The passing of Ray Anderson, founder and Chairman of Interface, and the associated obituaries made me pause and reflect on the impact he had made and whether his genuine approach could be replicated in some fashion.  Celesa Horvath recently did a great job of summing up the values and the behavior or a CSR leader if they were to follow in Ray Anderson’s footsteps. With this in mind, I have taken the liberty of expanding the dialogue somewhat.  What follows are some well worn nuggets that when taken collectively can demonstrate true leadership in CSR both individually and corporately.

1.  Have a clear agenda – and communicate it well.

Ray Anderson told the story of being educated about the poor sustainability practices of his company/industry and found it like a “spear through the chest” … a powerful image for sure and then followed it up with a notion of Mt. Sustainability, being the company’s own Everest.   His broad and ambitious goals were then shared and mentored within his company leading to widespread ownership by the employees of the challenges that faced them, but also of the solutions to long-term change.

2.  Do the little things right – relationships matter.

Many CSR initiatives can end up being clouded by one of two things- firstly, the huge PR machine that loudly proclaims a “new approach” or contribution, or secondly, by the increased focused on managing the metrics via annual CSR reports.  Both of these elements are necessary and of value, but CSR is often about managing the relationships between all stakeholders – employees, suppliers, community members etc.  Taking the time to focus on the relationships that matter, to explain to stakeholders what is being done and to determine where they are at in their own development can lead to more meaningful outcomes for all, versus the creation of some externalized process that may get shelved and forgotten.

3. Share the wealth – develop alliances, partnerships and collaborations

The social, health and environmental issues that face us have been around for many years and will take many more to correct.   The fragmentation that can result in every corporation “having an answer” only contributes to greater competitiveness and discord.  By capitalizing on strengths and then collectively working with allied agencies or corporations a far greater impact can be made. While this cooperation can fly in the face of the competitive edge, it can pay dividends if it supports the agenda (#1) that can improve the world and improve the bottom line.

4.  Shared Value

Michael Porter reframed the notion of shared value in the past months and the notion of this seems to becoming somewhat viral. Simply put, in the past what was good for the company was thought to be good for society. This has now been replaced with the concept of shared value, which can be defined as policies and operating practices that enhance the competitiveness of a company while simultaneously advancing the economic and social conditions in the communities in which it operates. I like the re-frame and the general sentiment. For me though it does not go far enough as it continues to place corporations outside of society.  The sooner that corporations (and the associated senior officers) realize that they form part of the fabric of society rather than stand outside of it, the more pervasive CSR programs will become.

5. Use CSR as a conversation starter, rather than a shield to hide behind

Many organizations engage in CSR endeavors in order to meet issues of compliance, or worse – to remedy past errors where they have been embarrassed.  A progressive leader in the field will seek to get out from this negative mindset and get proactive.  Engaging in conversations and solutions that bring out the “art of possibility” fully engages the workforce and community members and allows the company to be appropriately proud of their efforts.

The overarching theme that pervades each of these elements and an attribute that Ray Anderson seemed to be the master of is that of ENGAGEMENT.  The problems that CSR is attempting to solve all have a human element.  Distilling these problems down to a non-emotional scorecard does an injustice to all the constituents and can dangerously overly simplify the problem and make solutions transitory as new solutions are trotted out like annual product lines.  The ability to engage and to have the difficult conversations, including with oneself, is the marker of a true industry leader.

What would you add to the list?

Much has been written about the value of social media and CSR, and I am always a bit perplexed about how the notion of “social” is used as it tends to be cursory a great deal of the time.  So much of my work has been built upon the notion and importance of relationship development, which in turn is reciprocal and supportive.   The folks listed below are just a few I have encountered in the social media – primarily on Twitter, that seem to “get it”. They are generous with their knowledge and their time. They share ideas via their blogs, promote concepts started by other people and understand that the story is not just about them but about building a community.

There are multitudes of great tweeters, bloggers and news portals where I get my fix for CSR, leadership and community engagement info. The folks below are contributors who meet the standard that I associate with being “social leaders” and I consider myself fortunate to have them in my “community”.

