Strategic CSR - Coke vs. Pepsi

When push comes to shove, will meaningful reform to our current economic model come in the form of sacrifice or innovation?

Many CSR supporters advocate for sacrifice on the basis that current consumption patterns cannot be extrapolated to future projected economic growth (i.e., there are insufficient resources to enable the Chinese to consume like Americans). Given that it is unreasonable to deny broader prosperity to the Chinese, the sacrifice people argue, any increase in resource use in China needs to be offset by decreased resource use in America. The innovator people, in contrast, are comforted by the belief that CSR supporters’ worst fears (i.e., ecological collapse) will not likely occur and, even if they do, that we will have found a technical solution by then.

In reality, some combination of both sacrifice and innovation will likely be necessary, given current projections of future economic growth (rapid) and current rates of innovation (more measured).

The article in the url below provides evidence in support of the innovation camp. In particular, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are competing to produce the first soda bottle to be made without plastic and using 100% plant materials:

“Coke delivered the latest volley on Thursday, saying it plans to work with three companies that are developing competing technologies to make plastic from plants, with bottles rolling out to consumers in perhaps a few years. PepsiCo is aiming to beat that timeline and claim the 100 percent green label first. The company declared in March that it had cracked the code of the all-plant plastic bottle, and on Thursday, it said that it was on schedule to conduct a test next year that involved producing 200,000 bottles made from plant-only plastic.”

The problem, however, is less technological capability, but the ability to scale-up to mass production in a cost-effective manner:

“… despite dueling announcements claiming technological breakthroughs, consumers should not expect to see many all-plant bottles on store shelves any time soon. Neither company is confident enough in the technology to say when, or even if, they will be able to deliver on their environmental ambitions.”

To date, Coke has been more aggressive in committing to public targets in terms of the materials used to make its bottles:

“… in 2009 [Coke] began selling Dasani water in the United States in bottles made with up to 30 percent plant-based plastics. … the company said that by 2020 all of its plastic bottles would meet the 30 percent plant-based standard.”

Pepsi’s competing investments in this area will hopefully extend the Coke vs. Pepsi rivalry to environmental sustainability. One area of concern is that growing the plant materials used in producing plastic-substitutes can itself be counter-productive. For example, environmentalists claim that:

“[Growing crops for plastic] causes a lot of land conversion, it affects the price of food, it uses a lot of fertilizers.”

In response to this issue:

“Pepsi has said it will use agricultural waste products, such as corn husks, pine bark or orange peels, to make its plastic bottles. … Coke might use a variety of materials, including wastes and crops grown for plastic production.”

Take care

David

Bill Werther & David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment (2e)

© Sage Publications, 2011

http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr2e/

Instructor Teaching Site: http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr/

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

Race to Greener Bottles Could Be Long

By William Neuman

The New York Times

December 16, 2011

pB1

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/business/energy-environment/coca-cola-and-pepsico-race-for-greener-bottles.html

Strategic CSR - Ethanol

The Wall Street Journal editorial in the url below contains some astonishing numbers. The editorial leads with a quote from George Bush’s 2006 State of the Union address in which he committed the U.S. to develop ethanol as an alternative fuel. It then proceeds to detail the consequences of this policy as implemented by Barack Obama. In addition to billions of dollars of subsidies:

“… Mr. Bush assured the nation that by 2012 cars and trucks could be powered by cellulosic fuels from switch grass and other plant life. To launch this wonder-fuel industry, the feds under Mr. Bush and President Obama have pumped at least $1.5 billion of grants and loan subsidies to fledgling producers. Mr. Bush signed an energy bill in 2007 that established a tax credit of $1.01 per gallon produced.”

In particular:

“Most important, the Nancy Pelosi Congress passed and Mr. Bush signed a law imposing mandates on oil companies to blend cellulosic fuel into conventional gasoline. This guaranteed producers a market. In 2010 the mandate was 100 million barrels, rising to 250 million in 2011 and 500 million in 2012. By the end of this decade the requirements leap to 10.5 billion gallons a year.”

