Via Triple Pundit (Firms With CSR Policy Thrive), there is more evidence that companies which prioritize corporate social responsibility tend to do quite well. Here is an interesting snipped from the post:

“…the studies show that sustainability front-runners tend to create sustained competitive advantage, having outperformed the general stock market by 25 per cent since August 2005. Of those, 72 per cent have outperformed their peers over the same period.”

Take a few moments to read the United Nations Global Compact release referenced in the Triple Pundit post as well: Groundbreaking Studies by the United Nations, Goldman Sachs and McKinsey & Company Show Benefits of Corporate Responsibility.

While perusing our site stats I discovered a site with an excellent collection of links (Credo is listed under Corporate Responsibility). Pablo Halkyard (I assume, based on the title of the page that he is the site owner) has amassed links of blogs and sites covering, “international development, social enterprise, Africa, cause marketing, technology for development, microfinance, philanthropy, healthcare, the environment and corporate responsibility.” Be sure to check the list out when you have a moment.

I am working on creating a visual overview of what comprises corporate social responsibility (CSR) and wanted to take a moment to mention the company that a few of my friends run called Greenland Enterprises. CSR encompasses many distinct areas of business activity or issue area, one of which is sustainability. Through Greenland Enterprises, Georges and Michelle help companies create sustainability solutions that are critical to addressing CSR. Take some time to visit their site and explore with them what role sustainability plays in an organization.

Here’s a snippet about their purpose:

“Greenland Enterprises’ core purpose is to role model the profitability of sustainable business practices, to spread the message of a strategic sustainable development, and to contribute to the creation of a sustainable global society”

[Update: 6/28/07] It looks like they just updated their website so the screenshot above is a bit out of date. Also, I didn’t mention that there were three members of their team — check out the “Team” page for bios on all three partners.

CSRwire today has a release from SustainableBusiness.com that presents the first positive news I have read regarding the real estate industry in some months: Real Estate Industry Quietly Embracing Green Development, Progressive Investor Reports. Following are a few interesting snippets:

“In an analysis of the industry, Progressive Investor reports that 41% of the 300 U.S. real estate investment trusts (REITs) are actively pursuing energy efficiency and green building upgrades and another 27% plan to do so.”

Those figures are a bit too low to be firmly optimistic, but promising nonetheless. Several factors were cited for the increased interest in incorporating green design into real estate:

• Higher energy costs
• Lower cost of “building green” than in years prior
• Increasing client/tenant preference for green buildings
• Noted increase in high-profile clients establishing green corporate headquarters (Bank of America, Toyota, Goldman Sachs, and others mentioned)
• Increasing mandate for green building
• Preemptive attempt to flush non-green and/or older and more inefficient properties from portfolios by real estate firms

I had the distinct pleasure of grabbing a cup of coffee with Mark Rowe of Hoffman Rowe this evening. (The coffee was Organic Guatemalan, if you are wondering, though I haven’t a clue whether it was Fair Trade Certified.) We chatted for quite a while, bounced a few ideas around, and shared our views of where we think corporate social responsibility currently sits and where it is headed.

Of note, Mark floated the observation that “corporate social responsibility” is a bit off and that “corporate responsibility” is less limiting. An interesting viewpoint indeed, and I look forward to talking with him further about the pros and cons of each.

If you haven’t heard of Hoffman Rowe before, be sure to visit their website. The firm is based in the Boston-area and offers a full slate of ethics and compliance consulting services.

I was in Washington D.C. for a few days with my wife and son and saw a bit of CSR in action. No, it didn’t crop up during on of the mid-June sunny jaunts with my son to the Mall or one of the many museums around its perimeter. I found it in the bathroom of our hotel…

If you have stayed in a hotel in the last five or so years, you are likely to have seen the same sign hanging in your room’s bathroom or shower. It typically reads something like:

“Hotel X is concerned about the environment. Every time we wash a towel, a lot of water and detergent is used and poured down the drain into the environment. To help out, please re-use your towel more than once. Please leave a towel you would like washed on the floor and any you intend to re-use on the rack.”

