CSR Blog

The United Nations Getting Down to Business

The following ran on The Huffington Post on Sept. 15. I'm re-posting it here in order to draw attention to the importance of moving the CSR dialogue into different arenas.

There are few phenomena more transformative than entrepreneurial capitalism. It empowers people, produces wealth, creates technological revolutions, and rewards and therefore encourages risk taking and sacrifice from people of all backgrounds and walks of life. Even the U.N. — not normally the most forward thinking organization on the planet — has begun to realize the power of business enterprise to change societies for the better.

In early July, over 1,000 people — including 600 top corporate executives from around the globe — gathered in Geneva for the leadership summit, Facing Realities: Getting Down to Business. The invitation-only meeting brought together chief executives, “C-suite” officers, board members, and presidents of country or regional subsidiaries with government and labor leaders, NGOs, and academics. It was convened by the United Nations to build “the markets of tomorrow.”

For those wondering when the United Nations got into the business of “building markets,” it began in 1999 when then-secretary-general Kofi Annan issued a challenge to business leaders. He urged them to join an international initiative to bring them together with U.N. agencies, labor organizations, and NGOs in support of universal environmental and social principles. The answer to Annan’s challenge came in 2000 in the form of the Global Compact.

The Global Compact is an agreement on the part of its signatories to advance 10 principles — two on human rights, four on labor standards, three on the environment, and one anti-corruption standard. It shifts the debate from “corporate social responsibility,” and concentrates instead on Environmental, Social, and Governance issues (ESG). ESG replaces often ambiguous, sometimes “feel-good” concepts associated with corporate social responsibility with clear business concepts. It also switches the debate from what a company will do with its resources to how it accumulates resources. The Global Compact network has grown from only a few hundred in 2000 to include over 4,000 business leaders and business associations, academics, NGOs, and even nations. It spans 100 countries and includes 108 of the Financial Times’ Global 500, including many familiar household names like Coca-Cola, Nestle, Microsoft, and eBay.

The importance of the Global Compact should not be downplayed. It is changing the United Nations’ relationship with the business community — a relationship that was heavily strained throughout the 1980s and 90s. American companies, which have had a particularly frosty relationship with the United Nations, were slow to sign on at first. However, now more than 100 U.S. companies have come on board.

The Global Compact is very far from perfect. For one thing, it should contain at least a preamble recognizing the importance of entrepreneurial activity to any society. It is time for the U.N. to recognize what everyone else around the world realized a generation ago: that private property and free enterprise are indispensable to opportunity and quality of life in every society. No company should sign the Global Compact out of a sense that it has to apologize for doing business.

At the same time, the Compact has real potential for enhancing a company’s reputation in the markets where it does business and at the same time, the Compact helps align a company’s business objectives with a societal need.

First, the standards are voluntary. This is an absolute precondition for participation. American business is already regulated, often in vague or contradictory ways, by three levels of government domestically. The last thing any company needs is to be subject to an international government — especially one as unaccountable and inefficient as the U.N. Still, flawed as the U.N. may be, the Global Compact as a voluntary standard is an attempt to encourage companies to address societal problems that may even transcend national borders.

Second, the standards require only what many companies are doing anyway and should be proud to talk about. In my last column, I argued that business should think of social responsibility positively rather than defensively. It is no longer possible for large companies to fly below the radar of the public, and there is no reason why most businesses should want to do so. They simply have to engage the public affirmatively and define themselves in terms broader than their line of business. In addition to producing jobs and goods or services which benefit the larger society, many businesses have made it a practice to conduct themselves with high standards of ethics and accountability — often higher standards than those followed by many of the world’s governments. Signing the Global Compact is one way to inform the public about those positive aspects of corporate culture and behavior.

That turns out to be good for business. In a study released last month, Goldman Sachs found that companies that are considered leaders in implementing the Compact’s ESG Principles have outperformed the general stock market by 25 percent since August 2005. And 72 percent of those companies outperformed their peers. Being aggressive about adopting and promoting the Compact’s  ESG principles as part of a company’s image delivers long-term business value; is rewarded by continued access to markets; and, engages the private sector to help solve pressing societal issues in the countries in which they do business. “Fundamentally, for companies and investors, this is about managing risks and opportunities presented by globalization,” explained George Kell, executive director of the Global Compact.

The Global Compact isn’t for every business. But in the right situation it is a tool for companies to enhance business practices and their global reputation at the same time.

I’m Green (and have been since June)

My last post dealt with my buying a hybrid Camry and outlining the thought process I went through to purchase an environmentally friendly car. I questioned whether or not people are really ready to make a few fundamental changes in their lifestyle to help better the world in which we live. 

I continue to be amazed by the constant drumbeat of media attention focused on the environment and sustainability and continue to wonder if this is having a meaningful impact on average consumers. As this blog has discussed, for the last two years we have partnered with the National Consumers League to survey a representative sample of all Americans on their attitudes and perceptions of corporate social responsibility. As previously mentioned, despite all of the national media attention over the past year on the environment, treatment of employees remained the most important criteria a company can do in order for it to be viewed as a socially responsible company. That said, the environment ranked third most important but it did show an increase in importance over the past year. (If they had phoned my family, concern for the environment would have ranked as the highest in at least two out of three family members!)

