[Dialogue] Change belief
jlepps at pc.jaring.my
jlepps at pc.jaring.my
Wed Aug 10 21:37:30 EDT 2011
I would add Community to the balance sheet, Jack. A company DOES
affect its community, whether by environmental impact, hiring
practices, or in-house policies (like diversity), it makes an impact
on the surrounding community. This is also something often ignored.
John
At 08:36 AM 8/10/2011, you wrote:
>Randy,
>
>Every company or organization, has three demands it must
>balance. Customers, Employees and remainder on the Balance Sheet
>(stockholders for a traded company). These three always require
>consideration, with no one of them taking priority over the others,
>though at any given time there may be strategic reasons to focus
>more on one than the other. I like to talk about Balance Sheet
>because there are competing and necessary investments that require
>judgment and often sacrifice. Unfortunately, because we tend to
>start with the bottom line, that is, what's left over after spending
>on operations, investment, payroll, promotion, donations, etc. it
>gives management and stockholders a big club to minimize the
>"expenses" and maximize their share. But the killer in all this is
>that most companies by the very act of their incorporation are
>legally bound to maximize shareholder return. So all a
>conscientious CEO and management team can do is try and protect the
>other demands on the balance sheet, but so often the Board will
>squeeze and squeeze until a good person just opts out. This
>happened to Ben & Jerry's when they were taken over. At first they
>were left alone and allowed to continue their "odd" path because it
>was a powerful part of the brand. But slowly the tentacles spread
>and started to squeeze. It's not a pretty or pleasant sight.
>
>Jack
>On Aug 10, 2011, at 7:57 AM, R Williams wrote:
>
>>John,
>>
>>Excellent point. I know of one highly successful company whose
>>mission statement is that its purpose is to serve its employees,
>>and that the way it would do that was to provide excellent products
>>and services to its customers. All this, in the long run, benefits
>>the community as a whole and sustains consistent, reasonable
>>profitability. So why must business choose one stakeholder over
>>others when it's possible to serve them all, including stockholders?
>>
>>Randy
>>
>>
>>From: "<mailto:jlepps at pc.jaring.my>jlepps at pc.jaring.my"
>><<mailto:jlepps at pc.jaring.my>jlepps at pc.jaring.my>
>>To: Colleague Dialogue
>><<mailto:dialogue at wedgeblade.net>dialogue at wedgeblade.net>
>>Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2011 9:16 PM
>>Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Change belief
>>
>>This is a fine article, and Michael Porter will give it
>>considerable credibility. He's the recognized spokesman for
>>business analysis and strategy.
>>
>>The problem with Milton Friedman's notion ("The purpose of business
>>is to increase its profits") is that it ignores stakeholders and
>>focuses only on stockholders. A company DOES impact society, and
>>whether for good or for ill is up to the company. I like to say
>>that the purpose of a company is to deliver a product or service
>>that benefits society, and profit is a measure of how good it is
>>doing at that purpose. Unfortunately too many in business have
>>bought into Friedman's simplistic notion (he's a Nobel laureate, so
>>don't write him off too easily!), and we're attempting to alter
>>that basic misunderstanding. Charles Handy is another who advocates
>>the more comprehensive purpose, saying something like: to say
>>profit is the purpose of business is like saying the purpose of
>>life is eating. It's necessary, but as a means rather than as an end.
>>
>>At 07:41 AM 8/9/2011, you wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>This would not be bad . . .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Companies (add in governments, etc.) cannot continue to pretend to
>>>serve society while simultaneously acting against it. Neither can
>>>they continue to give shareholder's interest primacy above the
>>>interests of the public. No amount of investment in charitable
>>>causes or employee volunteering can change that fact. The purpose
>>>of a company will be to create shared value, where business and
>>>society achieve success together.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>CSR is dead, long live social enterprise
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>We must move in to an era were companies do not separate
>>>themselves from the consequences of their operations, we must
>>>champion shared values
>>> * Share56
>>> *
>>> <http://www.reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fsocial-enterprise-network%2F2011%2Faug%2F09%2Fshared-value-csr-social-enterprise&title=>
>>> []
>>>
>>><http://www.reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fsocial-enterprise-network%2F2011%2Faug%2F09%2Fshared-value-csr-social-enterprise&title=>
>>><http://www.reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fsocial-enterprise-network%2F2011%2Faug%2F09%2Fshared-value-csr-social-enterprise&title=>
>>><http://www.reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fsocial-enterprise-network%2F2011%2Faug%2F09%2Fshared-value-csr-social-enterprise&title=>reddit
>>>this
>>> *
>>> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/social-enterprise-network/2011/aug/09/shared-value-csr-social-enterprise#start-of-comments>Comments
>>> (2)
>>> * Dermot Egan
>>> *
>>> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian-professional-networks/all>Guardian
>>> Professional, Tuesday 9 August 2011 06.00 BST
>>> *
>>> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/social-enterprise-network/2011/aug/09/shared-value-csr-social-enterprise#history-link-box>Article
>>> history
>>>Man passes electronic board displaying Nikkei share average in
>>>
>>>Companies cannot continue to pretend to serve society while
>>>simultaneously acting against it, says Dermot Egan Photograph:
>>>Issei Kato/REUTERS
>>>
>>>Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been around as a term
>>>since the 60s but it really came to prominence in the last decade
>>>when large multinationals began to adopt the phrase to demonstrate
>>>that they were serious about delivering a positive social impact
>>>on the communities in which they operated.