Simple and easy. The likely reduction in towel usage does indeed cut down in water, electricity and detergent usage (rather, the resulting detergent run-off). But it also does something else — it saves the hotel money.

Fancy that. …a business case for CSR…

Every towel that a guest re-uses is one less towel that the hotel has to spend money and resources cleaning. Yes, the information cards hanging in the bathroom cost money and used up resources (I have yet to see one that has been printed on recycled paper, or labeled as such), but probably far less than the resources they save by prompting guests to be laundry thrifty.

Kudos to the hotels that have been implementing CSR in such a manner, and to those looking to extend the “save the towels” campaign to other areas of their operations.

(If the hotel chain is of interest, it was one of the several Embassy Suites properties in the city. The Westin that we spent the latter half of our trip in did not have a similar sign.)

Via the Principled Profit, this news very interesting indeed: ISO Developing Social Responsibility Standard. Shel also posted a link to a PDF overview (image to the right) of how NGO’s can get involved in the process.

The text is indeed a bit dry as Shel points out, but the content, if you are interested in the topic, is quite interesting. In short, it is about the ISO 26000 standard which will “give guidance to organizations on social responsibility.” More specifically, the guidance will involve:

• principles and issues relating to social responsibility;
• integrating, implementing and promoting socially responsible practices;
• identifying and engaging with stakeholders;
• communicating commitments and performance relating to social responsibility; and,
• contributing to sustainable development through social responsibility.

I look forward to watching the standard come together.

Wow! It appears that several decades of progress in workplace atmosphere, sexual harassment policies and general decency just disappeared. Check out the following snippet from an interview Guy Kawasaki conducted with Penolope Trunk [clarification mine]:

“Question [Kawasaki]: Should I sue a boss who is sexually harassing me?

“Answer [Trunk]: In most cases, you will destroy your career if you report sexual harassment. So unless you are in physical danger, you should not report harassment. The laws governing sexual harassment don’t protect women who report. The law protects companies from being sued by the women who report. Human resource professionals are trained to protect the company, not the woman who reports.

“When you report harassment it is usually the case that you lose your job through retaliation. Retaliation is illegal but nearly impossible to prove in court. And, even if you could prove it in court, you would go through emotional hell, with no salary, and high-profile drama that makes you unable to get another job. All this for a settlement that will almost certainly not enable you to retire.

“This is simply how the legal system works. I am not saying this is okay. But I’m saying that if you care about your career, you’ll do everything possible to not report. Most women are not in the position to sacrifice their career—and their earning power—in the name of trying to bring down one harasser. The legal system needs to step in and take care of this.”

Let’s see here… No, no, no and NO! The above is absolutely terrible advice. If you are sexually harassed, report it — end of story.

I could pontificate for pages on why this is such bad advice and so completely off base, but I guess I feel as if the reasons are self-evident. Quite frankly, I find it baffling that the above mentality even exists today, let alone is verbalized. I think the only statement above that has value is the closing one — indeed, the “legal system [does need] to take care of this.”

Wall Street’s relation to the horrible events that have been unfolding in Darfur may not be news to some, but for those of you who are unaware of the connection, or of what might be happening in Darfur, check our the following PDF: The Darfur Imperative:Working to End the Crisis.

If it seems like I have been focusing on Calvert a lot lately, it is because I have been. On the one hand, I find Calvert’s socially responsible investment options appealing and promising. On the other hand, I continually wonder if they are not fleshed out enough. For example, why a rating of 3 and above out of 5 to qualify as a potential investment option? Is that too generous (it does equate to a rating of 60% as the minimum bar)? And further, are the ratings according to an absolute measure (say the ideal company receives a 100% rating) vs. a relative rating in comparison to peer companies?

