasing productivity and improving wellbeing sit at the heart of the four-day week,' [he] said. 'This is about removing the barriers that limit value creation and slow us down.'"

There are a few companies that are implementing something close to the Strategic CSR framework (e.g., Salesforce and Nike), but Unilever is the company that seems to get it the most. At least, they did under Paul Polman (who retired in December 2018). I presume they are continuing his managerial ethos, although I haven't heard much from them of late, which is another reason why I was pleased to see this announcement. The research on employee productivity has been pretty conclusive for a while now (see Strategic CSR – Microsoft and Strategic CSR – Productivity), but it is good to see a company as large as Unilever taking the risk. Being a manager is incredibly difficult, but the research shows that a focus on intrinsic (rather than extrinsic) motivation is the key to getting the most out of your employees, while providing them with meaning and purpose in what they do. Unilever has been in this space for a while now. It is not rocket science, but that doesn't mean it is widely practiced.

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 to Trial Four-day Working Week in New Zealand

By Tracy Withers

November 30, 2020

Bloomberg Businessweek

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/unilever-to-trial-four-day-working-week-in-new-zealand/ar-BB1bvgVD

Strategic CSR - Blue Sparrow Coffee

A while ago (pre-COVID), a colleague was looking for new coffee shops to support and came across Blue Sparrow Coffee (BSC, https://www.bluesparrowcoffee.com/) here in Denver. He was impressed by their approach to operations (highly transparent) and, in particular, their stated policy on setting employee wages. Here is what the firm posts on its website (https://www.bluesparrowcoffee.com/transparency):

"The people of Denver have spoken, and as of January 1st 2022 the new tipped minimum wage will be $15.87 for hourly employees, and $12.85 for tipped employees. Before this was voted into law we asked our customers what they thought and 80% said they support $15 / hr. minimum wage. We then asked a follow up question asking what they would be willing to pay, 76% said they would pay .50 or more per drink in order to pay our baristas accordingly. We currently pay $10.55 / hr. or $2.47 more per hour than the tipped minimum wage along with tips that average much higher than the industry average. This is what our customers, our neighbors, and our baristas want, and we don't see any reason to wait until 2022 to give them what they want. Effective January 1st 2020 we will be paying a minimum of $12.85 per hour plus tips for all of our hourly employees. In order to fund this while still maintaining a sustainable business we have increased our prices 11%. Some items have gone up as high as .75 with the majority being around .50 and a few select items not changing."

In spite of my colleague's aversion to artificial wage minimums, he really likes the firm's approach, first consulting with their customers to see what they value and, in particular, what they say they want to see (and are willing to pay for) for the people who serve them their coffee. As he noted, "What if Amazon asked its customers this same question?  Would people be willing to pay more for Prime to give warehouse employees a better work environment and pay....I doubt it."

There is much to like about what BSC is doing here. Their website is a paragon of good intentions around what a progressive employer should look like and, as an added benefit, a commitment to transparency that ensures they share much of their deliberations with all stakeholders.

The only potential issue that I can see is that they appear to put great faith in what their customers say they will do, rather than measuring what they are actually prepared to do. Asking their customers what they are willing to pay is a dangerous way to set wage policy. Mainly because the customers will not tell the company when they leave for the competition. Maybe this case is different, but I have seen a fair amount of academic research that reveals, for example, that customers are unwilling to pay an extra 50 cents for sweatshop-free socks. So why should coffee be any different? The response of customers when asked by BSC was that they are willing to pay an extra 50 cents per cup of coffee to ensure the firm's employees are paid a higher minimum per hour. Again, these customers may be different, and perhaps the local/face-to-face interaction when purchasing the coffee makes the impact more tangible, when the customer never meets the sweatshop worker (even if their photo is attached to the product). Either way, I think it would be in Blue Sparrow's best interest to pay close attention to sales the moment they instigate the price rise.

Incidentally, it would also pay their employees to reward the company for its progressive approach to wage-setting. An increase in productivity would be the best way to offset the likely dip in sales due to the price increase.

The firm is very good at reporting wage levels on its website. What I would like to see, however, is data around revenues and customer purchase patterns before and after the wage/price increases. Communicating the direct effect of the price increase would also be a good way to ensure broader buy-in. This is important because, as the article in the url below reports, the coffee sector as a whole is expected to contract over the next five years, with most of the store failures occurring among independent coffee shops (to the beneficiary of large chains, such as Starbucks).

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/

Say Goodbye to Your Local Coffee Shop in America's Café Shakeup

By Marvin G. Perez

October 8, 2020

Bloomberg Businessweek

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-08/say-goodbye-to-your-local-coffee-shop-in-america-s-cafe-shakeup

Strategic CSR - Microsoft

The article in the url below reports on an interesting finding from a particularly progressive experiment conducted by Microsoft Japan:

 

"Microsoft tested out a four-day work week in its Japan offices and found as a result employees were not only happier – but significantly more productive."

 

Specifically:

 

"For the month of August, Microsoft Japan experimented with a new project called Work-Life Choice Challenge Summer 2019, giving its entire 2,300 person workforce five Fridays off in a row without decreasing pay. The shortened weeks led to more efficient meetings, happier workers, and boosted productivity by a staggering 40%, the company concluded at the end of the trial. As part of the program, the company had also planned to subsidize family vacations for employees up to ¥100,000 or $920."

 

And, the benefits did not stop there:

 

"In addition to the increased productivity, employees took 25% less time off during the trial and electricity use was down 23% in the office with the additional day off per week. Employees printed 59% fewer pages of paper during the trial."