In reality, performance has been underwhelming, to say the least:

“When these mandates were established, no companies produced commercially viable cellulosic fuel. But the dream was: If you mandate and subsidize it, someone will build it. Guess what? Nobody has. Despite the taxpayer enticements, this year cellulosic fuel production won't be 250 million or even 25 million gallons. Last year the Environmental Protection Agency, which has the authority to revise the mandates, quietly reduced the 2011 requirement by 243.4 million gallons to a mere 6.6 million. Some critics suggest that even much of that 6.6 million isn't true cellulosic fuel. The EPA has already announced that the 2012 mandate of 500 million gallons is unattainable, so it is again expected to lower the mandate to fewer than 12 million gallons for next year.”

These numbers (6.6 million instead of 250 million) present the argument against economic micro-managing by politicians. With suspect allegiances and swayed by the disproportionate influence of money in politics today, government should focus on setting the broad legal framework within which market forces determine the most efficient outcomes. Regulation is an important part of this responsibility, but predetermined economic outcomes is well-beyond the government’s capabilities or the country’s economic interests. This is a theme I have touched on in prior newsletters (see: FREE ‘free markets’), but if the government wants to encourage alternative fuels, the most efficient way is to make carbon more expensive (i.e., a carbon tax). If this tax is transparent and equitably applied across industries, then the market will quickly marshal resources to produce a competitive alternative that is economically feasible. It is impossible to predict in advance, however, what that alternative will be (no matter how much public money you throw at the problem).

Take care

David

Bill Werther & David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment (2e)

© Sage Publications, 2011

http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr2e/

Instructor Teaching Site: http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr/

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

The Cellulosic Ethanol Debacle

December 13, 2011

The Wall Street Journal

Late Edition - Final

A20

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204012004577072470158115782.html

Strategic CSR - Slavery

The article in the url below features a website designed to highlight the extent to which slavery is still a component of the supply chain of many products we take for granted (http://www.slaveryfootprint.org/). In particular, the website is designed to address one question:

“Do you know how many slaves work on your behalf? While many people may assume the answer to that provocative and unsettling question is zero, the creators of a new Web site want to demonstrate how forced labor, especially overseas, is tantamount to slavery.”

The goal of the website is two-fold: first, to raise awareness of this issue and second, to mobilize a response:

“Ideally, they hope to get consumers engaged enough in the issue to do something about it, primarily hoping people demand that companies carefully audit supply chains to ensure, as best as they can determine, that no “slave labor” was used to manufacture its products.”

Using a set of eleven questions, the website calculates the role forced labor plays in manufacturing the products you use (“the average is 55”). As you progress through the survey, the website also generates specific facts to reinforce its message:

“There are at least 27 million slaves worldwide. That’s roughly the combined population of Australia and New Zealand. Crikey!”

More information about the Slavery Footprint website is at: http://www.ethicalcorp.com/supply-chains/ngowatch-november-2011

Have a good weekend

David

Bill Werther & David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment (2e)

© Sage Publications, 2011

http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr2e/

Instructor Teaching Site: http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr/

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

Slavery Becomes a Personal Question Online

By Andrew Martin

September 22, 2011

The New York Times

Late Edition - Final

B3

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/business/22slaves.html

Strategic CSR - Civilization

The article in the url below is a review of a book by Niall Ferguson, the Harvard history professor. In the book (titled ‘Civilization: The West and the Rest’), Ferguson details the characteristics of Western/European society that, in his opinion, allowed it to develop more rapidly than any other world region. The six, so-called “killer apps,” are:

• Competition
• Science
• Legal property rights
• Medicine
• A consumer society
• Work ethic

Where other societies have ‘civilized’ and caught-up with the West, Ferguson argues that it is due to emulation, rather than innovation:

“Mr. Ferguson shows that the most successful non-Western polities are those that have “downloaded” the six apps. A the top of the class is Japan, whose Western-style armies prevailed over Russia in 1905 and whose politics and economics were rebuilt so effectively after the catastrophe of 1945. … Mr. Ferguson does not claim that the six-app software will work with all socio-cultural hardware. The list of “resterners” for whom the connection broke—or who managed only a partial download—is long. It includes the Ottoman Empire, imperial China, czarist Russia and, more recently, the shah’s Iran.”

