The multiplier effect

This is something that is often mentioned in my posts, but here I want to take the multiplier effect on a bit of a tangent and see where it goes. I first really encountered this 'Multiplier Effect' in an employment concept: Shell, for example, talk about 100,00 directly employed, 500,000 indirectly employed and many more receiving benefits from their operations (and I suppose also encountering the opposite too!). I next encountered it in an excellent report by SustainAbility (I highly recommend everything they have written) who commented on the fact that of the 3 aspects of the Triple Bottom Line, the Economic one was the one least understood, least measured and least reported.

So this post is not rocket science but it is written to emphasis the importance the multiplier effect has. From the oft-quoted 'giving the fisherman a fishing rod is better than giving the fisherman a fish' type of quote that appears often in poverty-reduction papers, to the 'shall i work for a small NGO and change a few lives lots or work for a Multinational and change more lives, but probably less'. As these examples highlight the multiplier effect is not just about a company's supply chain or employment chain, although these are the most obvious consequences of a business's activity.

On the topic of responsible leadership, I feel the need to stress how the consequences of an organisation are normally so poorly understood. In fact impact is a better word. What is the impact of an organisation and how can this be effectively utlilised? The stakeholder mapping technique is a good start, but normally these stakeholders are engaged with on a quantitative level -by this they are asked questions about the current impacts the organisation has and then asked to quantify them (good, bad etc). What would be interesting is to ask a bunch of people "What impact am I having on you?". Maybe you randomly saw a quote from my CEO who inspired you, maybe your school got a computer from my company, maybe because you eat my chocolate, you have to empty the litter bin more often -extreme examples as they may be, but I find it intriguing to think of all the small consequences that occur, all the time, from so many small, minor actions that each individual makes.

Some practical examples: how Coca-cola cans were used to create art or to create practical objects..how some are reused for years... these cans have probably helped some of the poorest people in the world carry their water around, make things to keep themselves entertained (or even to sell) and so on. Or how the company that wrapped their sweets individulally for hygiene purposes (and to make it last longer) then realised that someone was able to buy the whole pack and then sell each individually wrapped sweet in order to make money and sustain an income for them!

On a more extreme note...Maybe paying the fees of my company's service meant you could not afford medical care for your child or you could not take a holiday. A massive undertaking it would be, to interview so many people, but with such a simple question. It would of course be hard to get the answers needed -most people don't think very creatively any more! And i doubt the results of the survey would matter that much, but there could be some interesting clusters that are new, some impacts that no-one realised; these impacts could create business opportunities or minimise business risk. So please do create as many jobs as you can, please do spread your values to your suppliers, distributers, manufacturers, staff and so on. Please ensure your staff recycle at work, and encourage them to do so at home. But please also be more creative, more innovative, more open to really understanding what impact you are making on this World. Leading is about making an impact -the question is how responsible is the impact you are having?

CSR -who is responsible?

Not a particularly new or insightful topic but still one without an answer: In a company do you have someone specifically responsible for CSR or not? And if you do, how much of 'CSR' are they responsible for?

In theory CSR would be so well integrated into the company that you would not need someone responsible for it. If you do then it means that everyone else ignores CSR and lets that person deal with it -an impossible task. From my experience of contacting companies here in China and finding out who is responsible for CSR; it generally falls to the corporate affairs team and for them their main priorities tend to be around philanthropy, branding and environment. I am not sure how much they play a role in the many HR aspects of CSR or governance, amongst others.

This question opens up a wider one of how to integrate anything really. I suppose my solution is that you always need a champion, even after the initial introduction of an idea or activity; but the key is to try to integrate the idea into a reward system, into every day life and into the values of an organisation. The general consensus tends to be that initiatives need to have top level support -which they do AND most initiatives tend to come from the top. This is something I disagree with. For sure if the initiative is driven by external needs or is based on solid stakeholder engagement and feedback then this is ok, but (and I have limited experience); most initatives are driven from the top with only minimal support from the bottom. By this I mean that one department or other has suggested something, the Execs have done their research and decided to implement it. This will work for most initatives; but for big things -things that affect the culture of the organisation, such as CSR, this is wrong.

I am not saying all organisations do this wrong, but I bet some do. What is the right way? I am a big supporter of faclitated discussion -of coaching. Coaching is, in my definition, where the coach never gives the 'coachee' the answer or tells them anything, they just ask the right questions, listen and guide the coachee to come up with their own answers. This is how organisations should run -I have read many CEOs say the hardest thing they have had to do is change the culture of an organisation -it takes years. I am not saying its simple -the organisation might have the wrong people in it; it may have systemic problems. But what I am saying is that those at the bottom need to realise that the organisation's current culture is not right and they need to work out what the culture should be. They need to be the ones who suggest how to get there too, and then they can give this remit to the team tasked with driving this change: thus the team knows the whole organisation supports it, and the organisation will change much quicker.

With CSR, this is about the values of an organisation and then how these values are translated into process and then what actions result from these processes. Ideally everyone should be recruited based on these values AS WELL as their abilities. And I highly recommend this for any values (CSR) driven organisation. However what do you do with those already in the organisation? Well you may have to lose some of them -you may have to change some, but most I expect you just need to make them realise what their values are... and they should align with the organisation (them already working in the organisation). I am amazed at how much effort companies place on internal values education programmes and handbooks. I am amazed in a good way -it is very impressive, but I must also wonder if they ever question their employee's values? Do they do personal value alignment exercises....if you don't there's little point in changing the organisation's culture!

So who is responsible -everyone should be responsible for CSR; adhering to an organisation's principles (values) should be in every employee's annual assessment -and this can partly be a self-assessed exercise. For some of the more concrete outputs of 'CSR' (and the term is being used loosely here) then that needs to be delegated out. If you have to choose a department 'responsible' then for me it is the 'branding department'. Most business gurus will express how important a brand is - it is the essence of an organisation. In fact a branding department rarely exists (if i create an organisation i think I will call it an 'identity' department -my organisations will wear their identity and their values on their sleeves). Nowadays it ends up in communications department -fair enough I suppose. I am hoping to get a deeper insight into how different communications departments work, what they prioritise and what they achieve in different companies, sectors etc. It would be very interesting research. So responsible leaders? Do what's right -for everyone. Find out what everyone thinks is right; do it; tell others about it; judge people on it; walk the talk. Lead.

CSR in China -chinese giving

A few things recently happened:

1) I came into contact with a minute chinese NGO -well actually just 2 ladies with an idea for asking some volunteers to help them with something. But they required each volunteer to get 5 hrs training for doing 2 hrs work and after 2 hours of trying to help them with their idea, they said they had no location and no funding -yet the event was in 4 days. This is, unfortunately, typical of Chinese NGOs. Not legal, just run by a few people with no money, but who care a lot abotu society and are doing something about it. Its a shame, but its true. There are a lot of organisations helping with NGO capacity building in China - I wish them luck.

2) ACNielsen (a market research company) produced a report of Chinese consumers' attitudes. Lots of the donate and more want to, if they could trust NGOs more.

3) I spoke to someone else who told me that companies he knows have money to donate to NGOs, but cannot find any worthy to give to -they want to give to local NGOs, but none are professional enough.