Celesa Horvath – @celesahorvath – Celesa is brilliant at connecting people ideas, as well as initiating the development of networks to support dialogue. She seems to have the “big picture” firmly in mind and writes very well on her blog, that  “aims to engage and support those who would further the art and science of corporate responsibility and business sustainability, whether as a practitioner, a consumer, or any other kind of interested party”

Aman Singh – @vaultcsr – is a prolific writer on for both Vault and Forbes  CSR with particular emphasis on the job market, education and emerging trends relating to HR practices, measurement and standardization of good practice.  I have connected with Aman more than a few times and her passion for the work and her knowledge is great to be around.  I look to Aman to be provocative in her writing on a regular basis.

Andrea Learned – @andrealearned – Andrea writes passionately regarding gender, consumer behavior and sustainability. Her most recent contribution  to her blog was a summation of a workshop where the notion of partnering and/or strategic alliances was referenced and Andrea posed the notion that maybe this is the “new green”.

Elaine Cohen - @elainecohen – Elaine has great sources of info for her Tweets and is fully engaged in all aspects of CSR with a particular emphasis on HR and reporting metrics such as the use, role and uptake of the GRI.

David Connor – @davidcoethica  – David tops most social media lists as “ someone to follow”.  A generous tweeter and retweeter he does a great job of posting intriguing and original pieces ranging from CSR for SME to his most recent post on whether or not CSR can save the UK economy.  Unfortunately he cheers for Liverpool and not Everton, but you can’t have everything.

Chris Jarvis – @realizedworth – Chris writes, speaks, teaches…no… entertains, on corporate volunteer engagement programs and is generous to boot.  When I first entered the social media world Chris generously met with me and shared his tools and connections.  His energy and enthusiasm are contagious and I consider myself so fortunate to have been able to work alongside Chris and Angela Parker(@Angelajeane  - cofounder of Realized Worth and another generous soul)  in Vancouver recently.  You can also check out some of his videos on 3BL

Dave MacDonald -@yupana.ca – I just met Dave a few weeks ago at the workshop in Vancouver in with Chris Jarvis,  and was so impressed by his energy and “meta-view” systemic thinking around corporate culture, and of course how that can be a barrier or lever to effective and sustainable CSR strategies.

Ashley Jablow – @ashleyjablow -  I love Ashley’s enthusiasm and big picture view. Her blog focuses on the creation of a “platform where each of us can participate on what positive change looks like in our communities and around the world”.  What a great idea.

James Epstein Reeves – @jepsteinreeves – similar in a fashion to Ashley’s work, James describes his blog this way “This journal examines the way individuals, institutions, and society interact in an attempt to “make the world a better place” “as such, he writes and tweets about the broad elements of CSR,  and the culture and engagement in society.

This kind of list will always be incomplete. Space, bias and attention spans get in the way of making this longer…but… I would love to hear of other’s experiences and/or the names and brief descriptions of other Tweeters/Bloggers who have made an impact in your social media sphere, and other lists will follow.

The Acacia Group’s mission is to offer transformative and unique leadership development for organizations seeking to live out their global citizenship. To do this we blend knowledge from Corporate Social Responsibility, Community Development and Leadership Development and Learning to create new opportunities for excellence for our clients. For more information, visit www.theacaciagroup.ca

I recently came across an older report released by Canadian Business for Social Responsibility –(CBSR) that focused on engaging small and medium enterprises into the world of CSR.  The report is a great grass roots look at the what and the why of CSR from the SME lens and covers off some very important motivations for engagement.  Including but not limited to – “We have a responsibility to our customers, the environment and our staff”; “We want to be the best at what we do” – “It is the only way we know to engage in a hands-on manner with our community”  – and finally “It is the right thing to do”.

The question now becomes… how do we measure personal passion? Metrics for ROI, gas emission reductions, GRI standards etc are all valid tools that address the hard facts of the business advantage that motivates many of the larger players in the CSR sphere.  But, and this is a big but, if people are the greatest resource,  and part of the motivation for engaging in CSR is to do what matters to people – How should we measure the personal and professional impact of CSR work?

Or, should we resign ourselves to the emerging facts that CSR has lost its compassionate and humanistic edge and is now only another method to create a competitive advantage in the market place? Undoubtedly, the efforts of multi-national corporations to engage in the communities in which they do business, to leave less of a foot print and to conduct business in a sustainable way can create huge wins for the end beneficiary.  Frankly, this is huge improvement over the ethically dubious practices of the past. Transparency and accountability are all great…..but I’ve got to say, it can leave you cold if it  only becomes another check box on the business task list.