Reading Ferguson’s list made me wonder what the equivalent “apps” might be that will enable one culture or society (or, ultimately, all cultures and societies) to generate a socially-responsible economy. Ferguson makes no mention of moral or ethical development, or even a set of values that might make one economic system more ethical/socially responsible than another. Clearly the absence of these characteristics was no impediment to rapid economic growth!

If we are to move beyond a focus on economic growth alone to a more sustainable economy/society, however, someone is going to have to write that book, too.

Take care

David

Bill Werther & David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment (2e)

© Sage Publications, 2011

http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr2e/

Instructor Teaching Site: http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr/

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

The Birth of the Modern World

By Brendan Simms

The Wall Street Journal

October 29-30, 2011

pC7

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204777904576651082593576882.html

Strategic CSR - Facebook

The articles in the two urls below comment on the lead up to last week’s announcement by Facebook’s of its upcoming IPO (expected in May and announced last Wednesday).

The goal of both articles was to influence the debate surrounding the firm’s route to market. While a ‘traditional’ IPO is most often chosen (i.e., relying on investment banks to guide the firm to market), both articles focus on the potential value of alternative models—value, that is, both to Facebook and in terms of broader reform of the financial market.

The article in the first url below (from last December) focuses on the high-profile nature of Facebook’s IPO. This prominence, the author argues, will cause intense competition among investment banks to win the contract, which presented the opportunity for meaningful reform had Facebook chosen an alternative route to market. In particular, rather than pay unnecessary fees to an investment bank, the author argues that Facebook should have organized its own IPO:

“Mr. Zuckerberg has two options: a traditional IPO, in which banks distribute shares to investors in exchange for a percentage of total proceeds; and the little-used ‘Dutch auction’ that cuts out the Wall Street middlemen by making the allocation of shares dependent on prices bid by each investor.”

There are two main reasons why the author felt Facebook’s IPO suggests the possibility for an alternative to the traditional model. First, one of the main functions performed by investment banks in preparation for an IPO is to raise awareness of the firm. To say the least, ‘awareness’ is not a problem Facebook faces, which raises the question of how the banks will earn their expected commission from the launch:

“By virtue of its size, business model and popularity, Facebook is the rare company that doesn't need Wall Street to go public. It should press home the advantage and blaze a trail for others to follow.”

Second, with more than 800 million active users (200 million in the U.S.), Facebook is so big and such an important IPO that, by pursuing a different kind of model, the firm would have made a strong statement about the traditional IPO that may have resulted in reform:

“The biggest difference between the two systems, apart from the lower fees paid by companies in auctions, is that when IPOs go Dutch, banks don't choose who gets shares, giving all investors a fair shake and avoiding potential conflicts of interests. This is particularly important for "hot" IPOs, like Facebook. Since these deals often record sharp rises in the first days of trading, there is a temptation for banks to dole out shares to their favorite investor clients, who stand to profit if they get in early.”

The article in the second url below (from last week) reinforces the precedents of alternative IPO models that Facebook could have chosen to emulate:

“Quirky, pioneering companies have long viewed the initial public offering process not only as a chance to raise money but also as an unparalleled PR opportunity—the ultimate expression of their values. In the 1980s ice cream makers Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield offered stock to their Vermont neighbors and to the local dairy farmers who were supplying them with milk. In 1995, Boston Beer, the maker of Samuel Adams, announced via ads on its bottles that any loyal drinker could buy into the company at $15 a share. Most famously, in 2004, Google tried to dilute the influence of the big investment banks and ran a so-called Dutch auction, letting prospective investors collectively set the price by submitting blind bids for shares.”

