Posts Tagged ‘ stakeholders ’

Don’t Leave Your Baggage Unattended: Corporate Responsibility Lessons from a Frequent Flyer

As much as I try to telework to minimize our firm’s environmental footprint, there are times when I just have to travel to meet client needs.  So I fly.  A lot.  I can, like most frequent flyers, recite the safety briefing from memory.  On a recent trip, it occurred to me there are gems of wisdom in that briefing that we can apply to the world of corporate responsibility, if we look at them creatively. 

Don’t Leave Your Baggage Unattended” – You often hear this announcement in the holding room, before boarding.

iStock_000015455200_SmallMost companies, like most travelers, have baggage.  When it comes to corporate sustainability and responsibility, the kind of baggage you need to worry about is the kind that comes most frequently with extremes of organizational change, ranging from the slow, organic growth of companies that span decades or even centuries, to rapid growth through new market creation and mergers and acquisitions.  These extremes of development can lead to entrenched systems, legacy issues, and persistent misperceptions that hinder forward progress.

For example, a fast-growing small or medium-sized enterprise might be weighed down by internal financial and human resource management systems that it has outgrown.  A company newly formed out of a merger or acquisition might carry a burden of outstanding environmental liability associated with past operations.  An organization that has been in operation for decades may be encumbered by practices that have become habitual instead of adaptive and responsive to evolving needs and opportunities.

Organizational baggage like this, when left unattended, undermines morale, stifles innovation, erodes productivity and value, and creates long-term liability.  When in direct conflict with stated corporate values and policy, unattended baggage can call into question the credibility of the organization, and thus impact reputation.  In turn, it can be more difficult to attract talent and investment and earn social and regulatory licence.

Sustainability is often described as a journey.  If your organization is planning, undertaking, or has just come through a major growth phase, whether organic or through a merger or acquisition, or if it’s been a long time since the organization has done any serious introspection, it’s time to take a good look at what you’re carrying with you.

Here are some questions to consider, depending on your situation; this isn’t an exhaustive list, but it will help guide the initial conversation.

  • Are our current management systems still appropriate given the growth we have experienced?
  • Are we spending more time managing administrative and data management tasks than we used to?  Do we still have enough time for strategic activities?
  • Are our current management systems giving us the information we need to manage risks and leverage opportunities?
  • Are our current management systems giving us the information we need to communicate effectively to our key stakeholders?
  • What are the environmental, social, or other liabilities that we have inherited through our mergers and acquisitions?  Have we updated our corporate responsibility strategy to address these liabilities?
  • Have we evaluated these liabilities against our risk management criteria and adjusted our priorities accordingly?
  • Do we have a plan to make sure our corporate sustainability performance measures and targets take into account the full range of our newly acquired business activities?
  • Are our communication strategy and crisis communication measures adequate to respond to stakeholder enquiries about legacy liabilities?
  • Are we taking full advantage of the new strengths we acquired in our merger or acquisition?
  • Do we have new stakeholders that we didn’t have before as a result of our growth?  How have we integrated the needs and expectations of these new stakeholders into our corporate responsibility strategy?
  • Are we aware of how the needs of our key stakeholders, including employees, customers, investors, and others, have changed over time, and have we updated our practices to meet those needs?
  • Do our existing practices stifle or encourage innovation?
  • Do we have barriers to adopting new and emerging technologies?

Exploring these and other probing questions will help to unpack the systemic and legacy issues that arise out of extreme organizational development, and ensure you are well prepared for the ongoing sustainability journey.

There are benefits to traveling light: mobility, agility, flexibility, security, economy, efficiency.  These benefits can accrue to organizations that are mindful about their baggage.

 

Next time, I’ll share some wisdom from the onboard briefing…

Collaboration as Competitive Advantage

As I discussed in an earlier post, social media have enabled a shift in information and communications flow from a traditional mass-media “push” model, in which a company may craft and deliver a message to its stakeholders (often a different message for different stakeholders), to a “pull” model, in which company and stakeholders are on a more even footing, and what is being said by one may be heard by all.  In this “pull” model, stakeholders themselves define their own information requirements and actively seek out the sources, connections, and networks that will meet them.

While this might seem scary to some, it also represents one of the great opportunities that social media offers:  collaboration.  If you view each one of these voices not as a threat but as an opportunity to engage and to learn, you can leverage social media to add value to your business.
How? Read on!

The CSR debate: what are you saying?

I had the pleasure this morning of taking in the spirited webcast, “CSR and the Role of Business Today”, hosted by public interest communications firm, Fenton, and featuring a group of A-list CSR advocates and detractors.  The list and biographies of panelists, and a link to a video of the debate, are available here.

Throughout the debate, there were many fine points eloquently made by the panelists, and I encourage you to view the video of the debate, if you were not able to watch it live.  (Even if you did see it, you might get more out of it watching a second time, as I did.)  In particular, if you are a CSR practitioner or advocate looking to strengthen your understanding or articulation of the context of and business case for CSR, you’ll find some good material here.

I won’t reiterate all the debate highlights (you can check the Twitter feed, using the hashtag #CSRdebate, for the play-by-play), but I would like to consider the anti-CSR case in more detail.  Specifically, I found the arguments made by Professor Aneel Karnani and Chrystia Freeland disingenuous; let me explain why. Read on!

A new “standard” is needed for claims

Twice in recent months, I’ve read about companies getting into hot water over their handling of damage claims in the wake of accidental events.

First, BP was taken to task for using waivers and spill settlement agreements that limited the right of volunteer oil-spill responders and coastal residents to sue the company (BP told to stop distributing oil spill settlement agreements, CBS News, May 3 2010).  Then, in August, similar complaints were leveled against Enbridge, following its pipeline spill in Michigan, alleging residents who were filing for damages were required to sign a “full and final settlement release form” that discharged liability against the company (Enbridge denies allegations of coercion, Globe and Mail, September 1 2010).

In both cases, the companies argued the forms they were using were “standard” forms (BP admits “misstep” over oil spill claims waivers, Reuters, May 3 2010).

I understand the need for the companies to establish a robust claims process and to protect themselves from illegitimate and unreasonable claims.  However, in these cases, the “standard” of care was inappropriate and unfair. Continue reading

%d bloggers like this: