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?
Saturday, December 17, 2005
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
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?
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.
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...
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)