Although the article recognizes that these different models have a varied success record, it claims that Facebook was well-positioned to learn from their past mistakes. And, seemingly more important than technical efficiency (IPO share prices are often underpriced, after all), was the potential for the firm’s decision to reform the system in a positive way. Given Facebook’s size and prominence, it was well-placed to buck the IPO trend. Instead:

“Facebook appears to be preparing for an entirely conventional IPO, with none of the egalitarian aspirations that characterized those offbeat offerings of the past. By bringing in some of the country’s biggest and most recognizable banks to manage the IPO, Facebook has not only guaranteed those institutions a huge payday; it has also aligned itself with Wall Street at a time when public hostility toward the financial establishment is higher than ever.”

Since Facebook’s announcement last week, I have seen other articles (such as this one in the Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203889904577200771850542822.html) bemoaning the missed opportunity by Facebook to advance the “democratization of the IPO”:

“All this may explain one disappointment in Facebook's IPO filing, the company's apparent decision not to take advantage of an electronic platform that would let its U.S. members participate in the IPO via a Facebook app. The technology exists and has credible backers on Wall Street. The Securities and Exchange Commission has been consulted. Tens of millions of Facebookers might have enjoyed a front-row seat for one of capitalism's most hopeful spectacles, the public flotation of a young company.”

Take care

David

Bill Werther & David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment (2e)

© Sage Publications, 2011

http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr2e/

Instructor Teaching Site: http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr/

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

Facebook’s $10 Billion Question

By Francesco Guerrera

December 13, 2011

The Wall Street Journal

Late Edition - Final

C1

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203518404577094370435238462.html

Facebook, Wall Street: Friends with Benefits

With its long-awaited IPO filing, Facebook has revealed the identity of the partner that will define it for years to come

By Brad Stone

February 01, 2012

Bloomberg Businessweek

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/facebook-wall-street-friends-with-benefits-02012012.html

Strategic CSR - McDonald's

You will need a strong stomach to get through this Newsletter.

First, have a look at this excerpt from the UK chef, Jamie Oliver's TV show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wshlnRWnf30

Next, have a look at this photo:

This substance, which is appetizingly referred to as "mechanically separated poultry," is chicken scraps that have gone through the same process that Oliver demonstrates using beef. That is, the scraps have been treated with ammonia in order to kill the bacteria (e.g., e-coli) that made them unfit for human consumption. The resulting product, which looks like a cross between strawberry ice-cream and a pink snake, is used by food companies as filler in mass-produced meat products. By reducing the quantity of real meat as an ingredient, firms are able to manufacture their products more efficiently (i.e., reduce costs). This filler, for example, is one of the main ingredients in chicken nuggets.

The article in the url below reveals that McDonald's has recently stopped using this substance in its foods:

"McDonald's confirmed that it has eliminated the use of ammonium hydroxide — an ingredient in fertilizers, household cleaners and some roll-your-own explosives —  in its hamburger meat."

Reassuringly:

"In a statement, McDonald's clarified that it stopped using "select lean beef trimmings" — its preferred term for scrap meat soaked in ammonium hydroxide and ground into a pink meatlike paste — at the beginning of last year. "This product has been out of our supply chain since August of last year," it said."

This means that, until August 2011, these "select lean beef trimmings" were being used in all McDonald's 'beef' products. There is no mention in the statement of whether it is still being used in its 'chicken' products. According to Oliver, it is legal for firms to substitute this stuff for up to 15% of the total 'meat' ingredients in foods without having to report it anywhere on the nutrition label. The Department of Agriculture, in all its wisdom, has decided that this filler is a process (rather than an ingredient), which is why firms do not have to report it to consumers. Also according to Oliver, this process is being used in "at least 70% of ground beef products. That kind of puts it everywhere." All of this enables firms like McDonald's to use this filler in its foods, while still claiming that:

"… the fact is, McDonald's USA serves 100% USDA-inspected beef- no preservatives, no fillers, no extenders- period."

Of course, McDonald's, as always, is only being guided by its customers' best interests:

"Todd Bacon, McDonald's senior supply chain officer, told the Daily Mail that the decision "was not related to any particular event, but rather to support our effort to align our global beef raw material standards.""

Have a good weekend.