Does this mean that concern for the environment is unimportant? No. In our survey we asked respondents to identify the most important criteria and the findings reflect this approach. Just like anything else, there is a sliding scale of importance where a majority of Americans fall somewhere in the middle.  Diving deeper, I asked our CSR team to identify the profile of the consumer who cares most about the environment. We found that six percent of respondents were identified as being highly concerned about the environment and highly engaged in search for, and communicating, information about a company’s environmental commitment.  Here’s what else we found out about them:

·    They tend to be more female than male;

·    They are highly educated;

·    Highly engaged online — twice as likely to e-mail company information to friends and family than the rest of the respondents;

·    Tend to trust their own online research;

·    They lean left politically and favor the government stepping in to make companies address social issues;

·    Very skeptical of anything a company says about their environmental commitment; and,

·    Look to NGOs and independent groups to help validate a company’s commitment.

Perhaps most critically, people who scored high on our environmental interest index were twice as likely than other respondents to say that they would be extremely influenced to buy a particular product or service knowing that the company they were buying from met some sort of global standard for social responsibility. While I don’t think that average consumers know what a global standard is all about—I do think it reinforces the belief that people are looking for “outside” filters from which to validate a company’s environmental commitment. 

So, I want to track this segment over time to see if they are the bleeding edge of a grassroots movement that will eventually reach mainstream America; or, whether it will remain largely confined to this segment. I am interested in knowing what you think about this. 

Look in the Mirror: Are You Ready to Change?

I recently bought a hybrid Camry — trying to walk the walk — in my personal effort to do what I can to help create a sustained market for environmentally friendly products, technologies and services. This one purchase has done more to focus my thoughts on what it will take for me to cross the “point of know return” on my lifestyle and my impact on my surroundings.   

It also got me thinking about all of the new tools and services that seem to be rolling out each week that are designed to help make it easier for consumers to make the switch in their lifestyle.  Do they help?  Are they going to make a difference?  In just the last couple of weeks I have come across Live Neutral, a site by Presidio School of Management, where you can buy a carbon offset for your car – they’ll even give you a bumper sticker. Additionally, like many countless people around the globe I calculated my carbon footprint and signed the Life Earth Pledge. You can even buy a handbag or backpack with solar panels to power your personal electronics and carry your organic products like the thousands of trendy metropolitans walking around with canvas bags branded, “I am not a plastic bag.”

Related, there are a number of new services and tools that permit consumers to easily see how companies rank on CSR scorecards. But, with all of these personal and corporate scorecards—are we really ready to change? At the end of the day, will consumers actually change? Will we do what it takes to make a difference—and not just buy the eco-friendly light bulbs? 

If we are going to have a meaningful impact on our environment, we need to change not just the marketplace—but our own lives too.  It’s not fair on the one hand to criticize a company’s perceived lack of effort while we continue to drive Hummers.  If we change, the marketplace will change too.

Are Global Standards Part of the Solution?

Recently, a particular piece of CSR news caught our eye and got us thinking about the environmental stewardship aspect of corporate social responsibility. Climate Counts released a Global Warming Scorecard targeted toward the everyday consumer with the goal of influencing purchasing decisions.

The scorecard is based upon a few, simple elements and it’s available in easily accessible formats for consumers: pocket guide, web site, and wireless device interface. While there are certainly limitations to the tool as a comprehensive social responsibility gauge, we see it as another indication that there is a consumer demand for this sort of information – how corporations perform as responsible stewards – from external, objective, and reputable sources.

We know from classic marking theory that certain groups of consumers will never change their brand preference based upon any reputation element – including CSR – they’re value shoppers and lack loyalty. However, the vast majority of Americans live with brands every day – the brands are part of their life and consumers are beginning to care more about CSR aspects of these brands. Our research indicates a nearly 20 percent jump, within the last year, in consumers’ willingness to alter purchase decisions based upon CSR elements. This knowledge is significant and has many implications for business.

While it’s beneficial to know what consumers say they will do, it certainly does not equate to what they will do when it comes to putting their money where there mouth is. So while research, like the recent study by Harris Interactive, will continue to level-set that not all consumers care enough about corporate social responsibility to alter their behavior, we think the existing and developing market for CSR issues is substantial: 25 percent of Americans and a 20 percent annual increase, respectively. In other words, there’s a solid market for global warming scorecards and the like.

Both the Climate Counts scorecard and the Harris Interactive study help to further validate what we found: consumers are searching for external sources to help them validate an organization’s CSR standing.

We think it’s pretty exciting that consumers are intellectually ready to take the leap into ranking corporations on their stewardship, sustainability, and overall corporate citizenship. This year, we found that more than three out of four average consumers support the idea of global standards that outline what companies need to do in order to be socially responsible. What’s more, two out of three consumers said that an organization’s adherence to a global standard would be very influential in their purchase behavior. However, on the flip side, most brands included on the Global Warming Scorecard didn’t fare so well. There’s a bit of dissonance between what consumers say they want in terms of a responsible corporation versus what’s currently out there.

Does all this mean that we are on the verge of a tipping point? Who knows until it can be seen in hindsight, but conceptually, something is changing. Consumers are caring about this issue more – it would behoove Corporate America to pay attention. Even better, those who take measurable action to be “part of the solution,” “put their employees first, “invest in sustainable solutions,” “reduce their environmental footprint,” “do good by doing well,” and all the other CSR catchphrases of the day – those companies have a lot to gain in terms of reputation, business success and favorable operating environment.

