What’s new in CSR? Here’s what we have been reading this weekend.

The Importance of Social Media and CSR

With the influx of social media, JustMeans looks at just how companies can utilize these and other media tools for their corporate responsibility initiatives instead of delegating them as simply marketing tools.

How to teach CSR

Aman Singh of Forbes.com asks whether the future of CSR depends on the standard business approach or a new breed of specialty training.

New Study has Promising Results

Matthew Wheeland of Greenbiz.com examines the recent report from Deloitte that found that there is no single way for companies to approach sustainability. Based on surveys of 48 sustainability executives at companies across five sectors, the report also found that businesses are taking sustainability to heart more than ever before.

MillerCoors is Brewing a Plan for Sustainability

Triple Pundit takes a look at how the second largest brewer in the United States is taking a new approach to sustainable brewing.

Ignoring CSR Isn’t an Option

The Financial Post reports on a new study from the Stanford Graduate School of Business which looks at how political forces and social forces can affect companies financially, once again looking at the link between CSR practices and profit.

What’s new in CSR? Here’s what we have been reading this weekend.

BP’s still not on the ball…

Chrystia Freeland from the Washington Post speculates who’s to blame for the oil spill. She says it has taught us that the heart of the relationship between business and society doesn’t lie with the charitable deeds that companies do in their off-hours, but whether they are doing their day jobs in ways that help — or hurt — the rest of us. While BP was winning plaudits for being the first oil company to accept global warming as a scientific fact, the old-school Texas oilmen at ExxonMobil were unfashionably unapologetic about their core mission: to produce oil. Chastened by the Exxon Valdez disaster, however, they also became religious about safety standards. With hindsight, that attention to safety turns out to have had much greater social value than any number of creative CSR drives.

India creates voluntary CSR guidelines

JustMeans writes how for the first time in its history, the government of India, through its Ministry of Corporate Affairs, issued a set of voluntary CSR guidelines. Their intent is to add company value, focus on long-term sustainability contributions and provide benefit to stakeholders and society.

Will colleges soon start teaching CSR in school?

Aman Singh of Forbes.com questions how job seekers and business school graduates view the rising awareness of concepts like triple bottom line, corporate responsibility, and ethical management. Turning to four MBA candidates for some answers whether recent Wall Street shortcomings were redefining MBA curriculum at their schools. Each of the candidates agreed that a complete embedding of corporate responsibility within company cultures across America would require a coordinated push from employees and job seekers as well as students.

The truth about CSR compensation

Leon Kaye writes that more professionals have become interested and passionate about sustainability, judging by the growth in related academic programs and, anecdotally, the surge in networking and other professional events that have a corporate social responsibility theme.  Idealism and the genuine desire to accomplish good, however, may conflict with the reality of paying the mortgage or rent check.

Walmart’s green strategy raises some questions

Bob Lurie explores Wal-Mart’s vow made earlier this year to eliminate 20 million metric tons of greenhouse gases from its supply chain over the next five years. he says it turns out the promise may be more of a form regulatory vigilantism.

Corporate giving is down for the majority of companies, yet total donation amounts are up, despite the tough economy, revealed two recently released studies.

Despite the tough economy, corporate giving was up by 5.5 percent in 2009, according to a report released by Giving USA and the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University – an estimated $14.1 billion.

Although now within 1 percent of its pre-recession level, the Giving USA study revealed that the unexpected increase is more closely related to in-kind giving than cash donation, which isn’t as harshly affected by economic circumstances. At the same time, the study revealed, total US donations (including individual, foundation, and corporation) were down by 3.2 percent, adjusted for inflation.

Aggregate Donations Up, Median Donations Down

The corporate data rings true to another study released in June that measured corporate donation across 4 years, by 98 companies

According to the Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy (CECP)’s report on corporate giving, Giving in Numbers 2009 [PDF], there was an increase in overall corporate donations, yet, for most individual companies, giving decreased. The research showed that 60% of companies involved in the 4-year longitudinal set gave less in 2009 than in 2008, and median giving fell from $32.91 million in 2007 to $26.30 million in 2009.

According to Margaret Coady, Report Author and Director, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy at CECP explained the connection between the economy and corporate donations:

“That business and society are fundamentally interconnected became increasingly evident during the economic downturn—as well as during the emerging recovery. Respecting the dependency between companies and their community partners continues to be central to the work of those leading the field of corporate community investment.”

