CSR Blogs

Either Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne is certifiably insane, or he’s a genius. Perhaps he’s a blend of both. I have to admit, the guy fascinates me.

For the past five years, Byrne has waged an unrelenting crusade against the banking practice known as naked short selling, a financial sleight of hand that floods the market with nonexistent stock. Today that war has culminated into two Internet websites, a high-profile public relations campaign, and a $3.48bn lawsuit that Byrne has filed against 12 New York brokerage firms, alleging a “massive, illegal stock market manipulation scheme.” The case is still pending.

To get a sense of both the scale and significance of Byrne’s claims, take a few paces back in time. Years prior to the 2008 financial crisis, Byrne went on TV warning people of the dangers of naked short selling and predicting that a financial catastrophe was just around the corner.

“I think there is something going on in the American marketplace that has to be stopped,” Byrne told Bloomberg in November of 2006. “When it comes to light, it’s going to be something that makes Enron look like a tea party.”

Do people take Byrne’s warnings seriously? Not so much. Some call Byrne “delusional.” Others assume that Byrne exaggerates (he recently called Mad Money host Jim Cramer a “criminal” for his role in the market meltdown). Still others find his predictions downright irritating. CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo nearly barked Byrne off her show after he said: “Our economy is a house of cards. I think we’re on the edge of a global financial meltdown,” back in 2007.

A number of comments, on the original and later posts, as well as other discoveries have pointed me to additional barriers to mass adoption of sustainability. They’re below, bringing the total to 21 (Greenjack?). While I’ve categorized these barriers as marketing issues, it seems human psychology plays a major role. The marketing of sustainability must, therefore, understand these issues in the target audiences’ minds.

Referring to “barriers” may be misleading. It’s not to say, the barriers are aplenty, it’s such an uphill battle we might as well pack up and go do something else. Each “barrier” in both posts represents a wall to be torn down – an opportunity.

Storytelling. Stories are how we communicate, stories are how we understand and act upon things. What’s the story of sustainability? People don’t relate to products or brands or concepts – people relate to people.

Language (via Bernice Paul). We’re using linear language to convey a systems concept. The clash is subtle yet significant. It’s like using old tools to solve new problems.

(Ir)relevance (via Carolina). The absence of stories and the use of unsuitable language makes for a weak connection to people’s lives. For some, sustainable practices just don’t seem to be that relevant to their everyday experiences.

A recent survey asked leading environmental campaigners for one thing they would want to ban on ethical grounds, and one favourite ethical innovation or product. The answers are illuminating precisely because they are, taken as a group, incoherent and often tokenistic.

Products to ban include outdoor patio heaters, incandescent light bulbs (score on that one, then), bluefin tuna, 4x4 cars, private health insurance and plastic bags.

There's big stuff in there as well - military aircraft, coal fired power stations and the like.

The favourite products often go to the quirky. A wind-up torch. A folding bicycle. Organic boxer shorts. More substantial answers include electric vehicle technology, locally grown food, ethical investment vehicles.

It shouldn't be a surprise that there is such a diversity in the answers. The environmental movement is hardly one homogenous branch of thought.

But I am interested that the politicians polled generally came up with substantial answers - focused on the big priorities and big issues - and campaigners came up with small-fry (a generalisation, certainly not all of them did).

It fuels my suspicion that the target of campaigns is often fuelled by certain factors that are not related to the substance of the issue.

1. Proximity. Things that campaigners see in front of them that annoy them become targets for criticism and action. Outdoor patio heaters, for instance. And plastic bags.

The Japanese are one big family, it is often said. Small trends and changes in the family mood are amplified and exaggerated in the press--no matter if the trends are real or imagined. In fact, there is a whole industry, involving TV commentators, the print press, social scientists, and small businesses, that taps into these blips. One of the most salient trends I detected during my recent trip to Japan (visiting Tokyo, Yokohama, and Kushiro) was a subtle shift in the attitudes of young women toward gender equity.

A few weeks ago, the New York Times ran a story about a new trend in Japan--again whether it is real or imagined is debatable. The article (titled "With Jobs Scarce in Japan, Women Become Professional Flirts") said that some women are choosing to become hostesses in order to survive during the recession and that the image of hostessing as a job has gained some respectability. The article's sensational photo featured a single mother who works as a hostess (oh no, Japan's mothers are becoming prostitutes!).

