Some people think I have a "thing" about heart, because I was born on Valentine's Day. Most of us know that the heart is easily associated with love, romance, Valentine's Day. Many people forget what I have been on the fast track to learn, heart implies courage. In fact, the French word for "heart" is le coeur, which means "courage." Leading change takes that kind of courage. It is courage that comes from the heart.
Being a women in today's workforce takes courage. And yes, I will readily admit anyone living today - man, woman or child- needs courage. Yet it is becoming common knowledge that the decisions women have to make regarding going to work, take extreme measures and the constant pressure of making difficult decisions.
Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook has been on the speaking circuit. More recently, Sheryl presented at TED and asked the question, Why women are dropping out of the workforce." This takes real courage. Sheryl has formulate a message that is quite remarkable for an c-level executive in business creating new markets; in a new like the burst and bubble created by Amazon and Google.
One of the questions that Sherly asks in the talk is, "What can we do as individuals to keep women from dropping out? The numbers are clear right now. Women only retain leadership positions in
As heads of state; there are 9 females out of a total of 109 heads of state.
As elected officials of parliaments at a rate of 13%;
As C-level leaders or Board of Directors in Corporations at 15-16%
In non-profits at 20%
These figures have not changed since 2000 and they are going in the wrong direction.
Sheryl also describes why for women it comes down to what I feel is a form of great courage that is involved in waking up each day and making difficult decisions.The fact of the matter is that now more than ever, women need to earn and in a form of "right livelihood," that supports them long term to assure their health, sustainability, professional credentialling and retirement, whether married or not married. But the context of helping a woman to be more successful in the workplace is often left to HR policies and procedures that are important, but not sufficient. Most of the times they don't address very systemic issues.
For example, you can get a generous amount of time off for doctors appointments and visits to your child's school, but doctors and schools don't very often conduct themselves with a rationale for what it means to be working and care for children. Frequently you hear academics and medical professionals, say that a parent is not doing enough.
Yet in Harlem, where there is now a leading mentoring program for youth designed and implemented; every mentor is taught that each child has a parent working 2-3 jobs just to keep a family with a roof over their head. This is an economic and systemic issue; not enough jobs, not enough education for parents to get reasonable paid wages and too many people working in environments where they are treated like indentured servants. I have worked in a few contract consulting settings with top firms and been treated that way.
Elaine Cohen, @elainecohen as author of CSRforHR, has taken the lead to describe that in her book and the implications and power that Human Resources has in any structure to impact these important organization HR activities.
However, my work in examining sustainable health and the building of the Thought Leadership for AboutWorkEcology --- goes into a more strategic layer of work that requires learning and the intersection of combining brilliant minds with sweet heart drawn from government, industry and non-governmental organizations.
The economic crisis we find ourselves in globally, now implies that people in small thoughtful groups lead change and author "stories of meaningful use.' So while I continue my research and writing and everything else I do, I discovered that in addition to Sheryl Sandberg, I could bring my heart to Facebook and build a community who wants to learn from authoring with me the Story of Meaningful Use, which is the name of my Facebook Group. So now I offer two invitations here,
Sometime in the late 80's, I contributed a chapter to George Simons book, Transcultural Leadership. While I contributed as senior editor to the design of a strong message for market; my contribution from a contributing author was based on this question: What is now implied by women enterring the workforce rapidly? What was not being addressed that went beyond issues of Mars versus Venus.
What was going to happen at home, to children, the earlier traditions of caregiving. How was the cost of going to work going to effect family budgets. Little did I know at that time, the real issue would grow into an economic disparity issue; as downsizing accelerated, hence fewer jobs, the newhousehold tradition would reshape into reliance on two income and everything else this implied.
I had no idea at that time my own journey as a single parent would require me to find the courage to make the continuous decisions about my life relative to others I loved and worked with that were difficult and sometimes unkind.
LIttle did I know my life lesson lesson would include becoming that kind of person; the person who had to use their heart everyday to find courage. Getting down to business for me is now about organizing my work, shaping my learning activities to focus on how to accelerate sustainable economic change. so that the way people work can sustain them to care for others who may take ill or grow old. Most important the way we work needs to shpae into assuring our childrencan learn to sustain emotionally and economically while growing up and learn the habits of healthy living.