>>>
>>>Some cynics felt that CSR was simply a marketing exercise, an
>>>attempt to reassure employees, garner consumer favour and stave
>>>off government regulation. Other more hawkish economists such as
>>>Milton Friedman were uncomfortable with the notion that companies
>>>had any moral obligation to society, famously stating "the social
>>>responsibility of business is to increase its profits".
>>>
>>>To communicate their efforts companies such as
>>><http://www.pepsico.com/>PepsiCo, <http://www.shell.co.uk/>Shell
>>>and <http://barclays.co.uk/PersonalBanking/P1242557947640>Barclays
>>>began to produce CSR reports which laid out all their positive
>>>impacts from charity donations and employee volunteering to
>>>supporting renewable energy production and promoting diversity.
>>>CSR reporting became so popular that even much maligned companies
>>>such as <http://www.bat.com/>British American Tobacco felt that
>>>they too needed to communicate the benefits of their operations to society.
>>>
>>>As climate change and the environment came to the fore, CSR
>>>reports quickly evolved into sustainability reports and their
>>>emphasis became more focused on driving low energy solutions and
>>>mitigating the environmental impact of a company's operations.
>>>
>>>While the language and emphasis of CSR has changed, one key
>>>problem remains. The adoption of CSR has been and continues to be
>>>reactionary, a response to a growing concern from employees,
>>>customers, and to an increasing extent investors, about the
>>>conduct of businesses. The principal drivers have been largely
>>>external rather than internal, calling into question whether those
>>>principals are core to the companies DNA.
>>>
>>>The explosion in popularity of social enterprises recently is a
>>>direct consequence of the inability of existing companies to grasp
>>>the new reality that a company's core purpose must be to deliver
>>>positive social impact and not to simply minimise negative impacts
>>>while ultimately focusing on maximising profit in the short-term.
>>>
>>>As esteemed Professor at Harvard Business School,
>>><http://drfd.hbs.edu/fit/public/facultyInfo.do?facInfo=ovr&facId=6532>Michael
>>>E Porter wrote corporations must "create economic value in a way
>>>that also creates value for society by addressing its needs and challenges".
>>>
>>>The comments are taken from a remarkable article in the Harvard
>>>Business Review where Porter lays out his concept of "shared
>>>value". Companies are urged to "reconnect company success with
>>>social progress" and "take the lead in bringing business and
>>>society back together".
>>>
>>>You could be forgiven for thinking that these words had been
>>>lifted from the speech of a social entrepreneur to describe their
>>>business philosophy. But Porter is the father of modern business
>>>strategy and his Five Forces model has been universally taught to
>>>students of business for the last 30 years.
>>>
>>>While Porter doesn't mention the term explicitly, he is in effect
>>>calling on all businesses large and small to reinvent themselves
>>>as social enterprises and redefine their operations beyond profit
>>>maximisation towards addressing societal needs.
>>>
>>>Placed in this context, CSR initiatives appear hopelessly
>>>inadequate. Particularly, as they have tended to exist as
>>>peripheral activities connected to the marketing function of
>>>companies and leveraged as a means to enhance reputation.