I asked a Japanese friend, who is an MBA candidate in Japan, about this article and she said that the deeper issue is that single women in their late 20s and 30s are kicking up their search for financial stability. This drive includes doing previously shunned jobs or searching for husbands by engaging in "kon katsu" or "marriage hunting," which includes the use of websites that help women find men. Given the U.S. media's fondness for exoticizing Japan, what are we to make of this new trend? During my recent trip, I was eager to find out.

After talking with many people during this trip, my view is that this trend is both much ado about nothing and much ado about something very subtle, but not necessarily what one would expect on the surface. Keep in mind my view is based on conversations only, not quantitative analysis.

Needless to say, the industry I myself work in — higher education — is in no way immune from sub-par business ethics. (Those of us involved in the teaching end of higher education don't like to think of it as a business, but at some level that's what it is, as long as a fee is being charged.) And what else can I call it but bad ethics, when a university offers courses teaching students to manipulate forces that don't exist in order to generate effects that don't happen?

Check out this article, from Common Ground magazine:...

Houston, we have a problem, and I mean we ALL have a problem.

The UK Environment Agency yesterday reported that more than 50% (from a sample of 7000) of small and medium sized businesses said “an environmental policy was of ‘no use’ to their business in the current climate.” The same research also showed a fall in the appreciation about their...

Trust: Why Business Lost It, And How To Win It Back (Part 3 of 3)

If business wants to regain the public’s trust, they’re going to have to be trustworthy, and employees are the key. Here are three basic steps to engage your employees, build social capital, and win stakeholder trust.

There's a lot here, so take your time with it, read it in pieces, and as always, share your thoughts and insights.

Trust: "Can I get a loan?"

Many companies are turning to Corporate Social Responsibility as a strategy to win back the trust of their stakeholders and customers. But there is an irony here. For this strategy to work, it requires the very ingredient it seeks to generate - trust. Let’s consider exactly what a company is proclaiming when they use the phrase “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR).

CSR is a form of corporate self-regulation. Businesses promise to obey the law and maintain ethical standards in their activities. They are promising to promote the common good of the communities in which they operate, and proactively curtail any and all functions that may cause harm, whether specifically illegal or not. The popular maxim of People, Planet and Profit is the triple bottom line. Essentially, the company is taking responsibility for their actions and how they impact: a) the environment, b) consumers, c) employees, d) communities, e) various stakeholders, and f) the entire public sphere. It is a pretty significant commitment.

So, why in the world would I trust you with any of this ‘self-imposed’ regulation and prioritization if I don’t trust you in the first place? You cannot prove you are trustworthy by asking people to trust you even more.

Critics of President Obama's pick for the US Supreme Court are trying to turn the assertion that Sonia Sotomayor is "empathetic" into a negative. And yet there is research into moral psychology dating back at least as far as Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments that makes clear the role of empathy in ethical decision making (see reading list below).

The Right's advocacy against Ms Sotomayor's nomination echoes advocacy of a free market ideology and institutions that work to create as much emotional distance as possible between decision makers and their impacts - see, for...

DC's public school system has 45,000 students and an abysmal dropout rate of about 50%, typical of large cities. With a goal to remedy this dropout "catastrophe" (Gen. Colin Powell's term), while being constrained by a tight economy, DC Chancellor Michelle Rhee is looking to- in her words - "leverage opportunities for the greatest change."

To this end, Rhee believes that one of the best...

The ImagePower Green Brands Survey 2009, co-produced by Cohn & Wolfe, Landor Associates, and Penn, Schoen & Berland, reports the attitudes of over 5,000 consumers from seven countries toward a variety of green issues.

The report offers insight into what consumers feel makes a green corporation stand out, their perceptions of brands, and where their spending is going in the next year. A global attitude toward green issues is painted by the data. Apparently the U.S., though its heart may be green, is more focused on the greenback.

The United States tops the list of countries where economic concerns overshadow environmental ones. The 17% of U.S. consumers more concerned about the environment than the economy stand out in stark comparison to Brazil's 62% and India's 53%. Economic concern is mirrored in the top reason given for not purchasing green products and services – 64% of those in the U.S. consider these too expensive. (Consumers in other countries feel more limited by the availability.) The U.S. consumer does plan to spend more on these products and services over the next year – at least 39% of those surveyed do. However, the extent to which they plan to raise their spending places them at best in the middle of the seven countries surveyed. This is not to say that U.S. consumers don't feel that being green is important, they do, just not as much as consumers elsewhere.