Take a minute to sign on to my FB page, The Story of Meaningful Use FB page. If you are linked in anways to Sheryl Sandberg, to send her this post as my invitation to her to write the preface for my book. My book speaks to the need for change, the changes that have already occurred and the changes forming to build a sustainable world of work and health that grows of societal scale so people can work wisely to live well. It offers the values that underscore this change, how value creation can occur and most important where value can be created as a step toward building a sustainable economy.
I am doing my best right now with people I work with and collaborate with to shape a series of business books that convey that foundation of values, the value creation emerging and more important show that business can make money, do good and be kind so more people can sustain and we end this nightmare that Hazel Henderson so aptly describes as The Money Fix.
Alice Korngold in her 2011 predictions,outlined the agenda this implies for sustainability, when she wrote on Fast Company's blog,
"The bottom line is that the world of empire, entitlement, and should is over. Going forward, more and more companies will engage in CSR--not because they should, but when it's in the best interests of the company and its shareholders to invest in the environment so that the company has renewable resources to manufacture its goods in the future; foster economic development to ensure that workers and customers will thrive in robust communities; provide workplace safety, education, and health care to ensure that it has a capable and productive workforce; improve communities where the company has a presence in order to foster government and public relations; deal fairly with indigenous people in order to access natural and renewable resources that the company needs for its products; and build its reputation among customers and stakeholders by respecting society's expectations with regard to the environment, human rights, and corporate ethics."
Alice provided a perspective in a long run on sentence. I am famous myself for writing sentences like this. Women like Alice and me, have a lot to say that we have created the audience for. Alice articulation of her view and business case always reflect good care and thought. Another activiyt of the heart.
This ambitious agenda is similar in value to what Sheryl Sandberg is speaking about. Sheryl also, states that it is probably that will not be carried out in full by our generation of leaders. I have felt that way for quite some time. And recently, I adopted a new attitude that I am asking on, I am developing a concrete foundation on which this change can occur and will occur.
In fact, I am doing more than my best to make this happen. In fact, I am doing what Sheryl advises women, I am forming partnerships with numerous men , primarily thought and practice leaders under 50, who want to work and be responsive to their families. Slowly and thoughtfully, I will identify these men in future posts.
Yesterday, one of them spent one and 1/2 hours with me yesterday doing more than any book agent can do, by getting me ready to give him a book table of contents and market plan that he can bring to editors in major publishers he knows. In fact, this conversation led to this post.
With this man and one other prospective partner, we are brainstorming how to build a virtual center of knoweldge exchange and insight that will also empower this change based on my formulation and their wonderful input. Stay tuned.....I believe at this time, my focus and perseverance is bringing me to something good.
I am becoming more efficient in my communications and with my heart, insuring I partner with people who are ready to act. The ideas in the blogsphere are numerous and the stories many. My forte is for leading change, building capacity and shaping the learning from which people can learn to know and act.
I look forward to having contact with you, if you are this kind of person. My plan is with all I doto build a foundation with partners that will stand with or without me; and I am going to do just that.
About a week before Christmas, I simply slowed down. Just before Christmas Day, I picked up my phone for the novelty of it all and called a few people I enjoy and admire.
The first person I called was @jan_morgan; Jan is one of my most favorite peeps in the #csr community nest of the world created by @elainecohen.
Just before Christmas Joe Sibilia, CEO, CSRwire.com, spoke about his powerful partnership with Jan. My quick summary is that Jan in this last year has woven into the heart and soul of CSRWire giving CSRwire the glue to bind more than 6,000 clients. Jan's enthusiasm, outlook and way of connecting is contagiously empowering and very kind.
Jan was of course working on a day that the office was closed because her staff informed her the day before that she had given them the day off and she forgot! She had booked herself for a day of conference calls.
At the start of our call, Jan told me she looked forward to " my big announcement"……..at the start of 2011.
I laughed and said, Oh…..I can see from how I tweeted that you might think I have some “big biz announcement.” In truth, I don’t think it is a really big announcement, I think it is more about making a statement after the New Year of how I plan to work.
Since early November more than 6 of the new and best CSR books prepublication and published have come to my desk. I am even proud to say I read all of them, including an early prepublication pre-peer review manuscript by @ericlowitt 's, Strategies for the Long Haul.
I began with Elaine Cohen's remarkable book, which is with all its detail is easy to digest through her conversational format of writing. Aman Singh, @vaultcsr, reviewed, recommended and described this book with her journalistic prowess. I took Elaine seriously when she told, “bring it on.” Elaine was inviting me to offer what I really think of her book. I grappled with this for a few weeks and even chatted a bit with Jan Morgan about it and then I realized how Elaine’s book CSR for HR, held meaning for me.
Elaine’s book is going to be featured as part of leadership curriculum that I am developing that will annotate and summarize all the books generously shared with me for review by Elaine, Aron Cramer, Joe Sebelius, Jeffrey Hollender, Carol Sanford, Dave Wann and Eric Lowitt. Okay I confess to am still waiting for @adamwerbach to send me a copy of his book. This annotation will be made available to subscribers of my new sustainability leadership teleconference series that I plan to launch in February. The learning group is for any leader or community organizer wanting to learn to embed a culture of sustainability into a leadership approach of sustainability.
Yet this idea was much too wide. I knew it could span a degree of thought that would burn out anyone. So I spent more quiet time, swimming a bit and meeting friend for for coffee and sharing a few late night calls. I used my meditation practice to find a more narrow sport from which to work that I could sustain and contribute value to an audience I really enjoy relating to.
While thinking through all of this from a professional view, I took sought out personal support as well. I participated in a conversation that began with a community of people linked to Joan Borysenko, @jzborysenko. Joan Borysenko began a personal examination of "burnout" for herself and discovered the topic was perfect for her 15th book.
I was drawn to this topic personally and from the perspective of sustainability. I believe ‘burnout’ holds real relevance to sustainability since CSR and Sustainability practices have grown in rapid popularity this year in response to economic, health and environmental burnout.
Often in the CSR, Sustainability world people express confusion and overwhelm. I think some of this overwhelm is also due to the experience people and company strategists or economic decision makers feel when a recession shadows everything they are doing to survive. Hence not only do many become personally depressed, many economic decision makers and leaders as a result of this depression obstruct change and cultural wellbeing because of what is implied by personal depression and a bottom line decline due to external events no one seems to be able to control.
So as a practitioner, I had to think about how I contribute to that and also how my work and pace was contributing to my own burnout.
Joan’s book arrived at my door just on time for my Christmas break from my twitter, hoot and blog dance.
The book now aptly titled Fried: Why You Burn Out and How to Revive, is a combination of quality neuroscience analysis of the growing rate of depression and its relationship to burnout; stories of how people experience burnout, and the passages for healing that people can consciously chose beyond simply fixing the symptoms with anti-depressants.
Most American in the state of the current economy would not be surprised to learn that Biopharm is in part a sustainable industry due to $9.6B in sales anti-depressants. Yet anti-depressants do not heal depression; they fix the symptoms. So what does it mean that the US gobbles 67% of the supply of anti-depressants on the market? If drugs aren't fixing the symptoms what will and can healing depression and the burnout that it implies lead to a more sustainable way of health?
Joan’s personal candor and sharing of her own experience with personal relationships and how her career is a valuable story for anyone working today in any profession or field. Her story of how she shifted from a career as a medical scientist in an academic medical school research settings led to her becoming licensed psychologist, who midwifed the field of mind body medicine while practicing in the Harvard Medical School affiliated Longwood Medical Area.
In some ways this experience runs a similar parallel to why so many professionals I know who are business leaders, environmental advocates, investors and financial analysts have chosen to become practitioners of CSR and Sustainability. I know it runs parallel to my own. Of a more synchronistic perspective, Joan and I went to the same high school, had offices across the street from each other and similar experiences with our father's end of life cycles that drew us together in FB, while we have never met in person. We even worked within the same medical community and share many of the same friends; but have very different paths.
As 2011 approached, I want to work to make this year blososm into the greatest impact I ccan have for my work. So I sought feedback from people I respect on how to shape that and I looked carefully at how people who engage with me suggest I shape my work for the “sale,’ where the sale does not imply the kind of work I want to do or the best result I can contribute to.
During a conversation with Joan's FB community about boundaries and self-love, I commented,
“If only the world I work in would catch up with this level of consciousness.”
This comment became the transition for into Fried's Chapter 6 – Letting Go and Moving On; a discussion on careers, burnout, when to move on and why.
Joan's offering clearly did not take into the account the challenge of today's economy. Where to go with that part of your considerations for a career integrating CSR and Sustainabililty is just one place and simple with an almost daily read of Aman Singh, @vaultcsr, on the state of the economy, jobs and working in CSR.
As anyone employed or not employed now knows, the most challenging place to do this kind of work beyond meeting “green requirements” and shifting practices to what @adamwerbach would call Blue Strategies is most challenging in any form of work related to personal health and well-being.
So if there is any big announcement from me this year. It starts simple, after producing the two series of blogs posts related to Seventh Generation and the CSRwire -Sanofi Aventis/Genzyme M/A Series, I had to pause. These posts were a result of a level of work that was intense, important and once completed opened me to some new thinking that is most critical to focusing my work and assuring its value.
My next couple of posts will start to roll that thinking out to you over the next week or two.
Happy New Year to all. I appreciate all my readers and the network of colleagues who take the time to read me. 2010 was a challenging year coming into the public view with my thinking and knowledge. I wish to personally thank Christine Arena, Elaine Cohen, Aman Singh, Susan McPherson, Jan Morgan, Joan Borysenko and others, who I will acknowledge in other ways. Thank you all your numerous generous contributions that often surprised me in form of reward that surprises you on a day when you are questionning yourself and wanting to assure value for your work.
Chuck Maniscalco's resignation as CEO of Seventh Generation in September, followed by Jeffrey Hollender's departure from Seventh Generation in October pushed me to think about leadership in a company committed to sustainable business practice and what that implies.
In the mix of my thinking, I recalled reading that Seventh Generation has $30M in investment lined up to expand and grow the company. So I began to wonder what does this imply or mean to all the stakeholders and its implication to leadership responsibility.
Seventh Generation is currently a privately held company, after a period of being a public company from 1993-2000. During its public status, its stock was never worth more than $5.00 per share. I cannot find any information on status of that $30M and its implication to the investment strategy or company incorporation.
In 2000, Jeffrey Hollender and others perceived that they had lost control of the company; and Hollender and 11 other investors bought back the shares for a premium to investors and took control of the company. At that time of transaction the stock was valued at $.87 and private investors bought out public shareholders for $1.30.
I believe that the way Seventh Generation - the board, stakeholders and current leadership prepare to measure Seventh Generation as an investment public or private for the future will be the critical to how a CEO is hired to replace Hollender and Maniscalco? The kind of CEO needed to answer to investors for a public traded company is very different than than a CEO preparing the company for IPO or a CEO hired by all stakeholders to lead solely focused on sustaining the company and guiding the adaption of the company strategy for the marketplace and regard to competition e.g. Clorox, Procter and Gamble or S E Johnson and Company?
Yet a $30M investment can also be an opportunity for a company to think of itself as an economy, create jobs and integrate a complete sustainability framework of continuous learning with regard for all stakeholder needs, where the needs of investors do not take priority over the needs of other stakeholders.
How do people think about "leadership?"
Leadership has become a buzz word like CSR and Sustainability.....yet in todays' world we are always looking for a leader to idolize or blame. We are quick to talk about leadership failure and the media has a constant our pouring of philosophical views on what it means to be a leader or what a leader did or did not do.
What we do not often talk about is what is a leader leading and for what reason in a context that goes beyond the idea that a leader heads something or sits over a group of people or is responsible for delivering on a promise.
Over the past decade leaders have come under microscopic view re: their behavior, value and ethics.
Rarely have I seen any leader judged or reviewed for his impact on an economy. Tyler Elm, past Senior Director, Corpoate Strategy and Finance, Wal Mart Stores, Inc. wrote in his foreward to Chris Laszlo's, Sustainable Value
I recall a colleague presenting me with the following statistic a few years ago: "Of the world's 100 largest economies, 42 are now corporations, not countries."....walmart Stores, ranked first on the Fortune 500 and approaching $350B in annual sales by 2007.
For 2010, the top 10 Fortune 500 companies again ranking Walmart as first followed by Exxon Mobil, Chevron, General Electric, Bank of America, ConocoPhillips, AT&T, Ford Motor, JP Morgan Chase and HP.
