[Dialogue] Change belief
jlepps at pc.jaring.my
jlepps at pc.jaring.my
Wed Aug 10 21:41:18 EDT 2011
This is good, Lee.
Also take a look at Chapter 3 of Built to Last,
where Collins and Porras have found that
excellent companies in fact DO have something
more than profits as their purpose. It's a hopeful sign.
John
At 08:53 AM 8/10/2011, you wrote:
>The eating quote, as we used it in LENS when a
>little differently. . . . to say that profit is
>the purpose of business is like saying that
>eating is the purpose of life. If profit is not
>the purpose of business - - what is the purpose
>- - what is the purpose of YOUR business?
>
>It is also a bit of a squeeze to say that profit
>is the measure of how well a business serves
>it's community. I'm sure you know of at least a
>couple of profitable business that run counter
>to community service in almost every way.
>
>Attached is another take on profit.
>
>
>
>
>
>It begins by saying you cannot make a
>profit. Enjoy. Robert Campbell must have
>either authored the "purpose" statement or
>lifted it from Charles Handy. Whatever. Still a great quote.
>
>Lee
>
>
>On Aug 10, 2011, at 5:57 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: "jlepps at pc.jaring.my" <jlepps at pc.jaring.my>
> > To: Colleague Dialogue <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
> >> • reddit this
> >> • Comments (2)
> >> • Dermot Egan
> >> • Guardian Professional, Tuesday 9 August 2011 06.00 BST
> >> • Article history
> >>
> >> 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 PepsiCo, Shell and 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 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, 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 General
> Electric, Johnson & Johnson and 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
> >> 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 <jpc2025 at triad.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: John Cock <jpc2025 at triad.rr.com>
> >> Subject: [Dialogue] Change belief
> >> To: "'Colleague Dialogue'" <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
> >> 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
> > 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
More information about the Dialogue
mailing list