4) I met a group of women working in good companies in Beijing who got together to donate money to a school in South China to pay for some children's education. They didn't want to go through some big organisation, but wanted to go directly. So they are doing that. I am inspired that they go to the trouble to organise this.

The conclusion. The chinese like to give, they want to help. But right now the environment in China is not helping them. What is needed are more credible NGOs, easier ways for them to get in touch with the right (corporate or personal) donors and trust in the system.

China has lots of responsible citizens. It needs some responsible leaders to help those citizens exercise their feelings of responsibility. Who else will step up to the plate and help solve these market inbalances?

CSR in China -western philanthropy

So many western companies have a great reputation for CSR, but I'll lift the lid on a few things:

1) even those who are the best, globally, will find their chinese branches not having much of a clue. There is a global CSR strategy and the chinese office will do the big of the global strategy relevant to them. They won't look at the global strategy and create a relevant national strategy under that, but they should. This means CSR has a muddle understanding by many Multinationals here. Obviously many HQs still have some way to go, but the chinese branches have even further

2) most companies donate money. some based on their company priorities, or because its linked to their core strategy... more people alive are able to buy more of your products, for example! But it seems, many -especially the medium-large ones, just find a project that the local government supports and fund that one, in order to get local government support. Its a shame, but I guess its a good reason to donate, and irrelevant of the reason, the outcome is still beneficial. I was just shocked that for many, that is how it is.

CSR in China -chinese philanthropy

So some Chinese companies do CSR, not many, in the modern concept of CSR though.

Quite a lot do philanthropy; but it seems 1 of 2 things. Rich people with a kind heart donating, or the government telling companies to donate.

We spoke to some companies who are in the media for CSR reasons, and after struggling to reach the right people, they said, though they have a good reputation for CSR, in reality, they don't do CSR by western standards. They just do what the government tells them to do. And they don't really understand CSR.

I respect that their CSR is still developing and they do not want to pretend to be CSR experts, but its frustrating they do not understand the concept of CSR -even the concept of philanthropy. CSR has a long way to go in China. From the poor turnout at last week's Global Compact Summit, I am even more convinced of this. There is a lot of talk, especially in the last 12 months. I am not best placed to judge how much action, or whether the mindset has changed -I think it has in some private, more dynamic companies, but otherwise... I am not so sure

I look forward to learning more and being proved wrong...

CR or CSR?

Corporate Responsibility or Corporate Social Responsibility?

I touched on this briefly in my introduction post and wish to explain my thoughts behind this right now. Looking at the triple bottom line (economic, social, environmental impacts) no business can survive without being sustainable across all 3 fronts, however since we are people and no business can survive without people to buy from, sell to, or to employ; personally my take is that the social aspect is the most crucial and the most important.

The Economic impact is important because it provides income to people, who can continue to work for the business, or impact on other stakeholders who are also people. The environmental impact is important because without it, many of the inputs required for business (water, electricity, air) would not be there, and people would not be able to survive. Its all about people.

Thus I prefer to keep the term CSR, to make sure that every business is specifically focused on the people around them. I also want to mention the term social entrepreneur: the idea of creating a business that explicitly has social and financial benefits. This business aims to solve a social issue, but without needing to be a charity, and as it makes money, it can scale-up its business much easier than a charity.

I am aware of the controversial nature of this CSR stand-point, since the trend seems to be towards Corporate Responsibility, Corporate Citizenship, Business Responsibility and so forth. In many cases the term is not important, it's what you actually do as part of this work that is important, however in other cases the term is important since it defines what is done. Personally I don't believe many businesses do accurately explain what they mean by CC or CR or CSR -I think its important, since it means stakeholders have a better understanding of the motivation behind the work, the intended consequences and so forth. In a World where trust is so lacking and transparency and dialogue so crucial to success, explaining crucial differences in terminology (maybe crucial is too harsh a word, but in come circumstances it can be a crucial difference) can make a difference to how successful the business's CSR, and indeed the entire busienss is.

Thus my standpoint is for responsible leaders to recognise the impact of decisions they make on definitions early on; justify those decisions and thus not be surprised by the impacts. If a company think CSR is philanthropy its because there is a mis-understanding of what CSR is, that's because no-one ever explained what it actually is to the company. I don't believe there is a universal definition of CSR. Every business must interpret it in its own way -but not enough businesses are going through this important process of interpretation.

CSR is about strategy

Although you could look at CSR as common sense (and justifiably so), I prefer to look at it from a strategic perspective. From most of the people I have spoken to they can grasp what CSR is, but they still cannot quite grasp how it can be implemented strategically to the company's advantage.

Actually I find that most people have different definitions of strategies anyway, and unless you are at the head of an organisation, you never really get to really think about 'what a strategy is'. I believe a strategy is an idea of how to take the organisation forward. Normally I find that a strategy is just the detailed description of achieving a goal. This is important for sure, and maybe can be called a strategy -in which case my definition of a strategy can be looked at as a strategic strategy.

A Strategic strategy is thus a strategy that is often new, most definitely long-term thinking, definitely involves some kind of changes and should be related to the nature of comparative advantage. Comparative advantage is the notion of how your organisation can be better than the competition. This requires identifying what the company has that others don't (it could be a certain patent, it could be a certain person, specific resource, or just an idea) and then exploiting that advantage to push the organisation ahead (it thus also requires an alaysis of who the competition are and what they are doing, as well as a similar internal analysis). A Strategic strategy is a strategy that specifically aims to ensure the company's growth and sustainability long-term, it looks to exploit an opportunity.

I think you'll understand what I mean if i continue with how I see CSR as a strategic strategy. A bad understanding of CSR is the notion of CSR as charity. A better understanding of CSR is the notion of CSR as new market opportunities or as comparative advantage. An excellent example of the former is GE's ecomagination initiative and of the latter is the Co-operative Bank. Briefly explained, GE wants to make more money whilst making the World a better place and the Co-operative Bank attracts more customers because it refuses to invest in certain companies, sell its products to certain customers and does a lot of other ethical/enviro-friendly initiatives in order to build its brand as distinct from its competition.

However, this is still not how I see CSR as about strategy (although both companies may actually see it my way, I don't know). I see CSR starting from the question how a company can be more responsible; and realising that a company must operate responsibly. But ideally if the company has positive impacts on society then it must ensure that the company continues to have that positive impact and thus continues to exist and increase that impact. Thus CSR is about the future, about building a sustainable business. From this premise the company needs to look at how it can survive and how it can grow and how it can continue to do this responsibly. This is the ultimate aim of CSR.

Below this the focus can be on the company's triple bottom line impacts, on its processes and operations, on its stakeholder engagement and so on. First companies must see CSR as a top line strategic strategy, then they can see how their processes can support this. Then they can look at what else is needed -such as how can we distinguish ourselves, how can we be more flexible, opportunist and creative. These ideas need to be thought through because they support the ultimate strategy of creating a lasting, responsible enterprise. Certainly these aspects are the core of CSR, but until the employees view these aspects as part of the broader, ultimate strategy, they will never quite understand CSR. They will continue to see just one of these aspects (Health and Safety for example) and most unfortunately they will fail to recognise that their HR activities, their reporting/accountability processes and more are a crucial part of CSR.