All these companies have the great impact on jobs and the economies local to their operations. These companies impact the health, well being, economic stability of the people they employ and all other stakeholders. Collusion, ignorance or an informed decision by any corporations of this size can impact millions of people that may have no direct involvement with a company in the way the BP Oil Spill impacted the Gulf Region of the US.
Yet in most instances corporations, their stakeholders and others do not think of a corporate system as a living economy. Living economies are geographical regions of dense populations of people who reside by each, who can experience direct and indirect harm due to economic decisions made by political, business or community leaders.
Residents within these economies can experience harm due to how economic decision makers carry out their jobs for people they perceive as their most immediate stakeholders without factoring in how a decision can create harm to health, the environment and a region, e.g. the BP Oil Spill. These decision makers make decisions from the view of benefit for their most immediate value chain of people, e.g. shareholders, investors, or customers.
What happens when leaders think of a company as an economy?
Two companies on the list of the top 10 Fortune 500 began a few years back at the leadership level began to think about the implications of company strategy and what that meants if the company stakeholders viewed a corporate strategy as a "economy." These two companies are Walmart and General Electric.
The Wikipedia about Walmart offers a thorough summary of how Walmart changed after embedding sustainability into the company culture. Walmart's CEO Lee Scott passed the baton to Michael Duke, after Duke was elected at the 2009 annual shareholders meeting. Scott has been serving as Duke's and will continue to as Chairman thru 2011. With Duke's appointment Walmart has expanded its application of sustainability in the company and throughout the global supply chain.
Walmart's format of success planning and strategy I believe is less relevant to Seventh Generation's needs today. I find the change that General Electric has gone through guided by Jeffrey Immelt much more relevant. GE like Walmart appointed a leader from within the company, unlike Walmart, this leader has been the one to embed sustainability into GE's business strategy and led a company through a culture of change that has included job creation, investment in new ventures and an outreach to its supply chain that is serving as a model for others.
GE has also developed and funded a non profit foundation with an educational focus. The GE Foundation foucs is on funding programs that supports US students to achieve a strong foundation in math and science. Skill in science, technology and math (STEM) are now viewed the most critical skills to learn as early as kindergarten, in order to join the new emerging sustainable workforce. Through GE's management education program, STEM skilled workers are supported to develop the emotional intelligence and holistic overview critical to working in a company that has integrated a sustainbility into its culture.
Jeffrey Immelt, Chairman and CEO followed decades of empowering a performance driven culture as led by Jack Welch. Welch was Chairman and CEO of General Electric from 1981 to 2001. During Jack's reign, the company culture was described as "the Welch Way.". There are many books and stories about how Jack led GE and what his values and leadership implied to others.
While Jack Welch fostered a system of professional development and management education in General Electric that is globally respected, the Welch Way has been replaced by an integrated sustainability strategy that fosters people as corporate citizens who define their work from a perspective of CSR through a new lens of what it means to integrate sustainability into a culture of change. Jeffrey Immelt began fostering GE's culture with this view when he followed Welch became CEO and Chairman of GE in 2002. Jeffrey, like Michael Duke of Walmart had a long career internal to the company where he was promoted to Chair and CEO. Immelt's personal choice was to lead his company to embed sustainability into its culture.
By 2008, Immelt began describing himself as a banker with "deep pockets, who also invested in people. Immelt differentiates himself from an investment firm because he devised and put into practice a sustainability framework that defined how General Electric could lead the world into the building of a sustainable economy describing practices within the company, plans for how to work with the supply chain. Outside of GE, Immelt announced and carried through on plans to invest in new ventures that are not entirely owned by GE. In some cases these small enterprises are competitors to GE divisions and businesses; creating a social network of coopetition as part of the GE Culture.
Immelt outlined this framework, September 2008 to students at University of Berkley, Hass School of Business. I have since listened to this video personally over 10 times as a source of influence for my own thinking on Sustainable Strategy, Leadership and Change. Immelts presentation to me has served to be one of the most practical guides for how I define, coach and think about leadership for any company. I view this as a manifesto of change for the 21st century.
While Immelt and GE's executive team were outperforming the stock which from 2004-2006 traded at about $35.00 a share; Immelt showed his belief in a company that under Welch grew into a performance driven culture. It is now 2010 and GE's stock value is at a low of $16.22 and considered a good stock pick with a outstanding portfolio of new innovative businesses in wind and bioscience and more. For all appearances, it appears that GE has become a culture of innovation and transformed from a culture of performance. Yet doesn't innovation imply performance?