On the latter question, I have thought quite a bit about a more robust rating system and have also had a few interesting conversations regarding the same with friends and colleagues lately. Regardless of the fantastic rating schemes we may or may not have devised, the simple fact is that Calvert is serving a very important role. Here’s an interesting clip from the PDF linked above:

“On February 5, 2007, Calvert announced a new partnership with the Sudan Divestment Task Force (SDTF) and the Save Darfur Coalition (SDC) to mobilize collective pressure on the Sudanese government to stop the mayhem. Calvert will lend analytical expertise and leverage our advocacy network in support of these two organizations at the forefront of the Sudan divestment movement.”

I was not expecting that level of involvement… Continuing on, you’ll probably reach the content that seemed likely to appear:

“As part of our commitment, Calvert took a close look at our social fund portfolios to be sure we have no current investments in companies that are on the targeted divestment list maintained by SDTF.”

And the result? As expected, but still a result to be celebrated…

“Major multinational corporations are beginning to take notice of the divestment movement. For example, in January 2007, two of the world’s largest multinationals — ABB Ltd. and Siemens — announced their intentions to suspend operations in Sudan, with the exception of those consistent with the human rights and humanitarian objectives of the UN Global Compact.”

Also of note, Calvert has also set up a special report dedicated to the issues in Sudan.

And now the money question: What’s in your 401k? What’s in your IRA, or other investment vehicle? Do the funds or securities in your portfolio fit your values? Do they tie you to a company that is directly or indirectly supporting the atrocities occurring in Sudan? How about elsewhere in the world?

Socially responsible investing is important. It is important to consider your personal values when investing, but also the overall impact your investing choices can have. Here’s to Calvert for making the SRI investing process that much more transparent.

If you are not familiar with Guy Kawasaki, or know of him but have yet to read his blog, be sure to check out his recent post titled, “Lessons for Entrepreneurs: Ignoring Is Bliss and Then Some.” While the post is about lessons learned from listening to or ignoring the opinion of others when pursuing new business ideas, there is a nugget toward the end that really caught my eye (emphasis mine):

“If you believe in something, go for it. This is the only way to really find out. Mathematically, the naysayers are right 95% of the time, but believing you’re in the 5% is what makes entrepreneurs entrepreneurs.”

I’ve highlighted the above for two reasons:

1. In reference to my previous post about why people stay silent about ethical issues at work, I would guess that the above statistical mix may have a lot to do with whether an individual has the confidence to go against the grain or fall in line with it. In fact, after looking at the top four reasons people stay silent (listed in the post), three of the four could be tipped by a firm conviction (the 5%) that what what the individual has to say was important, regardless of the negative pressure (the 95%) to keep it to him/herself.
2. I think it is an excellent principal. I admire Guy Kawasaki a wanted to take an opportunity to point readers to his blog. His message is continually positive and in line with ‘the glass is half full,’ but also on the whole, very useful.

Let’s translate the above into a set of ideals as they pertain to situational ethics:

1. Step 1: Examine your belief about an issue without external input. If after an internal analysis you have formed a firm opinion about whether the issue is ethical or not, go with your gut. Make a note of your opinion and proceed to Step 2.
2. Step 2: If the issue arises at work and you have a Code of Ethics to consult, be sure to vet the opinion you formed in Step 1 against the content of your company’s code. If your company doesn’t have a Code of Ethics, it should get one !
   • If your opinion from Step 1 agrees with your company’s code, fret no more and proceed with conviction.
   • If it disagrees, consider carefully whether the issue is beyond the scope of your company’s code (and therefore not addressed sufficiently) or mishandled. In either case, elevate the issue to the appropriate individual (most likely your company’s ethics officer or an appointed committee).
   • If the issue is not company-specific or you have no Code of Ethics to refer to, perhaps it is time to proceed to Step 3.
3. Step 3: Remind yourself of your decision from Step 1 and reaffirm your commitment to that decision. Then and only then, should you seek the input of others. Weigh their opinions carefully and take them with a grain of salt. In the end, if there is not a consensus with your own opinion, only detract from it if you are absolutely certain that you were wrong.

All of the above hinge on whether you have conviction. Believe in yourself and trust your judgment and analysis.