Since CSR is about doing good business, responsible leaders should understand this concept -of strategy and how CSR is related to that. Most importantly leaders should ensure those they are leading understand this. CSR should be used as a fad, as an excuse to drive an organisation forward, as a focus for generating ideas and improvements to the company: Ultimately as a way of bringing diverse ideas and components of an organisation together with the goal of making the organisation more sustainable.

responsible companies with irresponsible products

No company or organisation does no harm at all. every time we use up energy for example, we are harming the environment to some extent. The world is so complex that supply chains are enormous, and no organisation can operate without using paper, electricity etc.

All of these products somewhere along the line are harming the environment, but yes, some products are more harmful than others -arms and cigarettes some of the worst, but then many arms are used for peaceful means (well, some are, not that i am defending the industry!)

the way business works is complex -for example Altria makes cheese as well as cigarettes... so what do you say about that company? BAT employs over 100,000 people providing them and their families with livelihoods for example, so there is no easy solution.

what do i think? i think organisations exist because there is a demand for them. what they should do is behave ethically as they meet that demand. in extremes that often means reducing demand (eg. not advertising for cigarettes), but it needn't be. Governments can create the framework defining ethics (it could ban arms, but does not).... when society deems a company unethical then eventually the government (in a functioning society) will act (maybe cigarettes will be banned at some point). The good thing is that it will take a long time for the governments to act, depending on corporate lobbying, sufficient public pressure and evidence... thus during this time the corporation will either die or diversify and hopefully those beneficiaries will find other work etc.

Leaders in these controversial organisations (like any other organisation) should strive to behave ethically, but this will always be within boundaries -human defined boundaries, boundaries that move, boundaries that vary per person. Those boundaries will differ individually and define what is and is not a good product or company. Leaders should strive to consider the impacts of their organisations and maximise the benefit to society and their organisation at the same time. Its not easy -being a leader is not. Ethics is not black and white. Pick a shade of grey. Pick the shade that you are comfortable with. How do you define responsible?

The media

The media is something I read a lot and think about a lot. Ever since I studied 1 module on the history and role of the mass media in society (and wrote two 5,000+ word essays on it) I have been intrigued in the linkages between various aspects: ownership, power, influence, politics, education, democracy and so on.

Some people have huge amounts of power and one hopes the more power one has, the more responsibly that power is used. Actually one of my text books during my course was titled "Power without Responsibility" (Another one was "Get me a murder a day") and there was good reason for it. The history of the mass media, especially in Western countries (although i have mostly studied the UK and some US) is so interesting I'll briefly explain some of the key highlights which i remember from my course.

First there was the scribes and bibles and so on -creating and distributing media was expensive thus was ostensibly used by the rich (often related to the church) -since most people could not read, those that could had power, and would read aloud to the listeners. The Church had a great way of controlling people, giving them orders and so on (this was 17th century or so). Next the printing press came a long providing cheap technology to the common man. Journals, periodicals and more all sprung up and literacy grew, intellectualism grew and there was a lack of control.

Next the governments tried to limit this growth since it eroded their control -they taxed paper and other resources. It was quite effective, but underground media prospered and 1 newspaper was often seen by 10-15 people in pubs or households. But then market took over, with popular media making money and gaining in reach and quality. Drowning out the smaller ones. Rich people realised they could subtly control the messages of these media so bought them and invested more money in them.

With the beginning of the radio and TV, a new era dawned -these were controlled by governments (who governed the spectrum) and the technology needed to produce was high -plus its effect was greater than print media. Although a labour union could save up money to print (and distribute) its own newspaper, it certainly could not afford a mass audience radio or TV station.

And now, now we have global conglomerates, achieving cost efficiencies, owning magazines, tv, radio, internet, advertising boards, local and national evening papers and so on. The little man with little resources has no chance. The market of advertising has reinforced this -advertisers pay more for greater distribution, this will come from greater success (quality), which comes from investing more money in the media.

My essays focused on the role of the internet changing all of this (or not?); has it given the little man a way back to influence: where money does not matter. Well weblogs certainly have made a small impact and there are some web-based media that is successful. It seems that there will be a need for mass media that is respected for integrity and that might not be the internet, but there is a place for it somewhere. Without going on much more I hope this serves as an introduction -and I won't even touch the other aspects that are involved (for example how the mass media also tend to be the mainstream media and might serve to narrow the spectrum of political thought...)

I write this post because there is a lack of responsibility in the media. I recently re-watched 'Elephant' and read a review of it which I want to copy here. For those who do not know 'The Columbine Massacre' was when some school kids caused chaos in their school shooting randomly and killing/injuring many people for no real reason.

The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that.".......

......"Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory." In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. Roger Ebert

It provides a good example of the power of the media. Personally when money is involved (and it is for most private media) responsibility is rarely a priority. Responsible leaders in this case must treat their business as more of a business -since its a social organisation, it has social responsibilities. Maybe the media is aware of things like this (if not, they should do some research!) -if they are, why do they choose to continue? So responsible leaders in these organisations need to know the consequences of their actions -many unintended, and understand the greater role they play in society. For an IT company, this might be less than a media company, so media companies need to be even more responsible, for their power is great. How great is their responsibility? In fact the problem is that they maybe do not feel responsible to society, but to someone else (shareholders?). This seems to be the case for those who own the media (even if those in it, like reporters, are the opposite).

My advice: try to understand who you should be responsible to, try to understand how you affect them, and try to ensure those affects are positive.

I want to end with two of my favourite websites: Asia Times and Open Democracy. A great example of interesting media. The second specifically questions the role of the media and provides interesting debate as well as information. Highly recommended.

ethical dilemnas

Drinking games are taking off in the USA leading to drinks companies, retailers, distributors and so on to cash in through innovative new ways of getting young people to drink more alcohol, more often.

Is this right? Diageo, the global beverage company (owners of Smirnoff, Guiness and more) recently announced a 5 year plan to put warning labels (and nutritional information) on all of its products -as did the rest of the UK drinks' industry. This on one hand is a good thing. The way this is happening (as with the banning of cigarettes) seems to be a balance between government legislation/threat and voluntary/market opportunity means.

I think most people will agree with these steps despite the interesting discussions about free will that this leads to. For example, banning advertising of cigarettes might seem to make sense (especially since they are so effective in attracting new, young smokers) but who will ban smoking in films (by the way, pressure groups publish a list each year of those films that most endorse the iconic image of smoking)? Who has the right to set an age for buying products or refusing you access to them? Well I think the discussion is really interesting (especially when leading onto drugs or prostitution -regulate or drive underground?)

In the area of CSR one big issue is about partnering or accepting sponsorship from a bad company -are you using 'blood money' for example? Is it ok to use money these companies make in order to put them for a good cause? But, is your use of the money strengthening their brand and therefore supporting the company? This is never easy -policies and clear statements would be great, but when push comes to shove, will you take the money? Hopefully there is a solution -you can take their money and spend it without giving them any credit for it, for example (although you may still decide this is not good enough). Maybe through engaging with the (bad) company you can make a bigger difference than by tackling them?

Another big issue on this topic is about working for (or purchasing from) a company that makes bad products -cigarettes, arms etc. But then it gets complicated.... you might make innocent little buttons for car handles, and realise they are also used on airplane, or microchips for radios that are also used in missiles..! And when you look at the case of CISCO who make filtering technology for the internet, are they responsible for how their technology is used (by the Chinese government for censorship), or in fact, should they care how it is used? How can they even control their product's use?

All of this makes for tough, complicated, choices. What should a responsible person do? Well it all depends on your priorities and what the options are. At the least an analysis of the options should be done, and if possible the ethical choice should be made (in terms of the last example). For the responsible leader, running a company (like the first example) there is not much of an excuse for looking for such a quick-win if it leads to harm. Of course, its hard to define harm, and hard to work out the difference these drinking games are having -but paying for some research to be done would be a good start. And for a global company (such as Anheuser-Busch who are behind Bud-pong -but claim the instructions say to use water) they might consider whether the profits they will make will make up for the potential loss in brand value (from supporting this product, although of course they value this as adding in brand value through greater sales and marketing) or law suits or negative media etc. I would be interested in seeing if they did such an analysis.

In any of these situations, the best thing to do is to undertake the relevant research on the issues, see what the options are, see what your priorities are and then proceed. The key aspect of ethical dilemmas is that once you make one mistake, it could cost you -big. So be careful and don't make that mistake. If you are really comfortable working for a cigarette company then so be in. Personally I wouldn't -but ethics is a personal thing. What are your ethics, and how far would you go to support them?

Responding to emergencies

The Tsunami at the end of last year provided an opportunity for CSR to show itself. Hurricane Katrina provided a second opportunity and unfortunately it seems Hurricane Rita wil provide a third.

There will surely be more, and if business can continue to develop plans and strategies as to how they can most effectively contribute this will be CSR at its best. It will evidently depend on leadership: from those who can advise businesses, those who can guide them and those within the businesses.

After the Tsunami the IBLF launched a guide for what business should do and then set up the Tsunami Business Task Force to review what ways are most effective for business support and business skills, to provide timely advice to companies and tourism industry on future spending and engagement and to ensure that valuable lessons are learned for the future. US based Business for Social Responsibility has also provided guidance as a response to hurricane Katrina. Other organisations are encouraging similar responses (eg. US Chamber of Commerce).

They focus on the 3 stages of the recovery: Short-term/Rescue (mostly requiring money for immediate short-term medical care), Medium-term/Relief (helping with coordination and distribution of aid collected) and Longer-term/Recovery (creating employment, rebuilding).

Business Roundtable is a similar US organisation and their website provides an interesting read. In particular their page lists all the contributions of their member businesses after hurricane Katrina. As well as the financial contributions it also shows you which companies donated their own products/services.

Evidently one role of business is to do what it does best: thus logistics companies provide logistics advice or transportation for free, medical companies provide free health care equipment, water companies provide drinks etc. The other role is much more complex and that depends on what operations and influence the business has in the affected area. A hotel chain for example will need to look after its employees and their families (and if they lived at the hotel, they may now be homeless if it was destroyed).

This internal analysis also requires a risk assessment: how will the business be affected and how can in continue to operate and then how can the business provide help (can employees be given paid leave to volunteer -is this in the company's best interests short or long-term?)

There requires strong leadership to provide a suitable response and the willingness to change and try new things; to be brave and have a belief in what can be done. At the same time the company must not overreach itself. The job of a business is to do business -going out of business will help nobody! The responsible leader will need to give the occasion due attention, support and resources. They should inspire their business to do what is right and understand the huge impact they can have.

Now through learning lessons, business can be prepared for the future and so they can not only most benefit those in need, but they can benefit as well; be it from employee motivation or pride, employee development from direct involvement, increased sales from branding or so on. The responsible leader thinks about others, but never forgets to think about themselves too. As always, its a matter of balance and choices. What is the right balance and what are the right choices?

challenges for the foreign company

CSR Asia's Weekly journal (www.csr-asia.com) is a fascinating read, and I highly recommend it (even if you are not in Asia). Although some of the news may not be that interesting many of the analysis and articles are. Recently there was a piece about South Korean businesses operating in a special industrial zone just across the border into North Korea.

Although the examples are quite extreme they do show many of the typical problems companies have when operating in another country. In these cases they found they had to have 2 security guards, since it was normal practice to need 1 to check up on the other. They found the employees don't like training videos, but since they read the newspapers on walls, the company puts the training in newspapers and puts them on the wall! These are 'cultural issues'.

There are also extreme examples of choosing between local and imported materials/people. In this case there is no water or electricity (it all comes from South Korea) and very little food. Thus the companies have to import goods, whereas traditionally foreign companies find it cheaper to buy goods locally, and it also helps stimulate the local economy -there is not much choice in North Korea though.

Companies are setting up there because there are so many unemployed workers that salaries are low and taxes and land even cheaper; is this exploitation? Are companies able to help the economy through their investments, by creating jobs and brining in health resources (for example) for the workers? Normally its good CSR to pay taxes and this is of huge benefit to local economies (benefit of globalisation), but what about in this case, where the government of North Korea is so bad, most of the country survives on food handouts from the UN, where China and South Korea provide almost all the utilities and where the few state owned companies that are operating do so by using forced workers (prison populations). North Korea is interesting since so little is known of it. Although people might argue that a lack of freedom in the press in China is hindering its development (in terms of CSR, having NGOs or media criticising companies), in North Korea there is total censorship... in fact noone will ever know what most of the foreign companies setting up there are doing with their labour practices etc. (maybe thats a reason to set up there, since foreign NGOs cannot get in to criticise them?)

This throws up many conundrums for the 'responsible leader' -aiming to contribute towards the local economy of one of the world's poorest countries is admirable; although indirectly supporting such an oppressive regime is normally not supported by Multinationals (for example, most of them have withdrawn from Myanmar/Burma because of this). Where there are such extreme cultural differences, how can you manage your company with the same values and policies as elsewhere? How much do you adapt to local conditions (how much will that cost)?

Disconnectedness

Some of you may have heard of the G8 (Group of 8 wealthiest nations) who meet yearly, and on occasion of their meeting in Scotland recently, there were several concerts around the globe organised to raise awareness of some key decisions those Leaders (India and China are also invited as observers) could make and their impact on poverty.

A recent online discussion took place with some comments on what these concerts did or did not achieve and why; and by taking on some of the thoughts I have developed some thoughts around the idea of disconnectedness which explains a lot of things, and is an important aspect for responsible leaders to bare in mind.

The example I will use is Climate Change and poverty. For climate Change, none of the people who are causing it (the 'west') are actually witnessing its consequences on them (more flooding in Bangladesh doesn't affect them, for example), and if some of the consequences do (for example a hurricane in Florida, USA) then there are always externalities that can be blamed -in the case of the weather, this is always unpredictable and it cannot easily be correlated with climate change, and the changes happening are gradual (not instant). All of this means people do not see the consequences of their actions.

With poverty, there are many charities showing videos of poverty in rich countries and these have an impact on people; who donate money. But, the amounts they donate have little real impact. What might have a bigger impact is buying products from those countries, changing trade rules and so on. Not only do people not donate more money (because although the pictures are horrific, they are only pictures) but they do not change other lifestyle/business options (since the impacts of these only indirectly affect them).

This idea, I believe, is universal; that unless you see a strong correlation (ie. relationship) between your individual actions and either individual or larger consequences then you won't change your actions in order to change the consequences. In a business concept one of the obvious applications to this idea, is how 1 person contributes to an organsiation.

Someone may steal some stationery, not seeing any impact, or they might make a decision with an impact on someone else, or in the future (so not affecting them). For the individual these actions make no difference, but for the organisations they do. Similarly when designing a business plan, the individual should see how they contribute to the whole, and how non-performance affects the bigger results.

Its important then to motivate people with incentives that are directly related to the individual's contribution. Its important for mutual accountability so that when someone does something, the results are noticeable (positive or negative). Think about what other situations this 'disconnectedness' occurs in and how you could remedy it -how can you change processes so that the inputs and outputs are closer aligned?

And if you can think of any ways of making poverty less disconnected for rich people, maybe we can find solutions to those kinds of problems too!

choose your words carefully

Transparency is an important (well, crucial) part of responsible leadership, so is trust. In the center of both is communication. Although not a post about communication per se, one important issue came to my mind when reading this about framing.

The concept is that what you say affects what someone hears (obviously); but its not that simple. Of course, what you don't say also affects what someone hears, what order you say things affect how the brain interprets what is says, how you stress certain words affects the emphasis that is placed on words and so on... In fact, spare a thought for the fact that non-native speakers of a language may not pick up most of the aspects of the communication (emphasis, slight difference in meaning between say 'large' or 'massive' etc) and will thus misunderstand you. In fact, this also applies to people with different accents -so communication affects everyone and everything you do.

As a person communicating to another, you must try to accurately convey your message and take into account these externalities. Any good public speaker or someone used to speaking to foreign audiences will have experience in this. In a leadership role, how you communicate is even more important, since the message may have large implications. And you may be communicating by sound, by letter, by action, by video...

Have a thought about how you can communicate your message effectively, and always bear in mind how people will interpret it: how can you convey your message most effectively: what media should you use?, how long should the message be?, what words/sounds/images should you use? do you need to repeat yourself or speak slower? what choice of words should you use?

Remember how many times ineffective communication has made a difference when you were on the receiving end. Its your responsibility to make sure when you want to be an effective leader, you communicate well.

Decision Making

Having mentioned accountability before, it is interesting to note the recent European Constitution discussions, in that there is a big focus on decision making. Some countries' parliaments have decided on behalf of the country, other countries have decided to let their people say in a referendum. There are arguments for and against referendums in various circumstances, and they make for interesting reading.

Having elected a government, should you trust them to make the right decisions? If you elect a government based on their manifesto, are they only allowed to do what they wrote in their manifesto (and thus extra decisions need to be voted on)? and so on.

Its interesting from a leadership point of view to draw parallels with leadership styles -how much do you involve your stakeholders (or voters), how much do you listen to them and how much should they control what you do? Without a detailed analysis of the development of business's decision-making it seems clear that what has developed is supposed to be the most efficient.

This means that since there are so many stakeholders it might not be sensible for them all to have some say in how the business is run, but just to let those who should know best to make the decisions (presuming they are making them for the good of the business and not for themselves). A separation of the decision makers from the stakeholders can therefore be a good thing (within reason). However it might also be that if someone can create a better way for stakeholders to have their say, to create the right long vs. short term focus, to create an environment whereby different opinions can be discussed and somehow lead to an agreement then maybe the decision making in businesses would change.

So far, no-one has managed that. For a start, stakeholders are so numerous, with such varied motives and powers that its nigh impossible to create an agreement amongst them. Most businesses are based on the idea that 1 set of stakeholders (shareholders) hold the most power and the rest voice their opinion in a less direct way (through the media, through consumer groups, through lobbying, through buying or not buying etc).

However, as some countries political leaders are realising the internet can be used to create forums for discussion, to create opportunities for feedback and to create much easier ways to 'vote' on decisions. In that, if it takes months or years to organise an election physically, it could be done virtually in minutes with the promotion/education not requiring printing or distribution and with the administration of a vote done online with automatic counting. Thus should leaders embrace the internet to look into new models of decision making?

Its clear that there is a delicate balance between everything: between voting on every minor decision and not voting at all are 2 extremes. Voting on a new CEO but not voting for the Head of Asia for example is a narrower line.

Leaders certainly need to engage with stakeholders and take their opinions into account when making decisions; and leaders must use their own judgment to decide what opinions to listen to and what weight to be placed on each. Indeed, an element of objectivity is often crucial, if not impossible to actually possess.

When you are making decisions, who will they impact? who will have a say in them? who are you listening to and what biases are distorting your vision? Is your decision-making style consultative or dictative?

Accountability

So Tony Blair got elected again, despite some sources maintaining that the opposition party (Conservatives) actually got more votes. Well, he didn't cheat, but he running a system whereby those who he is directly accountable to -the people, do not seem to have much of a say in his performance.

Now, I am not saying that it is easy to create a democratic system; since every country has a different one, there is obviously no right method. However I do believe that there should be pressure for reform if the system is functioning so badly.

Accountability is crucial. How can he claim to represent the majority of the British people if he does not? Therefore he should govern the country on the principle that he represents only 20% of the population. Thus the rest of the population should have a way of expressing their opinion in order to represent themselves, and this could be through a demonstration, like the 1 million people (of a total population of 60 million) who protested about Iraq. That is a sizable number, should they be taken more seriously if they march again, since now the government would have to listen to them more (before Tony Blai actually did have a bigger proportion of the public who supported him).

Every organisation needs to be accountable. To who, is an interesting question, and one that brings up the topic of stakeholders. Who are stakeholders, who are the most important, how can you represent them or engage with them, how can you be transparent with them and how can you ensure you do not operate as to create a conflict between stakeholders?

Responsible leaders need to pay close attention to these issues -they need to think about their accountability, and choose an option that is suitable. Unfortunately its harder to me more precise than that, since different types of organisations, and they are distinguished based on their accountability. Needless to say all organisations should ensure that the accountability method they have selected is working as intended. If not, maybe its time to reconsider. Who are you responsible for? How can you be responsible to them?

Responsible influencing

Reading this article (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GE11Ak01.html) brought back to my mind one topic that I feel very strongly about, and have a great interest in. It is, the role of the media. As much as I would love to talk about this in more detail (based on several essays written at University), I want to focus on this article and on the lessons for responsible leadership.

I'll briefly state I am a big fan of ATimes, since many of its writers are the kind that are not in mainstream media - they do not have a particular standpoint and many guest writers are welcomed. Thus to read about Iran from the viewpoint of an Iranian professor based in Iran is always refreshing.

His example is of the US Media's coverage of Iran's nuclear threat. Granted the example is of Fox news (one of the most right-wing media outlets, and the most criticised for its uncritical support of the Bush government), but this media source is also one of the most widely viewed in the US -it has massive influence.

To create a 'special feature' on Iran, would presumably mean to do some in-depth research and create the time for a proper assessment of Iran and its nuclear threat (more so than the usual brief news items), so it is shocking that these 'specials' can be so subjective.