The study showed that most companies gave less due to spending restrictions, although the completion of multi-year funding commitments, staff reductions leading to a decrease in matching gifts were also cited, along with a decline in foundation endowments and in corporate transfers to foundations.

Even in though the majority of companies gave less, the aggregate of total giving rose to $9.93 billion. This means that a few key companies in the set are pulling extra weight when it comes to giving.

Finding Ways to Give, Despite Economy – Why?

Two interesting findings by the CECP show that corporations are finding ways to give – despite the tough economy.

First, the study showed that while the recession had a broad, overall effect on donation, the financial state of an individual company had no statistical effect on corporate giving. Based on regression analysis, CECP could not find a connection between reduced profits and reduced giving – companies are giving even when they aren’t making money.

Second, a larger sample of corporations (not necessarily involved in the longitudinal part of the study) revealed that non-cash gifts were up by a median of 29%. Even if companies couldn’t give cash, a large number gave in-kind donations.

Together, these two findings show that companies see an intrinsic value in giving. One reason: after years of supporting charities to build employee engagement, they need to continue that maintain that bond – even during the down economy. When employee interest in corporate giving is high, corporations will be less likely to reduce giving.

From the perspective of a concerned consumer, the big oil companies response to the recent Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico leaves something to be desired. At first glance, what should’ve inspired a thorough review of their safety regulations has instead brought only reassurances of how they will clean up the mess. This concerned consumer is left wondering how such an environmental tragedy can be prevented in the future and if it is even possible for the progressive oil industry to regulate itself with internal oversight – what about the company’s people?

In his 2010 AGM speech to shareholders in London on April 15th, BP Chief Executive of Oil and Energy Tony Hayward claimed, “Safety remains our number one priority and I’m pleased to report we can see clear progress.”

What followed this claim was a reassuring percentage of company progress and a thorough account of all the ways in the which BP has grown in the past year. Except for those few sentences about safety, however, Hayward didn’t return to the subject with more detail. He finished his speech by stating “Of course the future looks challenging. It always does.” What these words reveal, on the eve of disaster, is either a general disregard for the importance of safety in favor of positive quarterly statements or a genuine ignorance of the risk to BP. Five days after Hayward’s speech, 11 people died in the Deepwater Horizon explosion and the first million gallons of crude oil began flowing into the Gulf of Mexico.

Disregarding Safety Means Disregarding Human Capital

To date, the official response of BP is to assess the potential cost of such a tragedy and provide $20 billion to cover any claims from the people effected. On July 5th BP’s press release posted on their website gave a detailed account of their progress in cleaning up as well as containing the spill. What this report lacked was any mention of organizing an internal oversight that intends to discover the cause of the accident and prevent it from ever happening again. The current priority of the company remains reactive – focused on repairing damage already caused and preventing more damage from the spill.

Based on the speech of Iain Conn, Chief Executive of BP’s Refining and Marketing, to the World Forum on Enterprise and Environment at Oxford on June 29th 2010, the focus of BP is also on redirecting the blame. While his mention of the Deepwater Horizon incident was only a small part of his speech, Conn stated that it “was a tragic accident and should not have happened.” After a carefully veiled disclaimer that BP is “only one of many parties to this catastropic incident,” he continued to explain BP’s clean-up efforts in the Gulf of Mexico and said, “At this moment over 39,000 people are involved in the response, including many BP staff and contractors, and 110 planes and almost 5,000 vessels are engaged on this task.” It is this statement which summarizes BP’s efforts to neither accept the full blame of the situation while at the same time not placing the blame on any one corporation.

After briefly reassuring his audience of the money and manpower BP had invested so far, Conn then segued into his speech about the future demands for energy and how BP plans to more efficiently provide for those demands. Most notably missing from Iain Conn’s speech is BP’s decisive plan to conduct their own in-depth safety review, except for a brief mention that “a number of investigations are in progress by the relevant U.S. authorities and within the company. It will take time to establish a clear understanding of the events that took place and the lessons to be learned.” Whether the general public, as well as BP’s own workforce, has been reassured by similar vague references to investigations is yet to be seen.

Chevron’s Response

Looking at only BP’s response to the safety risks brought to light by the Deepwater Horizon explosion, you might believe that the oil industry wasn’t focused on developing more strict internal oversight regulations.

However, the speech of Chevron CEO, John S. Watson, made before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce on June 15th, 2010 was specifically intended to address the safety issues concerning the oil industry, reveals, at least, a top level focus on employee engagement. “At Chevron,” Watson said, “one goal overrides all others: making sure everyone goes home safe every day.” It is this direct explanation of what Chevron has done to ensure the safety of its employees and oil rigs, both during and after the Deepwater Horizon accident, that makes BP’s similar reassurances sound less concerned about future safety and more concerned about subduing public criticism about their clean-up efforts.

“We require continuous training,” Watson explained to the House when specifically referring to Chevron’s safety record. Watson continued even further to address the future safety regulations which may be required as a result of the Deepwater Horizon spill. “To that end,” Watson said, “we must act quickly to implement the recommendations made by the Joint Industry Task Force to ensure that all companies are operating with the same high standards of safety and reliability.”

Compared to the vague promises of BP to eventually address the weakness of their internal safety oversight, Chevron’s response is to take immediate action. “Mr. Chairman,” Watson concludes in his speech, “we must learn from this accident and we must make sure it never happens again. My commitment to you is that Chevron will do everything in our power to see that it doesn’t.”

Whether Chevron will be the forerunner of oil companies soon to be weighed down by stricter safety regulations, implemented not only internally but by the U.S. Department of Interior as well, is yet to be proven. For the concerned consumer, however, John S. Watson’s promise on behalf of Chevron makes a more hopeful case for the oil industry and its ability to supply energy resources to the public, and its own employees, without costing lives.

Being family friendly means more than just offering services to new parents. It means taking investment steps towards providing financial incentives for new parents to return to work – and stay there.

According to the May 2004 Current Population Survey, 27.5 percent of wage and salary workers had flexible work schedules. Too many companies do not realize the benefits of having such an option. A recent study from the Cranfield School of Management in the United Kingdom found that employees with flexible schedules tend to work more intensely and have higher job satisfaction than their coworkers with more rigid hours. Those with more flexible hours also had lower stress levels and greater company loyalty.

The average unpaid maternity and paternity leave in the United States is anywhere from eight to 12 weeks. Comparatively, Swedish mothers and fathers can receive 76 weeks between them, and in the UK mothers can receive 39 weeks paid leave and fathers can receive four weeks paid leave. This is important because according to a study published in the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, mothers with more paid time off tend to have less health risks than mothers who don’t.

While smaller companies may not be able to afford to establish and administer family friendly policies, larger ones should realize that the benefits of adopting such practices can outweigh the costs because they can potentially reduce absenteeism, lower turnover, improve employee health and increase productivity.

An ever-increasing number of companies are finding that new moms and dads are demanding more such as longer maternity/paternity leave and flexibility after having or adopting a new child. As the corporate world changes, so does the importance of a family friendly work place. It takes more than just more time to keep moms and dads engaged and content in their new role as employee and parent.

Small Perks Can Make a Big Difference for New Parents

Companies should also be willing to offer the opportunity to work less than full-time, to telecommute and to job-share – all without the fear of jeopardizing an employee’s career advancement. A vast number of jobs today can be done at home. Managers and employees should discuss the specific terms of allowing work to be done outside the office.

Companies should think about their childcare options for parents, either on-site or off. Productivity can be improved if parents are not continuously worried about their children. For example, California-based Cisco Systems offers on-site day care centers with cameras in their facilities so that employees can check up on their children from their desktop computers. This is a good example of what is possible for parents and employers.

If you do have on-site childcare, do you allow employees to visit their children throughout the day? Will you let them have lunch with their children? Being prepared for every alternative can help increase a company’s family friendly environment even if they do not have the facilities offered by larger corporations.

Companies that do not have childcare centers or cannot afford them should provide employees with a list of recommended locations. This can further reduce the stress of parents having to do the research themselves if companies already have a good relationship with nearby centers.

A prominent stress and concern for new mothers is lactation. This past March, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which stipulates that an employer with more than 50 workers or who makes over 500 thousand a year must provide a room, not a bathroom, in which female employees can express breast milk. Currently, only 24 states have laws related to women breastfeeding in the workplace. Providing a safe, private place for new mothers to express milk can create a positive open environment in which parents should feel welcome.

And providing emotional support should be key to being a family friendly company. Some companies such as ComPsych offer counseling to mothers from the time they announce their pregnancy until they return to work. This can help new parents deal with the pressures that having a new child can create and provide comfort to the employee as they transition back into the work force.

While smaller companies may not be able to afford to establish and administer family friendly policies, larger ones should realize that the benefits of adopting such practices can outweigh the costs because they can potentially reduce absenteeism, lower turnover, improve employee health and increase productivity.