David

Bill Werther & David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment (2e)

© Sage Publications, 2011

http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr2e/

Instructor Teaching Site: http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr/

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

McDonald's drops use of gooey ammonia-based 'pink slime' in hamburger meat

By M. Alex Johnson

February 1, 2012

msnbc.com

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/31/10282876-mcdonalds-drops-use-of-gooey-ammonia-based-pink-slime-in-hamburger-meat

Strategic CSR - Measuring CSR

The article in the url below introduces GoodGuide.com (http://www.goodguide.com/), a website designed to provide consumers with ethical and socially responsible information about everyday products:

“Launched in 2008, this is a website and smartphone app that rates 140,000 consumer products (currently only in America) according to their safety, environmental sustainability and the ethics of the firms that make them.”

I have heard, read, and thought about ideas similar to this for many years, so it is good to see that someone has finally got around to implementing it. Three factors will determine this website’s success. First, is the information relevant and reliable?

“Much therefore depends on the quality of the data, which GoodGuide gathers from various sources, including government reports and scientific studies, and research by its own staff. If the product scores badly, the app will recommend an alternative item which is rated more highly. The app also tracks a consumer’s purchases to see how well they fit with their selected values, giving a sort of personal virtue (or hypocrisy) rating.”

Second, is the business sustainable? At a minimum, the business model relies on sufficient numbers of consumers demanding this kind of information. Eyeballs alone will allow the website to raise money via targeted ads. Ideally, of course, consumers will be willing to pay for this information, which provides a more reliable revenue stream and allows the website to remain free of ad clutter.

And, third, will this information change behavior? Ultimately, for GoodGuide.com to mean anything significant, it will need to alter consumption habits in ways that incentivize firms to (a) provide detailed information to the website, and (b) ensure their products are produced in ways that score well on GoodGuide.com’s metrics.

The first concern can be overcome with time and experience. I am yet to be convinced that either the second concern (the business model) or third concern (behavior change) can be overcome:

“Consumers rarely change their buying habits, even when confronted with scientific and other data, says O’Rourke [a professor of environmental and labour policy at the University of California, Berkeley and founder of GoodGuide.com].”

For more Newsletters on ‘Measuring CSR,’ see: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/search/label/measuring%20CSR

Take care

David

Bill Werther & David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment (2e)

© Sage Publications, 2011

http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr2e/

Instructor Teaching Site: http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr/

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

Values for money

November 19, 2011

The Economist

66

http://www.economist.com/node/21538763?fsrc=scn/tw/te/ar/valuesformoney

Strategic CSR - Timberland

I recently returned an old, defective product to Timberland. The overall exchange experience with the company was excellent for two reasons: First, they replaced the product without question (customer service that is increasingly rare, but reminded me of other companies that do this well, such as Zappos—see CSR Newsletters October 7, 2011 and October 6, 2008) and, second, it was very interesting to see the packaging that accompanied the new product.

In particular, I was interested in the carbon footprint label on every product the firm ships. I had heard about Timberland’s work on carbon footprints (see also Tropicana’s carbon footprint of its orange juice, Issues: Sustainability, pp.321-322) and I use a video on Timberland in my classes that highlights its progressive stance on carbon emissions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTbJULvD6LY), but this is the first one of the labels I had seen. The label reports firm performance in four distinct sections:

·         Climate impact (use of renewable energy)

·         Chemicals used (PVC-free)

·         Resource consumption (both eco-friendly and recycled materials)

·         Trees planted through 2009

The information on the label is not product specific, but firm-level measures that are averaged over individual products. There are also detailed footnotes on the label explaining calculations and including limited disclaimers. I point out these limitations not to cast suspicions on the effort, but to recognize we are still in the early stages of this complex measurement process. Timberland (along with firms like Walmart and Tropicana) is leading the way and creating the knowledge necessary to measure CSR performance more effectively in comparable ways across firms and industries.