The media plays a crucial role in democracy, and it provides leadership to many people who follow the media, what they learn impacts how they act. Thus it plays a crucial leadership role. In a market system, poor leadership, would be noticed, and that leader would be changed. In the media, it is not so simple. It is not so easy to criticise back, not so easy to get heard if you disagree, and so on.

Responsible leaders should provide information to their followers that is objective; especially if it is claiming to be objective, or if their very position as a leader depends on them being objective. No objectivity = no respect = no leadership. Thus in this situation, more than others, objectivity would be crucial. Consider it almost the same as truthfulness. A lack of objectivity is equal to being incorrect.

Responsible leaders need to deliver on what they promise; they need to create channels for feedback, they need to protect their position and reputation. They should not rely on other's lack of knowledge and lack of ability to discover the leader's flaws. One hopes that the 'market' will eventually provide avenues for the followers to discover that they are being led astray, and to provide alternative options. If a media source is proclaiming to be objective, it should (at least try to) be. If the media has such an influence on people, it has a global responsibility to do this. Leaders in other fields can take strong lessons from this!

An example of a Responsible Leader...and managing his legacy

Leon Sullivan is a special person. He was a responsible leader.

A brief Biography: He was a Black American Man who stood up for what he believed in, a man who fought for what he believed in and a man who had principles. He played a massive role in ending Apartheid in South Africa (where racism was an official policy, and black people were not as important as white people).

He was just 1 man, but he made a huge difference; and he believed that business was 1 of the ways to make a difference in the World. He believed that everyone has equal rights, that everyone has the right to work, and that everyone should be treated with respect.

He organised a boycott in Philadelphia of companies that refused to hire black workers. They started hiring black workers. He organised training for those who had no skills. They got skilled and found jobs. He told American businesses that they should treat South Africans the same as American. The businesses agreed. He told them to stop doing business in South Africa, unless the government changed its policies. The businesses stopped doing business and the Government changed its policy. Black people in South Africa were equal with white people for the first time in over a century.

To learn more about this man, whose 'Sullivan Principles' are now officially proposed and supported by the UN, go to www.revleonsullivan.org.

Here you will find out what his principles are, what he said and what he did. In addition, you can learn more about some of the tools he believes are important for individuals to leave a life of principles:

-The Power of Positive Thought, -The Importance of Involvement, -The Importance of Self-Help and Self-Respect, -The Role of Mentors, -Change Through Non-Violent Action, -Discrimination and Diversity

This website seems to be a fantastic example of how to use the internet and how to create useful and interesting educational materials with an excellent purpose. What is better than leading a
responsible life? Leaving a responsible legacy as well.

I am impressed by those who set up the site -for being able to use Leon Sullivan's life to inspire more people. I hope it helps generate more responsible leaders. Indeed I hope to discover more people and more sites of a similar nature!

The role of a Director

So it seems that there will be no saving Rover, a UK owned and based medium scale car manufacturer; despite the UK government's attempts to sell the company off to SAIC off China or to prop it up with 'loans' before the upcoming election. It is not surprising, since BMW gave up on it and it became British again. It only makes a few models and only sells a few cars. It does not sell Internationally, nor manufacture internationally, and can certainly not compete with the Fords, GMs etc (themselves struggling and only making profits on their financial operations).

Recently the Directors have been forced to put more of their own money into the company to keep it going -in fact they have made about £40million in 5 years of ownership. Many were surprised at the sudden deterioration of the company and it only came to light after 2 separate auditors' reports, that the company was losing £20million a month.

One may wonder how a company on which 20,000 direct and indirect jobs depend, can go bankrupt so quickly, having lasted 5 years without much initial investment (although BMW paid off its existing debt). One aspect seems important to me; that the company was taken private, owned by the 'Phoenix Four' originally.

Its not just that I am suspicious that the Directors made £40 million from their 5 years of work, but I am, especially as they got the company for a token £5. I wonder about the transparency of many private companies. Since the high profile corruption cases in US, Italy and elsewhere, the trend for increasing public companies' transparency and reporting requirements has quickened. A result has been for more companies to go private, arguing that some requirements are too restrictive on their organisations.

Many of the World's most successful businesses have had their turn being privately owned, and many are still privately owned. Yet, not many people know much about these businesses -they are much lower profile, they have less stringent public reporting standards (yet the same legal standards), however many of their owners are significantly richer than the Directors in listed companies or the shareholders (based on profit from their shares).

I'm not going into a full discussion on this, but the point I want to highlight is how ethical is a private business? -not because it is private, but because it has less legal reasons to be transparent, and transparency is a key part of governance, ethics and responsible leadership. Some private companies may be more responsible than listed ones; but one thing stands out. From a UK perspective, there are many different forces involved in monitoring businesses. The more, the better, I think. Private companies have less, and thus the temptation is greater to behave less responsibly.

Some of the forces include investors analysing their investments, the media raising awareness of issues and of employees having access to information about their company. The purpose of this post is not to criticise necessarily the private businesses, or those running them (or taking public businesses private), but just to stress the importance of these issues in responsible leadership.

Leaders have a responsibility to their stakeholders to be ethical and as transparent as is commercially viable. The huge amounts of pressure on companies in recent years from various sources (including NGOs) has, I believe, made many businesses more responsible -they are more aware of their responsibilities, and those they impact are able to have more of a say.

From a Chinese context it will be interesting to see how the financial markets develop here -what rules will be developed etc as well as what role the media, NGOs etc will play. Noting the continuing frequency of corruption at some of the highest levels of businesses here (and it is a fantastic thing that this is being publicised, and that those responsible are being punished), one
hopes that as these forces develop, Chinese businesses will also be more responsible.

Running a responsible corporation

I'am aware that I've yet to mention a business yet, and I hope at least half of this blog will focus on the 'corporate' from CSR; as I firmly believe businesses can provide the responsible leadership that is required. If they can themselves be responsible, then their employees and customers, suppliers and local communities can also learn and become more responsible. One of the few things that are 99% certain in life is that everyone has (or desires) a job. If the employer provides responsible leadership, it will make a big difference, and I am sure that businesses from 1 to 1 million people, make up the majority of global employment (and have the potential to employ anyone who is currently unemployed!).

A brief aside: I would love to go on about every topic I blog about; I am sure theses exist about each individual topic, and there are man other issues that can sprout from each blog (each with their own theses); but in the interest of retaining readers, I want to encourage readers to develop their ideas and follow any other issues that occur to them on these topics. Anyway, I am sure I will return to certain topics from a different perspective in the future.

On to the topic in question. I do not want to dicuss the purpose of a corporation; but just to question how an organisation that is not directly elected or accountable (to the 'community') can best function. A corporation has many stakeholders. A succuessful corporation should ensure that all stakeholders are satsifed with its performance (some stakeholders are more important than others, depending on whose theories you believe); yet the key to a successful organisation from the viewpoint of 'responsible leadership' is how the organisation runs.

A viewpoint on CSR that I currently agree with, is that CSR is an attitude more than anything. As such this attitude should be deployed by all who make up the corporation in everything they do. What is this attitude? It is one that is fundamentally about ethics. It is about how one person's actions affect the environment (and in this case I do not mean the 'green environment', I mean the external environment -everything outside of the individual) directly and indirectly.
When a corporation is set up it should consider its inputs, outputs and processes. Its processes are important as they govern the employees' attitude. Thus the way employees communicate, the way they plan, implement, monitor and report their activities is important. How should a corporation create a conducive environment for its employees to have an attitude of responsibility?