"Beyond the Bottom Line" on the Huffington Post

As I mentioned on my last post, I was on a panel with Arianna Huffington recently — examining the role of corporate social responsibility. After the discussion, she asked me if I’d be interested in becoming a regular contributor on her widely read blog. Late last night, my first entry, “Beyond the Bottom Line: Redefining Corporate Social Responsibility,” ran on the Huffington Post.

It has already generated a lively debate on corporate social responsibility — demonstrating how important this issue is to the American public right now.

Several comments have been posted already. I’ll respond to some of the issues raised in the coming days and weeks. I’m glad we have this forum to air these important issues and look forward to continued conversations.

Beyond the Bottom Line: Redefining Corporate Social Responsibility

There is little doubt that last November’s power shift in Washington was, in part, a referendum on the Iraq War However, it wasn’t just the war that swayed the election. For years, anxiety and frustration with the state of American society have grown, fed by a steady stream of corporate and government scandals.

Meanwhile, Americans spend $3 or more for a gallon of gas, pay more for less healthcare coverage, and, watch pensions diminish — all while many companies post record profits. Our post-9/11, post-Katrina society is characterized by more anxiety, more insecurity, and more Americans questioning the legitimacy of existing “institutions” — both public and private.

A few weeks ago, I participated on a panel at Georgetown University with Arianna Huffington. The discussion, “Principles, Profits, and Politics: The Rise of Corporate Social Responsibility,” signaled the release of findings from a national survey conducted by Fleishman-Hillard and the National Consumers League.

The survey found that a majority of  Americans believe that the most important thing a company can do to be viewed as socially responsible is “treat their employees well.”  It also found that Americans wear different “hats” when they evaluate a company’s social responsibility commitment—viewing that commitment, by turns, as employees, as investors, as customers, and as voters.

Several compelling  themes throughout the survey suggest “red” and “blue” state Americans are united in their view of corporate performance.  Specifically, it found that overwhelming majorities of  Republicans, Democrats and Independents believe:

• Corporate priorities are out of alignment with Americans’ priorities
• U.S.corporations do not act responsibly
• Government should intervene

The survey also found that the battle for corporate reputation is increasingly being waged online, particularly on such social networks as MySpace, YouTube, and a growing variety of blogs.  A large number of Americans – Democrats somewhat more than Republicans, but large numbers of both – get an increasing amount of their information from internet sources.

These findings suggest several important realities for American business.

First, there are no large numbers of true “laissez faire” Americans left.  We live in a world of big government. Even people who are hostile to that idea in principle – who consider themselves minimalists when it comes to government regulations – actually expect the government to regulate the economy and protect such interests as environmental quality or retirement security.  That doesn’t mean that Americans have huge faith in the government’s ability to do this job well, or that they would support any given regulatory initiative.  But it does mean that people accept — as a baseline — the government’s role in realigning corporate behavior with values and priorities, not just the bottom line.

Second, with vague regulatory statutes and the broad discretion enjoyed by regulators, companies cannot safely rely on purely legal remedies to defend themselves from government action. It is easy, and often politically beneficial, for government officials to target a business for practices that company leaders may have plausibly believed were legal, but which offend — or appear to offend — the public’s conception of corporate responsibility.   

Neither of these realities is going to change in the near future.  But there is no reason for business leaders to panic.  Most American businesses are participating in their communities in ways that go beyond simply tending to the bottom line.  They need to inculcate that participation into their corporate cultures. Then, they need to aggressively define their public images in ways that are consistent with — but broader than —their business brands.  In the world of politics, people often have a poor opinion of Congress but a favorable view of their Congressman.  It’s just as true that if you don’t define yourself in a way that highlights your strengths, others will eventually define you in a way that emphasizes your weaknesses.  The same basic principles apply to the business world.

The upshot is that business success is still about making money, but it can’t only be about that.  It’s critical to communicate how success in the marketplace has been good for employees as well as stockholders, and how the company has used its own resources to advance the broader goals people have for their families and communities. 

To be effective, that communication can no longer occur only through media that companies control. It must also take place in the rough and tumble online world, especially on social networking sites. 

The good news for business is that most companies are engaged in their communities.  The challenge is to communicate more clearly and compellingly the specific ways they define and create value beyond the bottom line.

This is my first post, and I plan to be a regular contributor on this compelling issue. I look forward to your comments and feedback.

Take Care of Your Own First: Part 2

Last year, our survey found that commitment to employees was the most frequently cited definition of CSR. At that time, a series of well-publicized job layoffs occurred on a nationwide scale, leading us to believe that they may have contributed to the prominence of this finding. However, even without the influence of massive job losses this year, employee-related concerns still ranked a high second in our 2007 findings. 

The steady ranking of this response indicates that the meaning of CSR, for most Americans, still begins with a basic concept: Companies should treat their employees well. It’s as if Americans are saying that if employers cannot treat their own “family” members right, how can they be viewed as a good neighbor.

There are several other areas of this year’s survey that indicated continued support for a commitment to employee-related concerns as an important area of CSR. Respondents said that:

> It's important to pay workers inside/outside the U.S. a living wage 

> Salary/wage increases should be placed above charitable contributions

> Among seven options, including “gives to charitable causes,” “treats and pays its employees well” is the most important

> Companies should generate business and employ more people rather than making charitable donations

We also found it interesting that people identifying themselves as Independents placed a greater concern for treating employees right than did Democrats and Republicans.

You may note, like we did, that Americans’ top priority — employee treatment —closely mirrors their European counterparts’ workforce experience. Because of more government involvement in the private sector, Europeans tend to enjoy greater employment security than do Americans. 