I would like to know that CSR is allowing leaders in organizations to connect with their personal humanity; that they engage in these practices, not because it is a necessary thing to do under ISO or GRI standards and because shareholders now see it as essential,  but because “it is the right thing to do” and because it makes a difference in their world and the community around them.  They do it because they want to come to grips with some of the things they don’t know, because they want to learn and because they have a connection to something beyond the bottom line.

I am not so naïve to believe that this kind of emotional discussion could ever grab a foothold in the hardcore reporting realm that drives business, but my guess is that as more and more organizations get involved in the CSR space the personal stories will have to be told.  Profits and market share will only motivate for so long, organizations need to understand that the greatest lever for engagement they have is that their people care and  as such their experiences in CSR cannot be relegated to a token “feel good” moment but are actually worth capturing and building upon as platforms for shared learning, and yes, personal, business and community growth

Michael Porter and Mark Kramer in this month’s Harvard Business Review revisit their notion of creating shared value, and suggest that the intersection between corporations and society can reengineered to provide benefits to both.  With great respect, I would argue that the greatest way we can reengineer this relationship is to stop thinking of corporations as separate from society and instead focus on what does connect us all, our humanity.

The rush to report CSR activities continues and while this is to be welcomed, surely a cautionary note is necessary.  The world of evaluation is constantly shifting and there can be no “single” truth per se as to how all evaluation should occur – in fact, we should perhaps be skeptical of any body that proclaims to have the definitive approach pinned down. When it comes to measuring social innovation however, perhaps be skeptical of any body that proclaims to have the definitive approach pinned down. When it comes to measuring social innovation however, perhaps we should be even more liberal in the interpretation of data?  Let me illustrate.

A few years ago my business partner Penny Lane, was part of a program to construct a bodega in the small town of Testerazo in the northern Baja.  The bodega construction was identified as a need by community leaders who provide services to a migrant worker camp and also run a community food program. A team of volunteers from British Columbia arrived with a plan, the desire, the technology and the resources. Working with local villagers – the bodega was built and the team of volunteers left for home.  The evaluation of such a project would indicate – Goal accomplished.

This is one example of a simple evaluation process and for many organizations this alone would be viewed as a success and definitive enough to place in the CSR report. In the rush to “manage-what-we-measure” and to have bonafide outcomes that meet external regulations, identify something as concrete as this completion is to be expected.

But what if, and this is a big if, organizations did not stop there – but instead chose to return to the community (or better still, play a role in the community for years to come), and revaluated the impact of the bodega? The concept of developmental evaluation outlined in Getting to Maybe- How the World is Changed by Westley, Zimmerman and Patton – suggests that traditional evaluation actually shuts down social innovations just as they are starting to take off.  The prescriptiveness of regular evaluation modes demands a precision and scientific rigor that actually flies in the face the very benefits that social innovation seeks to address.

Returning to the bodega – what if, instead of calculating benefits from the perspective of building costs, volunteer hours and the like…a more descriptive model were developed that was able to track how the building is now the hub of  social dialogue in the community. Or, that by providing a place for young male community leaders to hold meetings and to discuss social issues, the prevalence of domestic violence directed at women has dropped significantly.

Evaluation and the return on investment to shareholders, including the outward visual benefits of CSR efforts to stakeholders are important activities to engage in. But isn’t it possible that the world we wish to measure does not actually respond well to this kind of evaluation and would be better served by a developmental approach?  The book and further work by Michael Quinn Patton lay out the foundation more thoroughly, but the excerpt below from Patton’s work provides a contrast between traditional evaluation and the developmental evaluation for social innovation is compelling and worthy of significant discussion.

Would this approach stand up to the rigors of “tough” business audiences? In the clamor to demonstrate ROI in the CSR sphere, would a long-term recipient “centric” view of the activities be acceptable? Let me know your thoughts.

The Acacia Group’s mission is to offer transformative and unique leadership development for organizations seeking to live out their global citizenship. To do this we blend knowledge from Corporate Social Responsibility, Community Development and Leadership Development and Learning to create new opportunities for excellence for our clients.