[First it needs to be stated that every person needs to demonstrate responsible leadership; leadership is a personal atribute everyone requries, so they can lead their own life responsibly. It is not about management. It does not require having others to lead; but it often involves others.]

Well, I am no expert, but some things need to be stated clearly. A corporation needs to ensure that each person is happy with their job; that they can achieve what they wish; or higher (depending on how much of a 'motivator' you are!). A simple set of values needs to be established as the norm for how employees should operate. Simplicity is the best.

When making decisions, the relevant stakeholders in that decision need to be consulted. When making actions, the consequences of those actions need to be carefully considered. People should be valued and respected. The things people require to exist should be valued and respected.

People need to trust others; transparency and accountability form the core of any organisation. Without them no organisation can function successfully. What makes an organisation stand out is the ability to have the best inputs. From a labour perspective, this means valuing (and benefitting from) diversity and innovation. It means encouragement and reward. It means friendship. It means valuing others outside the corporation. It means valuing others inside the corporation. It means valuing others. It means respecting others. It means demonstrating responsibility.

The UN

Well, if there is one Organisation that exists that requires (and should demonstrate) responsible leadership, this is it. Its ironic really that the organisation designed to prevent further conflict by encouraging debate has turned out to be so ineffective.

Or has it? In short the UN shows that democracy is a complex thing; how do you ask 200 or so nations to agree on anything (and how do you define 'agree', is it a majority?)? How do you ask people to work for an Organisation without showing bias or subjectivity, when every man or woman has their own history and perspectives? How do you make an Organisation representative if half its representative countries struggle to have more than a few Universities to educate its envoys? Should the UN have more or less power? Should it be directly elected? What bodies should do what, where should the UN intervene and on who's behalf? The list could go on and there are many questions that equally apply to the European Union/Commission (another blog...).

In the end the UN can only do what those who control it want it to do, or will let it do. It seems to me to be somewhere between a company which is not democratic and a government which 'is'. Yet the UN has few powers but a broad agenda, it has little direct impact but massive stature and it has 6 billion different points of views on what it should achieve, and how; yet 6 billions people refuse to let it do anything at all.

For the UN, which more than anything else exists in order to represent 'good', 'ethics', 'responsibility' or however else you want to call it, the ongoing debate about corruption within it is eve more destructive than the everlasting debate as to its role and functionality. For if the UN suffers from corruption and abuse, then there is no point having it at all. If there is no corruption, but the UN achieves something, then at least it achieves something. Nothing that is corrupt can be a positive force in the World.

I would hope that those within the UN should realise their responsibility to the World, that they directly have, more than any other human beings. I would hope they would be the kind of people who would think carefully about their actions, and uphold the highest standards (that they are so keen to promote). For a crisis like the one currently in the media to even have come so far is a disgrace. For the investigation to have to be called its a disgrace, and for it to be called over a decade after the allegations of corruption began is ridiculous. I am very sure that no-one or no Organisation can be perfect, but some things are so basic that most people or organisations can get them right. For the UN to be involved in sexual abuse amongst its peacekeepers puts a mockery on the Millennium Development Goals aiming at male-female equality!

I hope that this issue can encourage debate on how best people can serve such an organisation (or 'the greater good') -how can people be objective and not abuse friendships? how can they be less selfish? how can ethics be installed in a workforce covering the globe, yet still remain locally relevant and culturally sensitive? how can an organisation hope to have a bigger impact without spending so much time and effort on internal management ensuring compliance?

Should Kofi Annan stay or go? No-one is perfect and most seem to believe in him as the right leader (or did until theis new evidence arose) for the UN. However if he, and his organisation, loose the respect and status that they currently have; a new leader must be required. For without the respect people have for an organisation designed to improve the World, the UN has nothing.

Zimbabwe...

This post could be a long one....Zimbabwe is the country led by Robert Mugabe. Who undoubtedly is the World's worst, most irresponsible leader, currently alive.

Although Mugabe has 'only' been responsible for around 50,00 deaths (there are surely individuals alive and free who have killed more); personally, I cannot think of a subject that frustrates me more than Mugabe. 1 man, who for 16 years ruled a country that seemed to do all right. It produced a surplus of food and has wonderful natural touristic resources, such as the Victoria Falls (on the border with Zambia). Ever known a tourist go to Zimbabwe in the last 4 years? This is when he forced the White farmers to give the farms to the State. Now they are run by inexperienced black farmers, who got the farm based on their relationship to Mugabe. It seems that the farms could still produce food, but those running them do not know how to, and do not want to.

They have no incentive when they are handed as much as they want from Mugabe; a corrupt dictator who steals money, food and anything else given in aid, investment or handouts. In fact inflation is in the hundreds of % and unemployment is around 80%. It is a tribute to the people that they are still alive (although apparently, within 12 months, the situation will turn from dire to deadly).

How can 1 man let his country become the worst place in the World to do business? How can they justify 'free' elections when voters names are made up, food not given to those who vote against him and opposition candidates openly murdered (this seems rare, as most are already in prison)....the list could go on. Journalists rarely are allowed in officially, and unofficial ones face 2 years in prison. So how can any leader justify this to himself, or to others?

How can he be personally happy with what the direct consequences are of his actions? Unless he has not left his palace in 4 years, and therefore genuinely unaware of the situation, I cannot believe such a person exists. Its not that he has a misguided vision (for example, Hitler), its that he is deliberately locking up his own countrymen, starving his own people. It is not that he is just killing the 'white farmers' (like man of the ethnic or racist wars globally), its that he personally profits from the unhappiness of 90% of his country (the other 10% are those he pays to deprive the 90%!).

I would like to presume that every person is a genuinely 'good' person inside, and only does bad things due to misguided teachings, influences, psychiatric state or beliefs. I don't know Mugabe personally. I wonder if any of these categories fit him, or if he is genuinely a bad person? A misguided person might believe in reclaiming land from colonialists; but would be aware (after 4 years) that the policy needs altering when output falls so dramatically.

So responsible leaders need to be aware of their actions. They need to engage with others in order to determine the consequences of their actions (then they could make informed decisions). Responsible leaders need to have a moral conscience; they should act on it. They should allow others the freedom to be themselves -allow them the freedom to life, to choice, to speech, to work. They should not deceive others, they should not deliberately (or accidentally) harm others (in this case, needlessly).

Lastly, I believe this is the 1 country where so little from the rest of the World, could so easily make such a big difference. Where are the responsible leaders in this World who are willing to make a moral stand for what they believe is right. In some cases, personal morals are not global -people disagree. In this situation, I would like to find someone who thinks that Mugabe should stay in power and is a positive force for the World. Anyone out there believe that?

Africa...

SDN: promoting real sustainable development, "Let Africa fight its own devils".

Another hot topic, certainly, and one that focuses on how the rich can most help the poor. Leaders of the rich world have a responsibility to help others (it is in their best interest, as world leaders are finally realising, in regards to terrorism or immigration etc). How they do this, is in great dispute!