The New Price of Admission

Now that I have had a chance to decompress a bit from the build up and launch of this year's CSR survey, I have had a little time to reflect upon the survey findings.  Over the next couple of weeks I want to call out and discuss these findings on this blog.

One of the more interesting findings is the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans do not rank "making a charitable donation" as a top CSR priority for businesses.  It was true last year in our inauguaral survey and it is even more true today.  Roughly 3% of Americans identified charitable donations as the most important CSR priority.

Even more striking is the fact that nearly 3 times as many respondents said that making "non-financial" contributions is more important than "financial" contributions.  Further, when making a charitable donation, a substantial majority of Americans want the contribution to be in line with the overall business mission of the company.  For example--our findings suggest that most Americans do not view a company's significant contribution to a local symphony as being relevant to them. 

When one looks at all of the findings related to charitable donations, it's as if Americans are saying the following:

1.Making just a charitable donation is no longer enough--it's just the beginning

2.Couple the donation with a company's donation of time and expertise to help address a social issue i a community.

In effect, this finding redefines a new price of admission for a company and its philanthropic endeavors.

CSR by Any Other Name--Please

We had a good showing this morning at Georgetown's Riggs Library for the panel discussion during which we released our 2007 CSR national survey results. The panel featured Arianna Huffington, former Sen. Jim Talent, Pat Cleary from the National Association of Manufacturers, Bill Powers from the National Journal, and our partner, Linda Golodner of the National Consumers League.

The lively discussion really illustrated the diversity of ideas and issues that encompass corporate social responsibility. Each panelist truly had a distinct point of view about what CSR means to their respective audiences. But everyone agreed that the phrase "corporate social responsibility" itself trips up most of us who work on these issues. As Bill Powers noted, in the soundbite era,"corporate social responsbility" is a lotta syllables, so it's difficult to gain much traction with the fourth estate.

That said, for those that are more invested, transparency—in government, in business and in communications in general—is at the crux of the movement. The rise of online communications, particularly blogs, has transformed how the American public views institutions. Sen. Talent noted that the Internet enables the public to feel empowered and capable of participating in such lofty debates with the click of a button. Their participation, in turn, has forced those previously dominating the debate—government, business—to change their communication tools and techniques, as well as their messages. As Arianna Huffington noted, gone are the days of focus-group tested messaging and photoshopped appearances. Today, it’s all about personal communication on a broad scale—warts and all.

And boy are there a lot of warts. It’s easy to talk about CSR in a philosophical sense, but when we get back to business, that’s when the challenges really begin to overwhelm us—health care policy, the energy crisis, the list could go on. How do we truly unite the needs of society with the needs of business? The triple-bottom line is a constant work in progress. As are the communications needs of such efforts. Pat Cleary noted how much NAM members actually contribute to their communities needs, but the general public isn’t aware of their contributions. With the debate increasingly going online, we think forums like this one are a great space for companies and other organizations to share how they’re positively contributing to this movement.

We'll have more to talk about with respect to this panel today in tomorrow's post In the meantime, I welcome your feedback.

Principles, Profits, and Politics: The Rise of Corporate Social Responsibility

As we mentioned in a recent post here, we wanted to use the 2007 survey as a way to understand how Americans viewed CSR from a political perspective and whether government should play a role in CSR.

Based on the results of the survey, which we will fully release tomorrow at a panel discussion at Georgetown University, we identified several compelling themes. In particular, a substantial majority of Republicans, Democrats and Independents believe that:

• The American public's priorities appear to be out of alignment with corporate practices.
• U.S. corporations do not act responsibly.
• Government should intervene.

That last statement is bolstered by a rather large majority. Our survey indicates that an estimated 82 percent of Americans want Congress to ensure companies meet pressing social issues. Breaking that down, the data show that 96 percent of Democrats, 80 percent of Independents and 65 percent of Republicans say it's either "very" or "extremely" important that Congress ensure companies meet social needs.

These results indicate to us that "red" and "blue" Americans are more unified in their expectations and beliefs about Corporate America's conduct than most might think. An overwhelming majority of Americans, regardless of political ideology, are not happy with corporate behavior, perhaps, because they believe their priorities don't align with corporate conduct.

Of course, there are political differences, too. One of the most compelling survey findings tells us where Democrats and Republicans go for trusted information. Democrats are more likely than Republicans to go online, as well as to visit online social networks like MySpace or blogs and podcasts. Perhaps even more significant is the fact that the voting bloc "in play" in next year's elections (Independents) are more likely than members of the Republican party to say they would use online sources to learn more about the social responsibility record of a particular company in their community. We think the findings suggest to companies that want to protect their reputation, their story must be told online--in places where they have no control over the message.

Learn more tomorrow at the panel event (10 a.m.-noon), held at Georgetown's Riggs Library and moderated by SCS Dean Robert Manuel. We'll discuss the political implications of our findings in light of the 2008 elections. Joining us will be:

• Former U.S. Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.)
• Arianna Huffington, co-founder of HuffingtonPost.com
• National Journal columnist William Powers
• Patrick Cleary, senior vice president of communications for the National Association of Manufacturers and a ShopFloor.org blogger
• Linda Golodner, president of the National Consumers League

We expect it will be an enlightening conversation. Join us for the discussion.