Vault CSR’s Aman Singh queried earlier this month “Why Don’t Executives Get CSR?” – specifically why one particular executive would not “get” that gender equality is a strategic CSR issue. I offer two possible answers.One is the tried and true notion that for many executives CSR is a fragmented, outward facing process that is delivered to address regulatory guidelines and is at best a PR issue. This is a personal behavior that in some way is allowed to maintain itself within the corporation – without being checked or challenged. So perhaps the bigger issue is, Why Don’t Companies Get CSR?

Now, I recognize this is chicken and egg scenario – the company is made up of executives that guide and shape corporate policy etc. The angle that I would like to use however, is that the greater the proximity to regulatory issues and shareholder sensitivity, then the greater the knowledge and practice of CSR. Similarly, the more the organization operates within a business to business realm and has minimal presence in the public eye, the less it is compelled to act upon a CSR orientation.

Witness the recent well publicized focus of Coke and Pepsi, two companies that have come under heavy fire for their contribution to issues of obesity, sugar consumption and water pollution. Similarly, Marks and Spencer’s – the UK department store, and even BP have all widely touted CSR programs that have arisen after or alongside anti-sustainability campaigns gathered steam. Now, the behemoth of Wal-Mart is getting in the game with its own market influence to correct the North American diet. But what of the oil exploration companies that don’t have a public face via gas stations? – They remain invisible on the CSR landscape and as a result chose to draw little to no attention to their CSR efforts – (perhaps because they are somewhat negligible) – beyond basic adherence to environmental practices.

Put another way, firms whose products or processes are perceived as potentially harmful – will monitor change more rigorously than those who consider their products to be benign. This is especially true if they are marketing to CSR sensitive customers. This behavior then creates a frame of reference for all managers to get their heads and hearts around in order to promote the outward facing message.

It would be interesting to know the industry or business of the female executive that prompted Aman’s query. I would speculate that it is relatively “clean” and that diversity in the work place is perhaps the only issue that they feel they need to tackle from a CSR perspective – hence the lack of integration and comprehension.

I am fully aware that this perhaps overly simple model would have its exceptions and counter-arguments, and quite frankly would love to hear about company that is below the public radar doing something profound in the CSR realm, not simply as a means to appease regulations or manage PR – but because they want to do the right thing right.

The first of a series of blogs on the MDGs and how they inform CSR, community development, and leadership and learning. With only five years left until the 2015 deadline to achieve the Millennium Development Goals [MDGs], UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called on world leaders to attend a summit in New York on 20 – 22 September 2010 to accelerate progress towards the MDGs’. – The Call to action on the UN Website for the MDGs

The MDGs – adopted in 2000 as the United Nations Millennium Declaration – were the culmination of a decade of UN conferences and summits and demonstrated a global commitment to reduce extreme poverty. A series of time bound targets were established with a deadline of 2015 and the MDGs became eight simple statements with the potential to change the world:

- End Poverty and Hunger (eradicate extreme poverty and hunger)

- Universal Education (achieve universal primary education)

- Gender Equality (promote gender equality and empower women)

- Child Health (reduce child mortality)

- Maternal Health (improve maternal health)

- Combat HIV/AIDs (combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other Diseases)

- Environmental Sustainability (ensure environmental sustainability)

- Global Partnership (develop a global partnership for development)

In the past 10 years the world’s awareness of these eight key global challenges has increased dramatically. Who has not seen or heard news and profiles on micro-financing, malaria nets, accessible anti retroviral drugs, funding for maternal health, and the environment. These simple eight goals have shaped our local (think your local coffee shop and fair trade coffee), national (recent debates on maternal health funding at the G20), and international conversations. Eight simple goals that just might change the world.

This past month a report was released entitled `What will it take to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals? – An International Assessment’ – June 2010. It is an encouraging read. Based on a review of 50 country studies the authors conclude that the resources and the know-how necessary to achieve the MDGs exist – and some changes in approach may be needed.

A key message from the report is that the Goals have synergies and improvements in that one can speed up progress in others. Women and young girls are key. `Ensuring girls have unfettered access to health, education and productive assets helps progress across the MDGs’ is just one statement made in the report. A key strategy identified to accelerate progress on the MDGs lies with investing in expanded opportunities for women and girls and advancing their economic, legal and political empowerment.