In someways, Immelt and his teams' performance and leadership approach remind me Procter and Gamble as led by both John Pepper and Al Laffley. Laffley will step down in July and be replace by Bob MacDonald. What all these men share in common are their passion for developing people, investing in them, and supporting foundation activity that impacts the healthy and education of future generations.
What have I learned from Jeffrey Immelt, P&G and others I view as Sustainability Leaders?
1. They think! Each person presents when they speak publically provides a thought leadership and frameworkof learning and practice; they do not impose their will on others. These leaders offer their thought leadership as something for personal translation and relevance.
2. They ask questions! These leaders don't come on stage presenting their way of doing business as "the way." These men speak in plain english with out jargon in a form of authenticity that opens the door of possibility for another person to learn from and adapt for their own personal model of guidance.
3. They value others! They invest in people. Immelt made this clear in his presentation at UC Berkeley Hass. I have watched John Pepper as a long time observer of his work at P&G and Disney do this over and over again. Pepper pays attention to people by observation and reflection. without speaking and invited people into conversation without regard for hierachy. I have watched both Immelt and Pepper recognize value in network rather than hierachy.
4. These leaders invest in education and professional development for the people they work with. When these leaders ask for proposals, they view that proposals imply an investment in time, learning and resource allocation. Learning implies embracing failure and they insure that in any company they work in there is a professional development and education system that supports people to apply their learning on the job.
5. These leaders proactively respond to marketplace change. The video provided here shows how Immelt has responded to the demand of change re: energy, environment and health. At P&G, Pepper was the first leader to acknowledge the need to reward brand managers for retiring products out of date and innovating new products; Lafley took on the integenerational and cultural changes of his consumers working with his team to conduct research on the appeal of products and formulas for age and country. Bob MacDonald is now facing a frugal market that is not as brand loyal to Tide, Gillette or Olay and showing price points matter as much as brand.
6. These leaders have a strong value for sustainability. . I believe that Immelt, Pepper, Lafley and MacDonald not only embrace the company mission but line up the company strategy, organization and practices to take on the challenge of the times. GE and P&G have a history and score card of leaders of specific business units that shaped their jobs and response to the challenge their CEO embraced.
7. Each of these leaders is involved in mentoring the next generation by funding and building programs that invest in youth education, health and job creation.
These CEO's also know how to stand by people they work with, who worked hard to learn from failure. They continually let others lead with their own personal autonomy and don't perceive the job of a CEO is about taking credit for what others do. Recent reports from GE re: Ecoimagination and Healthymagination offer these stories. There are many stories in the business literature about P&G and some of their leaders who had the gumption to act on intuition and gut and create exceptional results.
What does this Manifesto imply to Seventh Generation?
Jeffrey was Seventh Generation's spokesperson. There is no replacement for Jeffrey's voice.I don't know Peter, I don't know if he is a leader or simply an investor who has inherited a lead position with a community now seeking leadership. At the, I wonder if Seventh Generation in its transition will rely on "a leadership voice" or inspire many voices offering different perspectives for a variety of topics e.g. stock value,chemicals and more.
What can Seventh Generation learn from Procter and Gamble and General Electric where it contributes to images of a generation of healthy workers, who work wisely to live well and contributes to what WorkEcology's Contributing Editor, Dave Wann would call the New Normal.
For now, I am looking to Seventh Generation to learn how the board responds to filling its leadership gap; and how the board begins repair of a failed succession plan. To me the real preparation re: succession is not in finding "a replacement leader;" it is how the people who worked for the most recent leader are prepared to respond to change and do their jobs with or without the appointment of a new leader.
I asked myself, "What I would do if I was Peter Graham or actually working at Seventh Generation?" My approach would be similar to the answer to the question John Pepper asked me years ago. When John Pepper asked me what I wanted to do at P&G at a time P&G was preparing for change, my answer was this:
1. I would meet with every employee in any business unit I was assigned where I could have impact to find out how they want to give their best performance;
2. I would synthesize this into a report into a learning report and present the report to everyone influenced by these employees (all stakeholders) or seved by these employees and convene a meeting to launch a learning community with representation from the investors.