>>>
>>>The extent to which companies, particularly large corporations,
>>>are able to embrace the shared value concept will depend on the
>>>attitudes of those leading them and the foundation on which they
>>>were built. In some cases, they will be able to seek inspiration
>>>from their history. Companies such as
>>><http://www.ge.com/uk/>General Electric,
>>><http://www.jnj.com/connect/>Johnson & Johnson and
>>><http://www.scjohnson.com/en/home.aspx>SC Johnson have delivered
>>>profound positive social impacts, raising people's quality of
>>>life, improving healthcare and helping to develop basic hygiene
>>>standards. What inspired these companies was a combination of the
>>>profit motive and the desire to innovate and improve people's lives.
>>>
>>>For other companies whose motive and inspiration is profit above
>>>any explicit social purpose, it will be more difficult to adjust.
>>>
>>>As we move towards the shared value model, more questions will be
>>>asked of companies. The measure will not simply be profit, but to
>>>what end profit is pursued, how it is gained and what is its
>>>impact. Whether it's the pollution of the environment by energy
>>>companies pursuing fossil fuels or the effect on child obesity
>>>from food companies promoting unhealthy snacks to infants;
>>>companies will no longer be able to separate themselves from the
>>>consequences of their operations, with taxpayers and governments
>>>paying for the resulting negative outcomes.
>>>
>>>Companies cannot continue to pretend to serve society while
>>>simultaneously acting against it. Neither can they continue to
>>>give shareholder's interest primacy above the interests of the
>>>public. No amount of investment in charitable causes or employee
>>>volunteering can change that fact. The purpose of a company will
>>>be to create shared value, where business and society achieve success together.
>>>
>>>CSR is dead, long live social enterprise.
>>>
>>>
>>>Jim Wiegel
>>>
>>>Life isn't meant to be easy, it's meant to be life. -- James
>>>Michener, The Source
>>>
>>>401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401
>>>+1 623-363-3277 skype: jfredwiegel
>>><mailto:jfwiegel at yahoo.com>jfwiegel at yahoo.com
>>>www.partnersinparticipation.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>UPCOMING TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES FROM PARTNERS IN PARTICIPATION
>>>ToP Facilitation Methods Sept 20-21, 2011
>>>ToP Strategic Planning, Nov 8-9, 2011
>>>The AZ Community of Practice meets the 1st Friday of every month at 1 pm
>>>Facilitation Mastery : Our Mastering the Technology of
>>>Participation program is available in Phoenix in 2011-12. Program
>>>begins on Oct 12-14, 2011. See our website for further details.
>>>
>>>--- On Tue, 8/9/11, John Cock
>>><<mailto:jpc2025 at triad.rr.com>jpc2025 at triad.rr.com> wrote:
>>>From: John Cock <<mailto:jpc2025 at triad.rr.com>jpc2025 at triad.rr.com>
>>>Subject: [Dialogue] Change belief
>>>To: "'Colleague Dialogue'"
>>><<mailto:dialogue at wedgeblade.net>dialogue at wedgeblade.net>
>>>Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2011, 6:11 AM
>>>So what belief do you really want to change in the "entire community," bro
>>>Jim?
>>>John
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net
>>>[ mailto:dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of James Wiegel
>>>Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 8:49 AM
>>>To: James Wiegel; Colleague Dialogue
>>>Subject: [Dialogue] Any colleagues connected with Rensselear
>>>PolytechnicInstitute?
>>>All it takes to change
>>>Globe and Mail 8/9/2011
>>>"To change the beliefs of an entire community," says Discovery News, "only
>>>10 per cent of the population needs to become convinced of a new or
>>>different opinion, suggests a new study done at the social cognitive
>>>networks academic research center at Rensselear Polytechnic Institute. At
>>>that tipping point, the idea can spread through social networks and alter
>>>behaviors on a large scale."
>>>
>>>Jim Wiegel
>>>Jfwiegel at yahoo.com
>>>When physicians were given a gift a bag of candy they were better at
>>>integrating case information and less likely to become fixated on their
>>>initial ideas and coming to premature closure in their diagnosis. -- Some
>>>study I read about somewhere
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Dialogue mailing list
>>>Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
>>>http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Dialogue mailing list
>>>Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
>>>http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Dialogue mailing list
>>><mailto:Dialogue at wedgeblade.net>Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
>>>http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Dialogue mailing list
>><mailto:Dialogue at wedgeblade.net>Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
>>http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Dialogue mailing list
>><mailto:Dialogue at wedgeblade.net>Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
>>http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>Dialogue mailing list
>Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
>http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20110810/a6cfa249/attachment.html>
More information about the Dialogue
mailing list