A Snapshot of Our Results

We previewed our survey results late last week with New York Times reporter Stephanie Strom, and she discusses a few of the findings in the Time's "Weekend Business" podcast. Strom talks about the results in relation to her weekend business cover story about the convergence of for-profit tactics and nonprofit aims in what she calls the "fourth sector." It's an interesting piece on the push-pull dynamics of doing business to do good, and it serves as a great introduction for our survey results. We'll continue to share some preliminary findings with you this week. Check back soon. 

Turning the Tide on CSR

We began planning for our second annual survey in collaboration with the National Consumers League right around the time of the 2006 midterm elections, a time of sweeping national political change.  Democrats had captured both chambers of Congress as well as many governorships across the country. For the first time in more than six years, a greater percentage of Independents voted with Democrats, helping to turn the tide against incumbent Republicans. 

While there was no question that the election centered on voters’ views of the Iraq war, we speculated that an underlying frustration over domestic issues contributed to the electoral result. We wanted to delve deeper into this idea, and so we added a fourth perspective this year to our survey. Last year, if you'll recall, we asked respondents to define CSR from their perspectives as an employee, a consumer and and investor. This year, we asked them what CSR meant to them as a voter.

While some of the political findings we discovered are intuitive, we identified several compelling themes that we'll begin to discuss in detail next week.

Coming Soon: 2007 Survey Results

With our partner, the National Consumers League, we’re gearing up to release the second annual CSR survey, and we’re starting to compare last year’s findings with this year’s survey results.  This year, we interviewed almost 2,100 people in the U.S.—1,250 more respondents than last year—so the findings will be all the more robust. 

You may recall that last year's top three CSR priorities were:

1.                  Treatment of employees

2.                  Commitment to communities

3.                  Environmental responsibility

We maintained the same approach this year, so we could capture any shifts in perspectives on CSR from year to year. And, we also kept the same methodology as last year.  We interviewed a representative sample of all Americans, and once again assumed that most respondents had their own views and understanding of what the phrase “corporate social responsibility” meant to them.  So our first question again this year was open ended and asked each respondent to define “CSR” in their own words and terms. 

We also wanted to explore last year’s finding, “commitment to communities,” a bit more in this year’s survey.  We wanted to know how respondents defined “commitment to communities.” Finally, we also wanted to know how much “concern for the environment” changed in order of priority over last year.  Check back later this week and we will begin to discuss some of the overall findings.

CSR Blog 2.0—A New Survey, A Dedicated Approach

Looking back on last year, it doesn’t take too long to determine that we could have done a better job of discussing various aspects of corporate social responsibility.  It certainly wasn’t for lack of significant (and frequent) news about this issue.  No, the buck stops here—with me.  Could have done a better job, no doubt about it.  So, with another CSR survey about to be published by my company and our partner, the National Consumers League, I promise to do better and to also bring in a diverse group of CSR experts across the FH network to help carry the load.  We’ve got interesting perspectives on this topic and we will make sure they are included on this blog. 

A lot has changed over the past several months.  Inconvenient truths have—excuse the pun—ignited a maelstrom of discussion in government, business and Hollywood. Big Box retailers have “gone green,” the American public flexed their muscle to oust the Republicans from power in the 2006 midterm elections and Al Gore won an Academy Award. And, that doesn’t even begin to address the latest trends our new survey is suggesting in corporate social responsibility, from employee relations to environmental stewardship.

So, moving forward, this blog will offer our perspective on the latest CSR trends and the communication implications these trends have on business, government and society.  And, more importantly, we want to engage in a lively and reasoned dialogue with interested readers. 

Tony Calandro, Senior Vice President and Partner, Fleishman-Hillard

Tony Calandro joined Fleishman-Hillard in February 2004. He provides client counsel in public affairs, corporate social responsibility, and emerging communications and has developed a wide variety of national and state alliance programs used for public affairs, community relations, grassroots, and lobbying activities. 

He leads the firm’s Corporate Social Responsibility initiative. Under this, FH partnered with the country’s oldest consumer organization, the National Consumers League, to launch an annual survey on American consumers’ views about a company’s social responsibilities. In its inaugural year (2006), the survey presented findings that ran counter to some established beliefs on the issues that matter most to Americans. In its second year, the survey examined Americans as voters to assess their desire to have government change corporate behavior.

Before joining Fleishman-Hillard, Mr. Calandro spent over 18 years working in Washington, DC. As managing director for public affairs for the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association. He has also worked for members of congress in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, lobbied for a trade association representing postsecondary education students, and developed crisis communications and grassroots strategies for a variety of Fortune 500 companies.

His online achievements were recognized by the National Association of Political Consultants. He received the organization’s annual Pollie Award for “most creative use of the internet.”

Mr. Calandro earned his Bachelor of Science degree in political science from the University of Missouri-St. Louis, and a Master of Public Policy degree from the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University.

Jim Talent, Former U.S. Senator and Co-Chairman, Fleishman-Hillard Government Relations

Senator Jim Talent has been active in Missouri and national politics for 20 years. He recently joined Fleishman-Hillard as Co-Chairman of Fleishman-Hillard Government Relations, working from the agency’s offices in St. Louis and Washington, D.C.

Senator Talent's career in public service began in 1984 when, at the age of 28, he was elected to the Missouri House of Representatives, where he served eight years — the last four as the senior Republican leader in the Missouri House. In 1992, he was elected to the first of four terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, where he represented Missouri's 2nd Congressional District. During his eight years in the U.S. House of Representatives, Senator Talent co authored the historic welfare reform bill, championed national security issues on the House Armed Services Committee, and enacted legislation to help revitalize urban neighborhoods and help lower healthcare costs.