With five years left to achieve the goals laid out in 2000, it is not just the global leaders who have a role to play in accelerating progress. Each of us as a global citizen, a national citizen, and as a corporate citizen carry a responsibility to become knowledgeable about the goals, to understand why they matter, to know the questions we need to ask, and to consider the actions we can take. The global leaders cannot do it alone.

The Acacia Group’s mission is to offer transformative and unique leadership development for organizations and individuals seeking to live out their global citizenship. To do this we blend knowledge from Corporate Social Responsibility, Community Development and Leadership Development and Learning to emerge new opportunities for excellence for our clients.

Over the last several weeks our company has engaged in a series of social media notices leading up to a webinar on FAQs regarding our leadership development experience in Guatemala. Of those who showed an interest and signed up for the webinar – entirely 100% were women.

Now, our numbers would certainly show a limiting and therefore non-valid sample size. But there is a reality that of the people that we have engaged with over the last several months the disproportionate majority are women. Leading me to ask….Where have all the men gone? – and, given the equally disproportionate number of men in the C-Suite –is the gender difference an issue to be reconciled in order to have corporate social responsibility move to the strategic front burner?

Aman Singh at Vault CSR did a nice job of summarizing the Boston College Centre for Corporate Citizenship report on the Profile of the Profession – In her blog Aman pointed out the ten leading characteristics/identifiers of a CSR professional – but for the purpose of this discussion let’s stick to the top four –

1. They hold a bachelors degree
2. They are a women
3. They are white
4. They are more than 35 years old

I can safely say that these descriptors definitely correspond to those who showed an interest in our work. So of course we need to understand the Why?

A quick search discovered an intriguing diploma thesis argument by Elena Bueble that addresses CSR from a communications and consumer alignment perspective. She illustrates that the connectedness that consumers feel with a company’s CSR activities (and therefore contributing to their purchasing behavior) has a lot to do with the alignment of ethics between the individual and the company. She then cites references that illustrate that women are more ethically sensitive than men and in a philanthropic arena are more likely to donate money and their own time via volunteerism than men.

The Guatemala experience focuses on development of insight related to leadership skills, intense application of those insights and skills and in social enterprise in a small village and then with accredited coaching support, taking away those lessons and applying them to various components such as career, community and family over a period of several months.
This combination of learning, leadership development and “hands-on” CSR – would of course appeal to those with a strong ethical base, and those who are curious about the world and their place in it. But I do not believe that this is the sole (or soul) domain of women. Gender differences are rarely black and white, so I do imagine that CSR, leadership and learning are of interest to many men too – yet there is clearly a difference in how this is pursued by men.
So…some questions.

1. Is social and environmental good still seen as a “soft” benefit versus that resides outside the traditional profit and loss statement that is “hard” evidence of success pursued by men?

2. Is CSR seen as a skill of nurturance – that can be performed by men, but more comfortably by women?

3. Our program focuses on leadership development alongside CSR – would more men consider leadership innate whereas women would place value on the introspection, and analysis required to be more effective?

4. These questions lead to a black and white orientation that is overly simplistic to say the least and only supports the maintenance of stereotypes. However, they do play at the corners of a more troubling scenario. If one assumes that promoting a CSR/leadership agenda is a good thing, then it should be of equal importance to both men and women. Women are the typical CSR practitioner but are underrepresented at the most senior levels – aside from trying to achieve parity in this regard; does it also make sense for us to rethink the communications context to engage men at a senior level in this dialogue. Or…..

5. Is this all nonsense and can concerns be safely dismissed simply by what we see in the relatively egalitarian social media world, i.e. witness the work and ideas of Fabian Pattberg, Elaine Cohen, Aman Singh, David Connor, Chris Jarvis, Christine Arena, Jeffrey Hollender, or Lavinia Weissman and many others.

What do you think? Do you have answers or opinions on the above questions? Is this all a red herring? Let us know your thoughts.

The Acacia Group’s mission is to offer transformative and unique leadership development for organizations and individuals seeking to live out their global citizenship. To do this we blend knowledge from Corporate Social Responsibility, Community Development and Leadership Development and Learning to emerge new opportunities for excellence for our clients.