In the end, companies should strive to make the transition into parenthood as easy as possible for their employees. This includes creating an environment that accepts the different type of work that arises when a child is born. The thing companies need to remember is that new moms and dads do not want to give up their aspirations, they want employers who are willing to accept them as employees and parents.

What’s new in CSR? Here’s what we have been reading this weekend.

• BP has proven that it is no corporate citizenThe Associated Press examines how this time, BP can’t hide behind the green and yellow sunburst on the corporate logo, not when the evidence shows the company neglected safety and fought regulation to boost profits. Being socially responsible, it turns out, was just a marketing gimmick.

• The Democratization of Corporate Philanthropy

  James Epstein-Reeves discusses the different campaigns companies use for their corporate giving programs and what they mean for us.

• Banking with a Heart

  The Manila Standard looks at outgoing HSBC president Mark Watkinson, who announced that three nongovernment organizations would get over $118,000 in funding from the bank. These include the Future First Program, to improve the lives of Filipino street children who works with SOS Children’s Villages whose goal is to provide education, health care, counseling and shelter.

• The Carbon Disclosure ProjectJustMeans strives to look at CDP and define what it really is, a way to “accelerate solutions to climate change by putting relevant information at the heart of business, policy and investment decisions.”

• Green is no longer just a color but a corporate way of thinkingMargaret Harris writes that “companies need to start paying more attention to how they affect the environment as corporate governance rules become clearer and tougher.” Because green concerns aren’t going away and businesses need to start implementing them into their projects and corporate mindset.

More than 1,000 companies convened last week in New York City for the UN Global Compact Leaders Summit. Business, civil and government leaders joined together for the tenth anniversary summit where among the topics discussed was the Global Compact Management Model, a recently launched management tool designed to assist companies in their endeavors to follow the principles set out by the compact.

The Global Compact was launched in 2000 with only 44 businesses which came together voluntarily to make a commitment to incorporate universal human rights, labor, environment and anti-corruption principles into their operations. The number of signatories now involved in the compact has grown to over 6,000, making it the world’s largest corporate responsibility initiative.

However there has not been a universal approach for companies to implement the principles.

Some choose to apply them at the beginning of their sustainability efforts while others must insert them into their current operations. Due to every signatory’s unique sustainability standing, a hodge podge of different approaches has emerged. In an effort to solve this problem, the UN in partnership with Deloitte & Touche created the Management Model, to provide a framework for companies implementing the standards and putting the principles into practice.

That is the hope of Executive Director of the UN Global Compact Georg Kell. While he admits that it is particularly helpful for newcomers to the Global Compact, the model was designed to also assist the veterans with examples of ways to aspire towards further improvement and set long term goals.

Developed with input and feedback from more than 50 business participants of the Global Compact, incorporates six time-proven management steps: commit, assess, define, implement, measure, and communicate. Higher levels of performance is the key to ensuring the compact is used most effectively and the fundamental reason for the model.

By improving the values and goals of companies, the long term success of the same companies is better ensured. Over the past few years there has been a shift in what is expected of them. No longer is it acceptable that companies exist simply to make a profit. According to a recent study, due to the past economic developments, companies investing responsibly and in sustainability seem to be the new trend.

This means that they must improve the conditions that are necessary to produce profit to follow this trend demanded of them. Companies are now examining ethical, social and environmental criteria before investing, all of which was the goal of the Global Compact when it was created and what the Management Model is trying to improve.

Creating a model for companies to change by has also created an environment that looks closer at those who work within those companies.

New York Mayor Bloomberg emphasized this new importance of business at a personal level saying, “The future belongs to companies ensuring diversity and dignity in the work place.”

In her article “Supporting Human Rights is Good Business” Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, addressed how better attention to human rights can improve overall employee happiness and engagement. She emphasizes that there are two main things companies should pay attention to.

The first is to realize that human rights can encompass things from safety to security to access to water to workplace discrimination. They are the foundation on which businesses should analyze risk and social conduct.

The second is that even though they may not see the importance in human rights, other companies will. Since the initiation of the Global Compact, the world has raised the bar when it comes to respecting human rights.

The key, Robinson emphasizes, is that business leaders need to realize that respecting human rights makes good business sense. It can lead to an avoidance of lawsuits, boycotts, turnover all of which can cost a company and can be avoided.

This directly ties back to what the Management Model is attempting to create; a better environment for employees and better business practices by companies.

