Lead, Follow, or Get the Hell Out of the Way! - or, Governments and the Role of Regulation in CSR

There have been several discussions in recent months in the blog space regarding the role and value of government in the monitoring and setting of regulations regarding corporate social responsibility (CSR). Perhaps the most radical and visible discussion occurred as a result of a proposal put forth in the Indian legislature that suggested that CSR activities could be traded across companies in a manner similar to the notion of purchase, trade and barter of carbon credits. Such a proposal is rife with difficulties, not the least of which is the assumption that a “right” net amount of CSR activity could occur, allowing corporations to purchase “get out of jail free cards” to mask their environmental or social ills…and that that equation would suffice for people and planet.

This paradigm is culturally dependent however, as the role of government in India is different from the role of government in the US and again different in Canada. An inherent assumption from a North American context is that in order to keep government regulation at bay, industries or indeed corporations must be responsible for self-governance. It is fundamentally an equation, whereby increased autonomy will increase the burden of responsibility to contribute to the greater good; conversely – increased dependency on government programs decreases overall autonomy and by default decreases the innate sense of responsibility to society. It was once stated (by an unfortunately forgotten source) that it is not the role of government to provide all programs, but rather to ensure that all programs are provided.

If one accepts these assumptions, the role of government is not to legislate compliance to a CSR yardstick, but instead to support societal expectations of all constituents, personal, public, and corporate to declare a responsibility to contribute to the social and environmental good. This leads to one of three options running their course. 1. A corporation sees their responsibility to society and fulfills it – this allows them to be valued on a variety of levels, and they continue to do business. 2. A corporation abdicates their responsibility and chooses to do nothing but take from their community and the planet in a short-term race toward profit. – This corporation will lose its competitive advantage as it engages in socially and environmentally unsustainable behaviors – ultimately they will cease to exist. 3. A corporation chooses to flaunt civil standards and commits human rights or environmental abuses – here, the government steps in – and seeks fines or jail terms in order to create some kind of redress of the wrongs committed against society.

Now, this is a simplistic view of government and CSR – and does not address many of the nuances in the continuum of behaviors outlined above, but the fundamental premise is that corporations will step up and have impactful and meaningful CSR strategies not because of some government mandate, but because it meets their responsibility as members of the community.

Is there a fourth paradigm for companies to pursue? Should government be more involved in setting this agenda? Please leave comments at www.theacaciagroup.blogspot.com

The Acacia Group’s mission is to offer transformative and unique leadership development for organizations seeking to live out their global citizenship. To do this we blend knowledge from Corporate Social Responsibility, Community Development and Leadership Development and Learning to create new opportunities for excellence for our clients. For more information, visit www.theacaciagroup.ca

Standing at the CSR Crossroads

Business in the 21^st century is now full of catch phrases such as employee engagement, embedding CSR into the DNA, alignment of values and behavior, integrity, core values, going green, sustainability, corporate survival and respect.

Companies that are stumbling into this cry for transparency (another positive trend) may be overwhelmed or even intimidated by both the pressure to perform an unfamiliar set of behaviors, and by the variety and complexity of the types of CSR activities – with the added catch that those that are too tentative about the process and chose to stay with familiar and true behaviors run the risk of watching their companies fade into the background or cease to exist all together. No pressure.

A few years ago I had the pleasure of attending a presentation by David Suzuki the renowned environmentalist, documentarian and activist. He was speaking passionately and at times angrily about the stupidity and selfishness of man and big corp as we systemically create irreversible harm to the ecosystem that we depend on for our survival as a species. And then…he paused. He recounted a conversation he had had with his twenty-something daughter. As I recall it went something like this. He asked his daughter how she felt about the future, her future. Her reply was that she was excited. Suzuki senior was incredulous, “Excited?....Excited? How the hell can you be excited? Don’t you know what is happening to our planet? To the food we eat, the oceans we harvest, the air we breathe?”….”Dad”, she replied…”We are standing at the crossroads of choice. If we continue on the path we are on we will destroy ourselves, but if we take the other road we have an opportunity to truly change the future of humanity – what an opportunity, to be part of taking the right road”.

Companies that choose to see themselves as part of the fabric of the communities in which they operate and in which their employees live, or where they outsource….are facing this wonderful choice. They too have a tremendous opportunity to contribute to the future of humanity. They get to use their innovative skills that differentiate them from their competitors to create a method of practice that sets them firmly on the course of sustainability.

