This week Barack Obama addressed the citizens of the U.S., commenting on what his administration will be doing in response to the events that have unfolded in the Gulf of Mexico over the past two months. It’s hard to grasp the scope of such a tragedy, especially for the families of the 11 workers killed in the initial explosion. No matter what one thinks of Obama’s remarks, it’s quite obvious that dealing with the aftermath – environmentally, politically, economically, socially, ethically – will take a tremendous amount of effort and resources. And of course, there will be the entire range of comments and emotions about those efforts and resources.
I have had a few discussions about these issues and inevitably corporate social responsibility, or something similar, comes to the forefront of the conversation. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been something of a buzzword topic for the past ten or fifteen years, and as such, it also comes with a range of comments and emotions.
I recently read “The Starbucks Experience” by Joseph Michelli. In this book Michelli summarizes the history of Starbucks and it’s tremendous growth since 1992, and offers five principles that he believes are the reason for this growth. In discussing his fifth principle, “Leave Your Mark”, he addresses the issue of CSR in a way that I think summarizes it very well. Michelli offers the definition of corporate social responsibility suggested by Steve Priest, founder of Ethical Leadership Group, which I think is helpful.
“A company is socially responsible if it takes seriously its obligations to all of its stakeholders. It’s not about whether a company sponsors local events or environmental programs, or has a foundation that gives money to charitable causes. It’s about developing a reputation of integrity so there is trust with employees, investors, customers, suppliers, and their communities” (pg. 156).
Michelli also comments, “If for no other reason than to allay consumer wariness, leaders are well advised to lift their eyes from the bottom line and consider their communities. Businesses that thrive today are led by managers who understand the importance of investing in their people (beyond a competitive salary) and in their neighborhoods (both proactively and responsively). Multiple research studies have found that
– People prefer to do business with and work for socially conscious companies.
– The most talented and qualified applicants are increasingly considering a company’s ethics and community support when selecting their employer.
– Employee morale is three times higher in firms that are actively involved in the community than in their less-involved counterparts.
– When employees’ work environments match their personal values, they are more productive.
– Companies that focus on environmental impact typically are valued up to 5 percent higher than comparable organizations without that focus.
– The participation of employees in community-based activities strengthens their teamwork, leadership skills, and corporate identity” (pg. 155-56).
Michelli’s comments offer plenty to think about, but this handful of points demonstrates that while the discussion around CSR may be varied and diverse, there are some very real benefits associated with it. Without question, it takes time, energy, and finances to address these issues effectively within an organization, but it would seem that those resources are a good investment with long term results.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, June 17th, 2010 at 10:39 am and is filed under Comments.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
The Gulf, Obama, and Starbucks
This week Barack Obama addressed the citizens of the U.S., commenting on what his administration will be doing in response to the events that have unfolded in the Gulf of Mexico over the past two months. It’s hard to grasp the scope of such a tragedy, especially for the families of the 11 workers killed in the initial explosion. No matter what one thinks of Obama’s remarks, it’s quite obvious that dealing with the aftermath – environmentally, politically, economically, socially, ethically – will take a tremendous amount of effort and resources. And of course, there will be the entire range of comments and emotions about those efforts and resources.
I have had a few discussions about these issues and inevitably corporate social responsibility, or something similar, comes to the forefront of the conversation. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been something of a buzzword topic for the past ten or fifteen years, and as such, it also comes with a range of comments and emotions.
I recently read “The Starbucks Experience” by Joseph Michelli. In this book Michelli summarizes the history of Starbucks and it’s tremendous growth since 1992, and offers five principles that he believes are the reason for this growth. In discussing his fifth principle, “Leave Your Mark”, he addresses the issue of CSR in a way that I think summarizes it very well. Michelli offers the definition of corporate social responsibility suggested by Steve Priest, founder of Ethical Leadership Group, which I think is helpful.
“A company is socially responsible if it takes seriously its obligations to all of its stakeholders. It’s not about whether a company sponsors local events or environmental programs, or has a foundation that gives money to charitable causes. It’s about developing a reputation of integrity so there is trust with employees, investors, customers, suppliers, and their communities” (pg. 156).
Michelli also comments, “If for no other reason than to allay consumer wariness, leaders are well advised to lift their eyes from the bottom line and consider their communities. Businesses that thrive today are led by managers who understand the importance of investing in their people (beyond a competitive salary) and in their neighborhoods (both proactively and responsively). Multiple research studies have found that
– People prefer to do business with and work for socially conscious companies.
– The most talented and qualified applicants are increasingly considering a company’s ethics and community support when selecting their employer.
– Employee morale is three times higher in firms that are actively involved in the community than in their less-involved counterparts.
– When employees’ work environments match their personal values, they are more productive.
– Companies that focus on environmental impact typically are valued up to 5 percent higher than comparable organizations without that focus.
– The participation of employees in community-based activities strengthens their teamwork, leadership skills, and corporate identity” (pg. 155-56).
Michelli’s comments offer plenty to think about, but this handful of points demonstrates that while the discussion around CSR may be varied and diverse, there are some very real benefits associated with it. Without question, it takes time, energy, and finances to address these issues effectively within an organization, but it would seem that those resources are a good investment with long term results.
This entry was posted on Thursday, June 17th, 2010 at 10:39 am and is filed under Comments. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.