 

The article lists different related experiments with the four-day work week and productivity going on around the world. One German entrepreneur has even instituted a five-hour workday at his firm. Perhaps not surprisingly:

 

"The vast majority of employees – 92% – said they liked the shorter week."

 

The key here, of course, is whether this effect is due to the change itself (because the experiment was new and exciting, and therefore momentarily motivating) or whether there is something fundamental to the structure of a four day work week (and a three day weekend) that enables greater productivity. It seems difficult to believe, for instance, that a group could be 40% more productive in 20% less time. I would think that being able to sustain the same productivity in 20% less time would be a more realistic goal over the medium to long term. Either way, there is growing evidence that the number of hours at work is only loosely related to productivity (see also, Strategic CSR – Productivity). Companies that are willing to innovate in this area are likely to have employees that perform at a higher level, are more loyal, and most likely happier.

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/

Microsoft Japan tested a four-day work week. Productivity jumped by 40%

By Kari Paul

November 4, 2019

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/04/microsoft-japan-four-day-work-week-productivity

 

Strategic CSR - $70,000

The article in the url below follows-up on a 2015 story about a CEO in Seattle who announced that the minimum wage at his company (a payment processing business) was going to be $70,000 a year. The New York Times' original reporting on this story is here:

 

"Staff members gasped four years ago when Dan Price gathered the 120 employees at Gravity Payments, the company he had founded with his brother, and told them he was raising everyone's salary to a minimum of $70,000, partly by slashing his own $1.1 million pay to the same level."

 

Four years later it seems that, despite some turbulence immediately following the announcement, the company recovered and is doing well:

 

"Business has surged, and profits are higher than ever. Gravity last year processed $10.2 billion in payments, more than double the $3.8 billion in 2014, before the announcement. It has grown to 200 employees, all nonunion. The pay raise also helped attract new employees — including some who yearned to join a company with values. Tammi Kroll, a Yahoo executive, took an 80 percent pay cut to move to Gravity, where she is now chief operating officer."

 

In spite of some concerns expressed by the author about the generalizability of such a decision, it is clear that the firm's employees appreciate their CEO's investment in them:

 

"The gasps when Price announced his $70,000 initiative were echoed in 2016 by his own, after grateful employees led him to the parking lot and presented him with a new Tesla that they had all chipped in to buy, replacing his ratty old car."

 

The point of contention I have with the article is that the author describes this as "proof that capitalism can have a heart." In general, I find the rhetoric around good intentions and emotion to be unhelpful. In reality, this is just an example of an entrepreneur who has worked out how to create more value for his employees and, reciprocally, that the employees recognize this value and are rewarding the entrepreneur's progressiveness/creativity with higher productivity and loyalty. In short, it is not capitalism with a heart, but capitalism working exactly how it is intended to work.

 

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/

The $70,000-a-Year Minimum Wage

By Nicholas Kristof

March 31, 2019

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

SR13

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/30/opinion/sunday/dan-price-minimum-wage.html

 

Strategic CSR - Amazon

The article in the first url below discusses Amazon's announcement last year that it would raise the minimum wage of its employees in the US and UK. In particular, the author argues that, while economics and a tightening labor market no doubt played a role, the primary motivation for the decision was political. That is, in the aftermath of Bernie Sander's Stop BEZOS proposed legislation (and the accompanying publicity around the extent to which Amazon employees rely on state welfare to subsist), the company felt it was advisable to appease the politicians:

 

"For months, Sanders has been criticizing the company for paying its workers too little. He went so far as to offer a bill called the 'Stop BEZOS Act,' for Jeff Bezos, Amazon's C.E.O. The bill was deeply flawed, but it still served to call more attention to the issue."

 

As the author notes, "this is how democracy and capitalism are supposed to work." More specifically, it is a great example of stakeholder pressure (government and the media) being brought to bear in a way that forced a change in corporate behavior. While the details of the policies in Sander's bill were problematic (in the sense that they essentially constituted a tax on employment, which might easily have led to a reduction in jobs for the people Sanders was most seeking to help), the problem he raised was real and something that, ultimately, Amazon felt uncomfortable with once it was exposed:

 

"All of this attention wasn't pleasant for Amazon. It cares about its image. … [Subsequently], Amazon announced that it was raising its minimum hourly pay to $15. About 350,000 workers will receive an immediate raise as a result. Amazon also called on other companies to do the same and said it would lobby Washington to increase the federal minimum wage."

 

This reflects the extent to which Amazon's higher profile exposes it to greater stakeholder pressure. The article in the second url below, for example, shows how employees (emboldened by action taken in the IT sector in recent months – e.g., Strategic CSR – Google), are beginning to become more aggressive in their demands of their employer:

 

"This week, more than 4,200 Amazon employees called on the company to rethink how it addresses and contributes to a warming planet. The action is the largest employee-driven movement on climate change to take place in the influential tech industry."

 

Interestingly, the employees are using a tool IT companies use to tie employees more closely to the firm – stock options:

 

"Like other shareholders, they can file a resolution urging a particular corporate change that investors vote on at a company's annual meeting. Historically, this approach has been used by outside activist investors, not employees."

 

As one Amazon employee put it:

 

"'It's exactly what Amazon has taught me to be: bold, audacious, and tackle big problems,' said Maren Costa, a principal user-experience designer who has been with the company for almost 15 years."

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (4e)

© Sage Publications, 2017

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler4e

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

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


Amazon's Surrender is Inspiring

By David Leonhardt

October 3, 2018

The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/opinion/amazon-minimum-wage-bernie-sanders.html

 

Also here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/business/amazon-minimum-wage.html

Employees Push Amazon on Climate

By Karen Weise

April 11, 2019

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

B1

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/technology/amazon-climate-change-letter.html