In the brilliant book The Responsibility Revolution – Jeffrey Hollender outlines the notion that corporate consciousness is the latest horizon in the competitive landscape. Those corporations that are seriously engaged in CSR strategies understand that true transformative change can have its genesis today but that the benefits of this change may be a generation or more away. These corporations acknowledge and then act upon effective environmental and social agendas that are integrated with the value proposition of the company and give back to the communities in which they do business. They have moved beyond measurement of ROI in the next quarter to understanding that investment today has to be for the long term. Fundamentally they understand two principles, first of all. Do something of substance. Second of all – Commit to see it through.

Hollender outlines key steps of developing a CSR strategy, including and not limited to; keeping mission and legacy front and center, elevating sustainability to the top of the corporate agenda and supporting authenticity by allowing individuals to “own” sustainability ……. Are these activities easy? No. The tendency to go toward the bright light of short term gains to meet the hungry and perceived needs of shareholders is still compelling. But progressive companies make the hard choices anyway. To pull from a previous blog, they see that they need to do the right thing not just when it is convenient for them, but as a standing method of practice. They have reached the crossroad and are choosing to make their journey longer by making the right choice.

The Acacia Group’s mission is to offer transformative and unique leadership development for organizations seeking to live out their global citizenship. To do this we blend knowledge from Corporate Social Responsibility, Community Development and Leadership Development and Learning to create new opportunities for excellence for our clients. For more information, visit www.theacaciagroup.ca

CSR & Stakeholder Engagement - What's your metaphor

In the world of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) the importance of stakeholder or community engagement is recognized. This can, however, be a large learning curve for any organization regardless of its size or industry. The journey into CSR for an organization may be initiated from a range of imperatives including: defense against a negative event that has occurred (think BP); compliance to imposed regulations; or an opportunity and desire to contribute to a just and civil society. Depending on where the organization is currently, their openness to engaging with stakeholders and communities may vary. I am struck by the potential for a disconnection between corporations and the communities with whom they need to engage so to explore this further I thought it might be interesting to juxtaposition two frameworks – one for CSR and the other for Community Engagement (CE).

Corporate Social Responsibility – AccountAbility five stage model by Simon Zadok

Community Engagement – IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation

Defensive – somebody has exposed poor behavior or practices and the company is being pushed to improve Compliance – company leaders know they need to comply with external requirements – preferably in a way that requires minimum investment of precious resources Management – CSR begins to be internally driven as management structures and roles are formalized for the business function of CSR Strategic – CSR is beginning to be viewed as part of the value and opportunity creating opportunity for the business. Civil – is when the organization is fully mature in its CSR role and the company chooses to change the rules of the game, raises the civil foundation and indelibly changes society

Inform – when an organization needs to inform the public and stakeholders with balanced and objective information to assist them (the public and stakeholders?) in understanding the problem, alternatives and opportunities/ or solutions Consult – to obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and or decisions (We will keep you informed and acknowledge your concerns) Involve – to work with the publicly (directly) throughout the process to ensure that public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered Collaborate – to partner with the public in each aspect of the decision making including the identification of alternatives and the identification of preferred solutions. We will look to you for innovation in formulating solutions. Empower – to place final decision making in the hands of stakeholders. We will implement what you decide.

I suspect that as leaders integrate CSR as a strategic and civil initiative into their corporate and personal thinking and value structure, the openness to collaborate and empower stakeholders would increase. Think of a new seedling emerging from the ground to seek the nutrients it needs to thrive.
And vice versa – the more defensive an organization and its leaders are the more closed they will be to hearing from their stakeholders. It is hard for any organism to `hear’ from the external environment when a defensive stance is being held. Think of a turtle with its head tucked inside its shell or a medieval castle with thick and high walls.

As a company becomes confident of its role as a contributor to a healthy planet and a just society, the ability of its leaders to be open and curious about the perspectives of their partners and stakeholders will increase. The language used and the nature of the conversations will shift from ‘announce and defend’ to `share and explore’.

The stance an organization takes with its stakeholders may provide a helpful diagnostic tool for assessing its evolution in CSR and the capacity of its leaders to engage with partners, stakeholders and communities. All three – CSR strategy, stakeholder engagement and leadership capacity - may need to align for the full potential of an organizations social responsibility to emerge.

The Acacia Group’s mission is to offer transformative and unique leadership development for organizations seeking to live out their global citizenship. To do this we blend knowledge from Corporate Social Responsibility, Community Development and Leadership Development and Learning to emerge new opportunities for excellence for our clients.