In addition, I would place this list of intention on a wall above my desk with guidelines for my own behavior:
1. Make no assumptions about what I want to do.
2. Find out what others want to do and where they have not been heard and provide people a framework to request what they needed to give their best performance?
3. Compare all the requests and see where there are replications and ask people who replicated each other to meet in small groups and unite in a new proposal framework?
4. Map out a base of operation that cannot change that keeps the company stable with the leaders of all operational aspects of the company.
5. Select a person on the transition team as acting CEO, with the understanding that the CEO job description will be written at the end of one year and there will be a recruitment process created at that time to select a CEO based on insuring a CEO who is respected by investors and representation from all stakeholder groups.
6. Ask everyone to map out how they Seventh Generation can define itself as an economy, similar to GE and Walmart or if it can? Guide a cultural shift in view beyond how people's jobs are defined; and imagine how Seventh Generation can create an exemplary performance in the contet of the Earth Charter's Precautionary Prinicple.
7. Run an election for all stakeholder participation to recommend people to participate in a transition leadership team. Bring to this team a specific list of legitimate competencies and skill requirements that are needed now for the company to perform in a stable form?
8. Survey all stakeholders to submit a list of values, ethics and principles that matter to the all stakeholders in how Seventh Generation operates in the world?
9. Finally, create a review and final summary for the transition team to review and approve. Begin to see who within the transition team is demonstrating leadership and taking responsibility and let them author formal job descriptions reflecting this and prepare their own metrics for performance review.
At the end of 1 year have a meeting with the investors to review performance and get their feedback. Take the investor feedback and begin a new stage of work
Then for begin a new stage of work as follows:
1. Select a group of people who do not ordinarily work together to begin to identify views, perspectives that have not previously been discussed in the company that others would like to learn more about.
2. Begin to build out a method for a community to form a continuous learning group that identifies activities of learning important for the future of the company for which the company does not have resources or people in place to evaluate the implications of what is identified as a learning ladder for the company to sustain and operate with stability.
3. Based on these intentions and principles of behavior and practice, begin bi-weekly meetings of everyone on the transition team to continually review and audit the process and improve on the process based on the outcomes harvested and the observations of the transition team and well defined methods of review with representation of all stakeholders.
Why value this approach?
In my experience many companies formed out of an entreprenuerial vision become about the founding heroes or an idea of how to protect the original intent and product line of a company. I believe one of the most challanging transitions to any company today, is to create an activity drawning on input and participation from all stakeholders to examine how a company brings life to the economy it contributes to or creates.
Anyone who takes a look at the story of Walmart, GE and Disney through 2000, will see that that company story is about what the leaders want and do. Today Walmart, GE and Disney that have taken their portfolio of assets, knowledge and talent and shaped those assets into something of value in many different forms for millions of people.
My belief is that this is the most critical leadership framework any company can create for itself and through observation I can now see that if the CEO's or Chair's of each of these companies mention were unable to perform their job, there are many other people who can continue with inspiring and acting on what really matters and is reflected in the purpose each of these companies has integrated into their strategies, decisions, products and services that delivers on a brand of with a reputation for influencing society today to work toward sustainable change and inject life into our global economy for people, planet and environment.
My own work now is to test this manifesto within communities of people I engage with out of my own passion to empower companies to create a societal scale means of healthy living for people of all generations.
Seventh Generation like many companies I know is at the threshold of contributing to building a great capacity of health and wellness for generations to come. I hope that the company can muster their capacity to do this at a global scale and make that difference. This is why I have always believed in Seventh Generation as a potential investment and a company deserving of my attention as a sustainability leader and consumer.
Will Seventh Generation, grow, become public or stay private, sustain the same culture, use a $30M investment? I have lots of questions to watch for answers. At the same time, based on my Lavinia Homegrown Manifesto, what can I predict? I can't predict anything at this time.
My approach to learning is to simply join a conversation if the door is open for that or to simply observe. From a distance, my instincts tell me not to predict or place bets and to identify the people who roll up their sleeves like I do to do the hard work of change and to see how they work as a community to build the company future.
Key to this approach is a recognition that Seventh Generation is a living social network of economy where it is up to the leaders to sustain this economy for eco-growth and safe chemical practices.