In 2002, Missourians elected Senator Talent to serve in the United States Senate, where he worked with Republicans and Democrats to enact critical legislation for Missouri. Working with Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden, Senator Talent was successful in securing critical funding and construction bonds in the highway bill and, with Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Senator Talent succeeded in passing the most comprehensive anti-meth bill ever enacted into law. In the summer of 2005, Senator Talent led the fight to add a renewable fuels standard to the energy bill and, now, 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels like ethanol and bio-diesel must be added to the nation’s fuel supply by 2012.

Senator Talent and his wife, Brenda, were married in 1984. They have three young children: Michael, Kate, and Chrissy. Brenda practices law part-time at the law firm Bryan Cave. Brenda also served four years as an officer in the United States Army.

About the FH CSR Blog

Where We're Coming From
The Internet is constantly changing the world of communications and influence. Its increasing use and its acceptance have made it easier for consumers to become directly engaged with companies and affect corporate image. This adoption of Internet technology is changing the way people learn about companies and the way they determine which ones are socially responsible.

How We Got Here
The second national opinion survey commissioned by the National Consumers League and Fleishman-Hillard International Communications reinforced the notion that more and more Americans are turning to online resources to learn about corporate social responsibility. In fact, the survey this year indicated a 100% increase in the use of blogs, which underscores the rapid pace of change in communications. This blog continues to examine public attitudes and perceptions of corporate social responsibility in a society where news and information consumption is now 24/7.

What We're About
We recognize the growing importance of an open dialogue between consumers and corporations, and we want to use this blog to help foster a dialogue with people who share the same passion for this topic as we do.

Our Disclaimer

This blog is written by employees of Fleishman-Hillard International Communications. The bloggers include the leads of the Corporate Social Responsibility Specialty group. The views expressed on this blog are solely representative of the individual posters only and should not be construed or assumed to represent the official or unofficial views of any one company, group, or organization. Each poster is responsible for his or her own content and is the sole author of that content.

Growing Commitments

The resounding call for CSR at the highest levels of corporate governance continues to increase. We just read a recent survey by Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) and the Global Environmental Management Initiative (GEMI) that indicates 72 percent of sustainability business professionals say that their CEO publicly communicates their company's commitment to corporate social responsibility, while 94 percent say they expect environmental, health and safety (EHS) and CSR to have an increased impact on business strategy in the next five years. "Corporate social responsibility has a high profile in their companies," says Robert Accarino, global director of environmental affairs for Abbott and chairman of GEMI's benchmarking committee. "Not only does the survey reveal that there is strong senior management commitment to and in support of CSR, but companies are well down the road in implementing specific actions to advance the CSR agenda, including integrating environmental and social considerations into product design and procurement process, and collaborating with external stakeholders, such as NGOs."

CSR in the Classroom

MBA students are starting to weigh in more emphatically on the CSR debate, suggesting that social responsibility may  have a real impact on their careers and business decisions post-grad school.

A recent survey of more than 2,000 MBA students by Net Impact, an international network of MBA and graduate students, indicated that 81 percent of students felt businesses should work toward the betterment of society. While only 18 percent said they believed most corporations currently are working toward societal improvement, nearly 80 percent said they would pursue "socially responsible" employment options after graduate school. Further, 89 percent said business professionals should take social and environmental impacts into account when making critical business decisions.

Survey administrators go so far as to say that the recent years of corporate scandal and ethical depravity in the boardroom may have something to do with the majority results.

"While we don't have earlier results for comparison, it may be that these responses reflect, at least in part, the extensive coverage of the corporate scandals of the recent past and the trials of the top executives implicated in them," said Liz Maw, executive director of Net Impact.

The Golden Rule

Even in business, the golden rule still applies.

As much as a company’s success depends on how it treats its employees, the bottom line also relies upon how well employees treat the company in return.

Employee engagement is a major factor in a company’s operating income performance, according to a survey by Chicago-based research firm ISR. In fact, there’s almost a 52 percent gap in performance between companies that employ highly engaged workers versus those that don’t.

Over a year-long period, employee-engaged companies improved their bottom line by more than 19 percent, whereas disengaged companies declined in their operating income by more than 32 percent, according to the survey, which gathered results from more than 664,000 employees from around the globe.

So it’s true—everything you learned in kindergarten is really all you need to know.

Green Isn't Just Good ...

... It's economically gratifying.

A new book out next week echoes the message that green business practices aren't a limitation but an opportunity to gain advantage in a new paradigm. The authors of Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy to Innovate, Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage have coined the term "WaveRiders," or quasi-business environmentalists, saying that these entrepreneurial executives (some of whom work at the highest ranks of Corporate America) are truly the vanguard force in making the case for profitable but environmentally friendly business practices.

WaveRiders see the "Green Wave" as an opportunity instead of an obstacle to growth. It's the age-old economic principal: Limit can make or break opportunities. Smart companies realize that employing a bottom-line oriented green strategy enables them to launch innovative product lines that encourage customer loyalty as well as long-term cost decreases. Embracing the green movement in a strategic fashion and not just for cosmetic purposes is starting to give these WaveRiders the competive advantage.

Compliance Salaries on the Rise

Pay for top ethnics positions contineus to grow dramatically, according to a recent survey by Salary.com and the Ethics & Compliance Officer Association (ECOA). In all, salaries for leading ethics and compliance professionals has increased more than 12 percent last year.

American corporations are increasingly assigning high value to ethical standards, and these stastics bolster the arugment. Underscoring this idea, Christian and Timbers and smartmoney.com, the compliance and ethics professional is among the top 10 hottest jobs in the country. "Never before have organizations seen the value in the work of the ethics and compliance officer as they do now," says Keith T. Darcy, executive director of ECOA.   

What Matters Most

Another survey recently released underscores our findings that the greatest gauge of a company is how they treat their employees.

The survey, produced by Accenture, interviewed 4,100 job job seekers to determine the most attractive quality in a potential new job. Approximately 60 percent said the number one issue of interest was whether a firm would provide opportunities for challenging and interesting work.

The type of work they do, and how they are regarded for a job well done, is what matters most, according to the 4,100 job seekers Accenture interviewed.

In turn, about 58 percent said it mattered that a company recognized its employees and rewarded them for their accomplishments.

Alternatively, those interviewed said they didn’t place as much value on bona fide corporate giving programs. Only 16 percent said a company’s commitment to the community was a top priority in their job search, ranking that at 14 out of 15 identified preferences.

So not only does a company’s treatment of its employees make a difference at the check out line, it’s also a determining factor in the recruitment rat race. The companies that tell their CSR story better will be able to gain a corner in recruiting the top talent in their respective industries.

Growing Importance of Environmental and Sustainability Reporting

A recent analysis by the Social Investment Research Analysis Network (SIRAN) shows that the number of large US companies reporting their environmental and social performance has grown sharply over last year. 

Among the findings:

More than three-quarters of the S&P 100 Index (79 companies) now have special sections of their websites dedicated to sharing information about their social and environmental policies and performance. This represents a 34% increase from last year, when 59 companies in the S&P 100 included this information on their websites.

Overall, in the last year a dozen new companies issued corporate social responsibility reports for the first time, including Cisco Systems, General Electric, Time Warner, and Wells Fargo.

Over a third of the S&P 100 Index (34 companies) say they base their CSR reports on a widely recognized external standard for reporting called the Global Reporting Initiative's (GRI) Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. This was up sharply from 2005, when 25 companies in the S&P based their reports on the GRI guidelines.

This analysis supports the trend we are seeing with our clients--more and more of them are beginning to recognize the need to report on their company's impact on the environment.  If your company is thinking about the pros and cons of reporting such information, below are the types of questions your company should be prepared to address in its CSR report:

Why is your company reducing its greenhouse gas emissions

Does the company believe that these emissions contribute to climate change

Provide metrics on emissions data, energy use reduction and energy savings

Discusse the company's goals or policies on renewable energy providers/sources

Discuss the steps the company is making to ensure its suppliers are following environmental regulations

Employees Weigh In

Corporate social responsibility is not only a factor affecting consumers’ choices. It’s reached the tipping point for employees too.

A new study released by Care2, a progressive community network, shows that 48 percent of employees say they would work for less pay if they had an opportunity with a socially responsible company. And, 40 percent said they would work longer hours.

“Companies that are taking steps to be more socially responsible and environmentally friendly have an advantage in the hiring market,” said Care2 CEO Randy Paynter.

The survey, which included 1,600 respondents from across the U.S., also asked respondents to identify the most socially responsible companies:

·       Ben & Jerry’s

·       The Body Shop

·       Patagonia

·       Seventh Generation

·       Starbucks

·       Whole Foods Market

·       Working Assets

Principles for Responsible Investment

TIAA-CREF, the largest retirement fund in the U.S., recently sold 1.2 million shares ($52.4 million worth) of its Coca-Cola stock, claiming concerns over the company’s corporate social responsibility standing.       

TIAA-CREF said the sale resulted when KLD Research & Analytics took Coke off its list of socially responsible corporations because it didn’t meet requirements related to marketing to children and overseas labor rights and environmental issues.

The retirement fund manages more than $380 billion in assets, and its Social Choice Account, the arm which invests according to social criteria and sold the Coke stock, oversees $8 billion. Such a critical decision made by one of the biggest players in the investment community signifies a massive sea change. Socially responsible investing is no longer a hobby for tree-hugging advocates but a respected practice for many mainstream investors. The prevailing wisdom that socially responsible investments can’t provide nearly as high returns as their less-conscious counterparts is fading away, as companies touting their socially responsible practices have begun to post strong performance results.

Bolstering the movement, the United Nations recently announced its Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) initiative, which set international standards for what the UN is calling “ESG,” or environmental social and governance issues. The principles are backed by investors in charge of about 10 percent of all global capital—or those responsible for more than $4 trillion of assets.

This poses a credible case for ESG and for companies with a good story to tell to share it with this community. It also bodes well for advocates who are calling for more action and less reaction. Even though Coke releases a regular social responsibility report, the company, KLD claims, is too reactive, when it should be out in front addressing ESG issues given its status as an industry leader.

The Scoop on Corporate Conscience

Being a good corporate citizen means getting your company, your employees, your customers and – in some cases – ice cream lovers involved in socially responsible initiatives. Ben & Jerry’s devotees and the rest of the American public can now indulge in the company’s latest ice cream flavor – American Pie – and demand a change in federal spending priorities.