For more information from Timberland as well as an image of the carbon footprint label that now accompanies all products, see: http://community.timberland.com/Earthkeeping/Our-Footprint

Take care

David

Bill Werther & David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment (2e)

© Sage Publications, 2011

http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr2e/

Instructor Teaching Site: http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr/

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

Strategic CSR - Recycling

The article in the url below reports an environmental success story:

“As befits what used to be the world’s largest landfill, the future Freshkills Park on Staten Island may represent the planet’s greatest act of ecological atonement. The 2,200-acre site, which the Department of Parks and Recreation calls a “reminder of wastefulness, excess and environmental neglect,” will, as it evolves into a park over the next 25 years, feature every environmentally correct practice known to landscape architecture. There will be composting toilets and “rain gardens” to capture water for use in irrigation. Hundreds of acres of meadows will be sown with native grass and wildflower seeds. Goats will graze on invasive plant species like phragmites. And educational and cultural programs will emphasize sustainability. Four enormous waste mounds, built up over 53 years, will be transformed.”

The park, which is five times the size of Central Park, took many years to transform (the first sections of the dump were “capped” in the 1990s and the site will not be fully completed until 2018), but it is encouraging to report significant progress concerning such a big project.

Have a good weekend

David

Bill Werther & David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment (2e)

© Sage Publications, 2011

http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr2e/

Instructor Teaching Site: http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr/

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

From Dump to Paragon of ecology: A First Peek

By Lisa W. Foderaro

September 30, 2011

The New York Times

A19

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/nyregion/fresh-kills-once-a-landfill-is-environmentally-transformed.html

Strategic CSR - Emotions

The article in the first url below draws a distinction between moral intuition (“the physical horror at seeing someone hit by a car or the tears of a parent whose son is kidnapped”) and moral reason (“the more intellectual process of grasping larger tragedies, like floods and famine”). The distinction  between the two helps explain why we tend to be more compassionate on an individual level, but more dispassionate when thinking about groups of people or other societies:

“The former is a stronger, more emotionally visceral reaction, which is why people often show far more compassion for an individual victim than for a dozen, or 100, or an entire region.”

I think the distinction has value in a CSR context because it helps explain why we see individuals acting in different ways in different contexts. It explains, for example, why we can have one set of values in our personal lives and a different set of values when at work (e.g., why someone might condone massive pollution by their firm, but go out of their way to recycle waste at home):

“… a recent study … found that when study participants saw a picture of a single victim, a 7-year-old girl named Rokia, they donated twice as much money to a hunger charity than when told only that the organization was working to save millions.”

Not that we need any more evidence that humans are far from rational actors, but why should this be when, clearly, more social value is added by saving “millions” than by acting to save one individual? The article in the second url below makes a similar point to the first article, but does so by distinguishing between empathy (which is often strong in humans) and moral action (which is much weaker):

“Empathy orients you toward moral action, but it doesn’t seem to help much when that action comes at a personal cost. You may feel a pang for the homeless guy on the other side of the street, but the odds are that you are not going to cross the street to give him a dollar.”

Why is it that we empathize, but are much less likely to act, even when the personal cost (e.g., $1) is minimal? Not only is our understanding of the causal link between empathy and action unclear, but the ability to empathize often results in inconsistent action:

“It influences people to care more about cute victims than ugly victims. It leads to nepotism. It subverts justice; juries give lighter sentences to defendants that show sadness. It leads us to react to shocking incidents, like a hurricane, but not longstanding conditions, like global hunger or preventable diseases.”

I think that our ability to rationalize simultaneously contradictory thoughts and behavior (e.g., to have separate identities and values at home and work; care more for an individual than a society) helps explain much of the organizational malfeasance we see in the news every day.

Take care

David

Bill Werther & David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment (2e)

© Sage Publications, 2011

http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr2e/

Instructor Teaching Site: http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr/

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

Becoming Compassionately Numb

By Benedict Carey

October 2, 2011

The New York Times

SR5

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/sunday-review/compassion-fatigue.html

The Limits of Empathy

By David Brooks

September 30, 2011

The New York Times

A21

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/opinion/brooks-the-limits-of-empathy.html