Most solutions focus on aid (in-kind or monetary) and technical support. Ironically a lot of this focuses on removing current processes that were put in place by rich countries to start with (such as trade barriers, debt and so on) -which shows how short-sighted the leaders who implemented them were.

I wanted to comment on this particular article, since one of the big changes in recent times has been that Aid agencies should work together towards common goals (!) and with the host country government (if possible); the aim is that the poor tell the rich what they need, and how that should be used. That sounds like a good idea. In the past, aid organisations presumed they knew best, and provided conditions on the support they gave (focused on reforms). This idea is now losing credibility; hoping that the poor will create the necessary reforms themselves (be them the same or different to what the rich have suggested/forced before).

This article argues along the free market lines, that actually what has most helped the poor in the past has been the free market, and supporting institutions. Should these exist, aid would not be needed (although it makes an exception for AIDS which is a 1-off 'first' in world history) to overcome poverty (over time), and any solutions would be long-term, natural and sustainable. Thus the rich should focus on providing the environment/framework/institions for countries to then develop themselves out of poverty. Certainly, they should remove the artificial restrictions they imposed (import tarrifs etc) before, but most importantly, they should aim to provide advice and change the institutions that are ineffective in much of Africa.

What should responsible leaders do when they want to do something, but no-one quite knows what the best way is to do it? Working in partnership with those they want to help is the obvious way to devise the solutions, however this has never happened before. The rich have never dealt with the poor -they just deal with those who supposedly 'represent' the poor. Now as NGOs grow more powerful (and presuming they can better represent the poor and be accountable to them), this could change -but the change is too slow.

The second thing is they should start with changing themselves. Set examples. As with the Tsunami, compete with each other as to who can hope the most, quickest! For so long, the rich have realised the impact of debt interest payments are having and the impact of trade restrictions...and what has happened? and what more is likely to happen? The answer is little (something will happen, but not enough for sure!), because we have to balance our own self-interests with our desire to help others. IF both these changes adversely affected the rich, so that they become worse off; then this would help no-one. the trick is that someone explains and creates a precise strategy for how to make these changes without long-term adverse changes.

That is the trick, but the crucial aspect, is that it requires some responsible leadership. It requires someone to start taking action, to do what they say, to acknowledge the consequences of their actions; to make decisions, to bravely set an example. Everyone talks about requiring more action; which is great, in theory. And example: The rich are discussing the World trade issue (Doha round in the WTO); great. They are even engaging different stakeholders in this, and even talking to the poor. But, it is not enough. Why only meet every 6 months? Why does the 'round' take years and not months?

Granted, the changes required are big, and need to be carefully managed. But if there was the will, then there would be a way. And right now, it is clear that the will does not exist, for a multitude of reasons, not to be discussed here. Responsible leadership requires determination, effort and a long-term vision. Not a short-term, selfish perspective.

Was war 'legal'?

A lot of my posts will be about articles in the news, about leaders and their decisions and actions. And why not kick this off with one of the most controversial topics around: Iraq.

Back before the war started the UK parliament voted on whether to go to war (although this was not a decision that would bind the government). Although it was close, the decision was to go to war; primarily on the argument that Iraq had, or would soon have, weapons of mass destruction (WMD), that would threaten the UK or others. Separate to the debate about the existence of the WMD, another key consideration was that, even if it was true, would this be a just reason to launch a pre-emptive attack? The Attorney-General, advised that as Iraq had been in breach of International Law (UN resolutions), then it was legal (this would also ensure that the combatants could not be tried for illegal actions, amongst other things).

It now appears that the advise that the Attorney-General gave is in dispute. How crucial the advise is is debatable, but it was certainly of great importance. His role, as 1 person - as the legal expert, and his actions, had significant consequences. Was his input truthful? Was he swayed by others (media, government pressure, even his own personal feelings)?

The debate has arisen over whether what he said (and he said different things in private as he did in the publicly released statements) was "a summary of his advice", "his opinion", "his view" or "a definitive statement". This matters a lot it seems (less so now than before the war presumably!). For me, it is a matter of the independence of the judiciary from the executive. It is a matter of taking responsibility for one's actions (and their consequences). It is a matter of being ethical and open. It represents a great example of where responsible leadership is required. It was not for this leader to make a decision; although his information would influence the decision made. It was for him to provide what was asked of him and what was expected of him. Did he do that?

Responsible Leaders need to demonstrate a firm belief and commitment in their own actions, and when decisions are made, or information released (especially in an official capacity) be sure that they are aware of the consequences, be sure they make the right decisions and stand by them. Most of all leaders need to be clear themselves of their actions, and effectively communicate this to others. Clarity is crucial.

What we will find out once/if any further information is released (declassified) may be interesting. But, it is clear, that for such a debate to have arisen, means that the Attorney-General has not demonstrated responsible leadership. Nobody is perfect, but everybody should aim to be.

An introduction...

Inspired to write a blog about something I am personal about rather than about personal stuff, it was easy to choose this subject. For a while I have been interested in making the World a better place -reading about Sustainable Development, learning how the World works and so forth.

I am greatly interested in CSR -Corporate Social Responsibility. For those of you who have heard of this concept before you will also have frequently come across the term CR -Corporate Responsibility (why just social?). Once could argue over this, but not right now. Also, CSRers will be aware of the usefulness of the tools etc developed for the purpose of CSR, and that they should be applied in non-corporate organisations as well. Hence, the 'C' is being dropped too.

I wanted to mention this, because, this reasoning is absolutely not the way I see responsibility. I see responsibility not as a definition, but as a condition. For you to exist, you must take some responsibility for ensuring your continued existence, and as this is so related to others (from 1 to 6 billion), you must therefore have a responsibility to the World you, we, live in.

If everyone was responsible, if everyone realised that responsibility is an attitude -and one that we should possess- and if everyone realised that responsibility it not a time based concept, then the World would truly be a better place. What I think 'better' means will be developed in future posts, but I do want to explain more on the 'time' concept.

Each individual needs to think about their own future as well as their present. We need to realise that our current actions impact our future actions: the near future and the distant future. We need to realise that how we act now influences how we will react in the future in similar or future scenarios; and thus to make the right decision now, will make future decisions easier (or ideally, decisions on the same subject, unnecessary). We need to be aware of how we spend our time, and realise that an investment in time now, will save time in the future. This means we have more time to spend -more time to spend on doing whatever we want; more time to make our own (and if you choose, others) lives better.

Finally, for me, responsibility is a personal thing. Be responsible -be ethical -be true to yourself. By doing this, we will inevitably translate this into our actions, and our interactions with others. This is leadership -it starts with yourself, and it extends to how to deal with others.

So, if this introduction has made you interested, or made you think, then stay tuned, and I'll do my best...

p.s. please excuse any spelling mistakes in this or other posts. I'm native english, but when my thoughts flow, spelling is not a consideration

The preface...

This blog is not a personal blog; it is an opportunity for awareness to be raised about the issues of responsible leadership, for examples and relevant news items to be highlighted and for the subject to be explored further.

It will be simple, but it will diverge to cover any topic that might be relevant. I am not one for long words, so don't expect any. Just expect some personal observations and comments.

Feedback and comments are greatly appreciated.