Commenting on the Management Model, Deloitte’s Global Chairman of the Board John Connolly said, “We have seen time and again that strong values and principled leadership are crucial to generating long-term rewards for companies. We have also observed a dramatic shift in society’s expectations of business–a shift away from the idea that business is only about profit-making ahead of all other motives, and towards the notion that companies must actively foster the social and environmental conditions that make profitability possible. It’s our fervent hope that the UN Global Compact Management Model serves as the bridge that links these two drivers of corporate behavior.”

The question of how many companies will adopt the Management Model is yet to be determined.

What’s new in CSR? Here’s what we’ve been reading this weekend.

• CSR May Help Build a Good Reputation, But Can’t Salvage a Brutal One
  TriplePundit examines a University of Florida study that revealed that “corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs can only serve as part of a company’s effort to build a good reputation—and in turn only reap cynicism when a firm already has a poor reputation among the public.”
• Is it cheating to call energy efficiency savings CSR?
  JustMeans asks “is there really any problem with a company bragging about its energy savings? This is where the perennial greenwash debate comes into play.”
• Catalyzing Change At Time, Inc.: “CSR Isn’t Just Moral, It’s About Survival”
  Aman Singh writes “a company’s human capital is an equally important component of CR, although it often doesn’t get recognized as such by many companies.”
• Corporate sustainability: Are we really cruising in fifth gear?
  The Guardian discusses a new study from Accenture and the UN Global Compact that says, “93% of CEOs see sustainability issues as important to their companies’ future success.”
• The Economy: Can Sustainability Survive the Recession?
  Newsweek looks at the same survey and surmises, “Rather, at its root, sustainability is about the ultimate corporate goal: efficiency.”

Readers of Evolved Employer know the importance of nurturing an inclusive culture at your company. Tomorrow’s employees want more than a paycheck – they want to work for a company which embraces the same values they do.

A February Pew report on the Millennials (individuals 18-29) and shows that they are the most tolerant generation.

According to the report:

“They are also the only generation to favor the legalization of gay marriage —they do so by a 50% to 36% margin, with the remainder undecided. When it comes to the other generations, support for gay marriage declines in a fairly straight progression from young to old: 43% of Gen Xers, 32% of Baby Boomers and 24% of Silents favor legalizing gay marriage.”

As more Millennial enter the professional workforce, they will begin to expect a company reflecting their values toward GLBT individuals – such as same-sex benefits, recognition and acceptance of GLBT workers, and a tolerant workplace. What is your company doing to respond to this business imperative?

Recognizing GLBT-Friendly Companies

What is the value of recognizing GLBT friendly companies? It puts them ahead of the game, in attracting tomorrow’s high-performing workers. As boomers retire, many economists predict a labor shortage – many Millennials will have their pick of jobs. Your company will have to stay competitive!

Recently KMPG was recognized by the International Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (IGLCC) as International Corporation of the Year for its diversity and inclusion initiatives.

Pascal Lépine, Secretary General at IGLCC said, “KPMG’s support of the IGLCC comes at a time when understanding the relevance of equal policies and practices has an international urgency.” he continued, “We see this understanding as essential for corporations to succeed in working with the LGBT community. We applaud KPMG’s vision and support of what we believe is the core of our mission.”

To KPMG, the award is about creating an inclusive workforce, which benefits all of its employees – and potential employees. Michael Bach, deputy director of diversity at KPMG International said, “We are honored to receive this recognition from the IGLCC.” He explained that creating an inclusive workplace is integral to KPMG’s values and culture.

“KPMG has long been committed to making our organization a great place to work and build a career and that includes creating an inclusive and welcoming work environment that embraces individual differences and supports the development of all our people,” he said.

Some of KPMG’s diversity efforts include GLBT networks, diversity training, and internal surveys.

Moving Toward Greater Openness

The Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index for 2010 released last year showed that companies are becoming more progressive in terms of GLBT inclusiveness and diversity. According to the report:

“305 businesses achieved the top rating of 100 percent this year, compared with 260 businesses in the previous year. This accounts for 58 businesses that reached 100 percent for the first time and 13 no longer on the list, for a net increase of 45 businesses. Collectively, these businesses employ 9,328,085 full-time U.S. workers. When the Corporate Equality Index was launched in 2002, only 13 businesses achieved 100 percent.”

The rising numbers show employers are recognizing the importance of GLBT diversity to the workforce. Is your company moving forward in terms of inclusiveness? In April, the HRC released its 2011 survey. To participate, click here: http://www.hrc.org/issues/workplace/cei_participate.htm