Experiencing the Immersion that Leads to Learnng

This blog is a personal reflection on time spent in Mexico and the learning that emerged.
Once again I have immersed myself into a Latin culture and have experienced the dislocation of place and identity that moves me to an experience of intense personal observation and reflection. Each time I come into this community I find that I must first adjust my hearing and listening. My friends are speaking Spanish and my mastery of this language is still in its infancy. I pick up every third or fourth word, make assumptions about meaning, and am hesitant to say `no I didn’t understand that’. I am very aware that the literal translation of words does not capture meaning – and for me I suspect that the last thing that I will really get in this language is the jokes.
As I struggle to understand I observe a few things that happen to me; I listen very intently, I must watch the face of the person who is speaking, and I pay attention to gestures and facial experiences. My mind processes what I am hearing and asks `what am I understanding’, and `do I have the words to respond to what is being said’. I am reminded of the practice of active listening as it is described in the process of dialogue – listening for meaning, paying attention to my own assumptions, holding curiosity. It would be easier at times to sit back, stop listening and not be present, to not try to understand, however I value these relationships too much to allow any appearance of disinterest appear in my demeanor.
When I return home I want to be reminded of the importance of paying attention, to the energy that I put into listening when I am in conversations. Do I listen as intently, do I pay attention to what is being communicated in addition to the words being spoken, am I listening to each word or am I assuming the meaning that is being spoken and getting ahead of the speaker, do I recognize when I am not understanding and do I take the time to ask the questions.
As I write about this experience I find myself reflecting on why I hesitate to declare my lack of understanding and I recognize a few reasons: I am reluctant to acknowledge that I didn’t understand, I am reluctant to alter the flow of the conversation if I interject with an `I don’t understand’, I am embarrassed to acknowledge my lack of knowledge (in this case of the language however at home it might be the subject matter), I struggle with being a novice when in most areas of my life I operate from a place of expertise.
Philippe Rosinski, author of Coaching Across Cultures identifies that the cross culture environment provides a unique chance to step outside one’s comfort zone. Adapting to differences requires you to bravely step outside and experiment with changing some of your behaviors. This time I am paying attention to my patterns of communication, choosing to hone my listening skills, and choosing to stay outside of my comfort zone a little longer before I seek out people who speak my language and make it easier for me to relax back into what I know.

Asserting Leadership, Not Authority - CSR and the Art of Balance

The first part title of this blog is borrowed from an article from the Stanford Business Review written in 2004. The article, “Leading Boldly” describes how in the early part of this decade three powerful foundations that had committed over $12 million to a city school district over the previous five years – withheld their grants due to the poor performance of the board and the “total dysfunction in the system”. This decision by the foundations led to an investigative inquiry into the district’s operations and a subsequent improvement in performance led to the foundation’s funds being reinstated in the following year.

Corporate Social Responsibility or CSR continues to evolve and adapt and increasingly organizations are using CSR as a corporate differentiator in a competitive manner. Witness Coke’s “Live Positively” campaign versus Pespi’s “Refresh” Numerous discussions have occurred as to the depth of legitimacy of CSR with arguments speculating on whether or not it is merely repackaged public relations. But as corporations become more sophisticated in their efforts and in the reporting of their efforts, it seems as it is here to stay, and with this, the desire to align with established causes and NGO’s will grow also.

So the question is this; With the new level of complexity and the preponderance of programs that are being announced, is it now, or will it be acceptable in the future for corporations to not just support social programs but to influence and to withhold support to NGO’s until they get their desired outcome? Corporate involvement in social or environmental programs follows a continuum from check writing with no strings attached to full on strategic engagement (e.g. the very positive relationship of Timberland, led by Jeff Schwartz and City Year Youth Corps). Taking this to the next level and moving to the role of key stakeholder and major funder of an NGO, a corporation has the potential to shift the relationship landscape from one of strategic benevolence to that of a quasi government body.

The difference of course is that we tend to favor democratically elected officials to provide oversight and regulation to social, health, educational and environmental programs. If the rise of CSR continues and there are opportunities for corporations to engage in social engineering according to a preconceived template, are we risking too much? Could this even happen?

The decision by the various funders in the example above was criticized by some and applauded by others. These actions served as an impetus for the district and the City to clean up their activities – without corporate help. In today’s CSR climate, as the dependencies between NGO’s and corporations grow more complex and the contribution of personnel, intellectual capital and finances become increasingly intertwined – it would seem wise that standards of practice be made clear and perhaps more importantly that any alliances between NGO’s and corporations are well contemplated, and explicitly lay out in terms of engagement, expectations, and responsibilities. CSR is a very good thing as long as the governance and intent of the respective programs remains intact.

How do we ensure that social programs do not become dominated by private (corporate) interests? Are you aware of programs where an NGO has been censured for lack of adherence to a corporate standard? If so, is that a good thing?