Comments for Credo Advisors Blog ›› Non-Profit & Small Business Consulting

Comment on One For One Social Enterprise by Laurence Denault

Laurence Denault — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 13:08:34 +0000

I like this web blog very much, Its a real nice berth to read and find information. “Feelings are not supposed to be logical. Dangerous is the man who has rationalized his emotions.” by David Borenstein.

Comment on One For One Social Enterprise by Isabel

Isabel — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:13:23 +0000

That’s really interesting. Thanks for posting all the great information! Had never thought of it all that way before.

Comment on Smoke Screen by Foundation friend

Foundation friend — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:39:36 +0000

Good point about this, nice summary.

Comment on Corporation 2.0 by Abay Melaku

Abay Melaku — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 07:58:44 +0000

Peter I like what you have to say; corporate ethics is a hard issue to overcome in management when you’re facing an organization where ethical issues are happening all around you, at times its easy to feel all alone with opposition looking at you from every direction when trying to make a positive impact. I feel this model delivers an equal compromise between the bottom line and ethical responsibility.

Comment on Home Depot: CEO Pay by austin pearce

austin pearce — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:45:21 +0000

I personally feel that the practice of Mr. Nardelli’s ethics are appalling. However the board shold have noticed the potential problems of giving one person too much power. As a result of their lack of foresight, Mr. Nardelli has cost the Home Depot Board and companies as a whole millions of dollars, while still managing to decrease the overall net worth of Home Depot’s stock. Unfortunately, the situation is now unavoidable, and ammends can not be made, but hopefully The Board Of Directors will recognize this probelm if it tries to repeat itself and take the necessary precautions and actions to correct it before more damage is done to the company.

Comment on MBA Ethics by James Sun

James Sun — Wed, 09 May 2007 03:21:54 +0000

Well, Peter, I think you are right and that the issue is compounded by what our professors and associate deans preach to us in b-school. How many times did we hear that, to do business in China, you have to build relationships? You can even take that and apply it to global business; now, by building relationships, you fall into the “I gotta help him now if I want help later” and/or “If we partner together, we can do better than we would individually” categories. So really, the issue partly stems from not properly addressing ethical business ethics in b-school.

Comment on CSR For Travel Programs by Peter Begley

Peter Begley — Mon, 07 May 2007 20:22:16 +0000

Ha! I’d say my attempts are probably in the same realm. My son is a whiz though — he has “buttah,” “laddah” and “soccah” down cold.

Comment on CSR For Travel Programs by Jack Yan

Jack Yan — Sun, 06 May 2007 23:18:02 +0000

I won’t even attempt Bostonian English. I have tried Mayor Diamond Joe Quimby impersonations, but they are very poor.

Comment on Upper East Side Green by Peter Begley

Peter Begley — Wed, 02 May 2007 01:32:46 +0000

James:

First, it is great to hear from you! What are you up to? Drop me an email when you have a chance — I’d love to catch up. …and if you are headed out to the Boston-area, I’ll have a pint of Guinness ready for you when you step off the plane.

I think you point is well put — that said, I tend to be a bit cynical when both camps have equally massive piles of firewood to burn. At the end of the day, it is possible to find as many compelling arguments from the pro-environment crowd as from the pro-Hummer crowd. If you are a Friedman junkie at heart, and the arguments are a wash, you go with the camp that produces the greatest return. But if you aren’t a Friedman junkie, or you are, but have a sliver of empathy for a purpose greater than pure profit generation, you go with the camp that produces a strong return, but also, for instance, reduces electricity consumption.

Your point about the Prius is spot on. I think the greatest problem with moving toward the “right” solutions is a lack of transparency. A hybrid vehicle sounds great, until you factor in all of the emissions and waste created as a result of getting it into a customers driveway. That said, and for the record, I have always thought that Hummers were ridiculous for any purpose other than scaling a mountain…

Where do we go from here? In the case of the Prius vs. the Hummer, I’d ask how we deal with societies’ growing contradictions such as the growing need for autonomy with style and differentiation (in the form of hundreds of fuel-inefficient vehicles with extraneous niceties such as wood trim, power seats, etc.) contrasted against the constant cry for a cleaner environment. Do these same people really want to give up their laptops or their pre-packaged foods (myself included)?

Something needs to be done, but it can’t happen without honest and transparent conversations.

Comment on Upper East Side Green by James Sun

James Sun — Tue, 01 May 2007 23:32:19 +0000

To play Devil’s Advocate, what evidence is there that actually suggests that, we, as humans – an insignificant blip in Earth’s history – are so influential and powerful that we can change the world’s climate and environment? Surely, science finds that the rise and fall in the population of certain species is tied to our rotational relation to the Sun.

In context to the article, I think the wealthy (especially Hollywood celebrities) are the biggest hypocrites around. Buy a Toyota Prius and you’re supposed to be Earth-friendly? The production process involved in manufacturing a Toyota Prius is much more damaging to the environment than a Hummer. To that end, where do we go from here?