The campaign, which kicked off this week, plans to heighten awareness of the billions the government spends on nuclear weapons vs. a shortfall of spending on pediatric health insurance, schools and other programs for children. Ben & Jerry’s will be reaching out to the public through retail, grassroots and interactive vehicles like a multi-city tour, postcard writing campaign, educational web site and instructions on how to get involved on American Pie pint lids.

According to Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, the company’s founders who until now have mostly kept away from the company since it became a subsidiary of Unilever, “When business starts using its voice for the benefit of the country as a whole, not just in its narrow self-interest, it can really be the force that can make the changes that need to be made.”

And such social consciousness is not without business value. As shown in more than one study, including the Fleishman Hillard/National Consumers League Study, American consumers are well aware of socially responsible behavior and more likely to become a loyal follower of companies like Ben & Jerry’s for good works and social activism than of other companies just because of lower prices.

The Business Case for Doing Good

Unfortunately, we’re more likely to hear about corporate scandals than about corporate do-gooders in today’s media coverage of the American business community. But in response to unethical corporate practices, the public is renewing interest in business ethics and placing higher value on the social responsibility of companies. Americans not only expect more socially responsible behavior but they also want to hear about it – so they can make educated decisions in deciding who to work for and who to invest in. CSR is not just the right thing to do. It’s central to building a sustainable and competitive business and maintaining a solid corporate reputation.

Companies like Ben & Jerry’s, The Body Shop and Timberland prove that a company can do good and do well at the same time. As a combined effort of HR, PR, investor relations, and employee communications – and with buy-in from senior management – social responsibility engages the corporation in meaningful interaction with society.

There are many reasons why CSR is good business. The payoffs of CSR include stronger brand image reputation; improved employee recruitment, retention and morale; better customer satisfaction; increased shareholder value; and lower risk of boycotts and litigation. A study of 2,100 MBA students conducted by Net Impact even found that slightly more than half said they would accept a lower salary to work for a socially responsible company.

Managed strategically across the business, the CSR movement is a great opportunity to build a relationship between business and society based on trust and shared values.

Environmental Issues in the Workplace: Employee Satisfaction

U.S. companies certainly have a lot to gain if the results of a recent Gallup Survey prove true. The semiannual survey of U.S. employees said that more than 23 million Americans are unhappy at work. Even worse, the study shows, these employees are "actively disengaged ... sleepwalking though their workday," and accounting for about 17 percent of the U.S. workforce. As a result, it's costing companies--a lot. The survey estimates that the national economy loses about $370 billion a year to ineffecient, uninvested employees.

One of the top reasons for dissatisfaction in the workplace?

The physical work environment.

Although sustainable design in the workplace is on the rise, it's still a long way away from being a mainstream trend. Only about three percent of all new construction in the U.S. is pursuing LEED certification--the national green building rating system. It's a surprising statistic given the millions of dollars U.S. companies donate to environmental causes each year. Consider the implications of using those environmentally-focused funds toward more internal causes to impact the physical and mental health of employees if they were to work in a more environmentally/ergonomically friendly atmosphere.

Teen Trends Provide Insight Into CSR’s Future

Should we add CSR to the growing list of things teenagers seem to be picking up faster than their adult counterparts?   Insight gleaned from top teen market researchers suggest it's true -- or shoud we say TRU?

When several of this blog's authors participated in a recent presentation by teen insight guru Peter Zollo, president of Teenage Research Unlimited (TRU), we were hoping for a glimpse into the social psyche of today's teens, and we weren't disappointed.  We already knew that America's teenagers are voracious consumers (according to Zollo, shopping fills basic teen needs states of self-expression, independence, affiliation, and fun), but we felt two of TRU's major research themes really hit the CSR mark:  "Maturiteens" and "Backstorians."

Zollo described today's teen cohort as a generation that is "15 going on 25," and one that is growing up awfully fast.  These "Maturiteens," as TRU describes them, are being exposed to more "issues and ideas that were once reserved for adults."  Does this mean today's teens are more likely than their predecessors to look beyond the packaging and consider external factors when making purchase decisions?  Apparently, yes.

Today's teens also exhibit activist tendencies, but prefer involvement that doesn't require heavy lifting.  One good example:  Starbucks "Ethos Water"--bottled water that contributes purchase proceeds to help provide clean drinking water to underdeveloped countries.  Zollo tells us this is a perfect fit for teens:  "Why buy plain old water when instead I can buy water that helps people?"  It appeals to teens' desire to do good (TRU finds that 63% of teens say it's important to "help others and make the world a better place") and their propensity to consider weightier topics.

The second research theme speaks more to the way today's teenagers develop opinions.  They like to get the back-story and are increasingly enabled through technology to dig into the people, places and things they are interested in.  Or, as Zollo puts it, "They want to Google life."  Overlay this "Backstorian" trend with recent findings (of the Fleishman-Hillard/National Consumers League survey) about the ways the Internet is transforming the CSR landscape, and it signals even greater corproate scrutiny is likely on the horizon.

If nearly half (47%) of U.S. consumers say they have used the Internet to learn about the extent to which a company is or is not being socially responsible today, imagine how that number might swell when our Google-happy teens become discriminating adults--which, according to the research, is happening faster every day.

Harry Frazier

Charlottesville, VA

Awareness of CSR on the Rise – But is Corporate CSR Performance Rising or Falling?

Last week ISR, a global HR research and consulting firm, released the results of a national survey of employees on business ethics. The study found a 7% increase in positive employee opinions regarding whether companies are socially responsible in the commu