Comments on the Seventh Generation Blog announcing the departure of Jeffrey Hollender reflected teh tradition of protest from consumers that lacked the depth of educated analysis on a very complex topic.One consumer offered a link to the NAD post and positioned Seventh Generation as a green washer who used false advertising tactics. Mixed in with the post were protest-driven remarks about Seventh Generation adding Walmart to its distribution channels.
Last week, I featured a post that spoke of the end of an era of doing business led by a CSR hero and offered a more balanced overview for any reader from any sector in terms of the evolution of Seventh Generation (and for that matter any CSR company with a heroic founder).
CSR advocacy and protesting is often based on the mixing of "apples and oranges" that should have been give more careful analysis. Recent press suggested that Hollender has been fired and is taking the fall for Seventh Generation distribution through Walmart and other mainstream channels. Others insisted Hollender took the fall for describing Seventh Generation products as "natural" when chemicals are in use.
I offered this viewpoint on the Seventh Generation Blog with this comment:
There is a reality not spoken here that has to do with price points and innovation. It is similar to some of the challenges in the biopharm market today.
Pricepoints for new products is often higher. The LOHAS (Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability) for years had a price point higher than usual retail or discount chains. The market research of the 90's showed that people would go into Whole Foods and spend more on Muir Organic tomatoes before they would go to Walmart. Walmart sold the same product.
It was presumed that the market of LOHAS folks would not go to WalMart.
The economy has changed and consumer profiles have changed. What people spend on anything now has changed. If the expenditure is for a product that is new and not as easy to purchase, they will pay a high price point. Look at what happened to Apple: Apple is now accessible to everyone.
The other issue is health. The new generation of parents are wise, organic and green and select this way of life no matter their politics. They live within their means and not on credit.
Hence the Seventh Generation customer has changed, the market has changed and step by step, practices and markets are emerging that base their purchases more on education of ingredients and less on who the person is behind the brand.
I received an email about my post from Germany pointing out that I did an analysis that was not about CSR martyrdom.
CSR is a buzz in journalism. In life it is a quiet practice that is not about personality. It is about finding a "new normal."
To stay viable and sustainable, Seventh Generation will have to find a "new normal."
T
I also have this view regarding chemicals and #safechem practices that is not easily understood by manufacturers, consumers and government. Safe chemical practices implies finding substitutes for chemicals in use. The cost for innovation and research for finding substitutes is often beyond what one company can fund on their own.
In June 2010, I attended the American Sustainable Business Council Meeting on safe chemical practices in Washington DC. Hollender was a panelist where he spoke clearly about his commitment to transparency and the challenges and needs to build a safe chemical practice.
Through his leadership, Jeffrey Hollender has invested in educating people to the needs for a Safer Chemicals practice. I have dedicated four years of time to research on this topic as well that include my investigations of the impact of REACH and Green Chemistry. While Jeffrey and I do not agree on method and approach, at least we are both doing something about the issue.
I am always open to meeting with Jeffrey and Procter and Gamble at the same table to work out our disagreements with other experts presesnt to forge ahead on a new innovative practice with others to work out an approach to safer chemicals that can accelerate change, research and innovation. I
I know that this new method of practice for chemicals is not going to be sparked by new regulations. I also know I cannot depend on businesses alone innovating these practices in a vacuum.
Seventh Generation and Procter and Gamble responded to the claims of greenwash and false advertising that reflects their practice of transparency while they both continue to be change agents who impact the world to build a sustainable economy. Procter and Gamble, like other companies similar in size such as General Electric and Walmart, are altering the way they work, globally influencing changes with their supply chains, global consumer communities and internal practices.
With the departure of Hollender, Seventh Generation as a company faces a door of change where the its future is not clear. Once a new permanent CEO is selected, it may neither achieve nor accelerate a sustainable agenda and grow into a global giant. The world of Safer Chemicals also requires a response different than what has already been authored by GE, Walmart and P&G. I know this with certainty.
In my investigation on how to impact and lead change for Safer Chemicals, I have been digging more deeply into the history of oil spills before BP and thinking through the challenges of supply chains in working with manufacturers to assure Safe Chemicals and replace harmful chemicals. I am learning as much as I can in between all I do. Riki Ott's NOT ONE DROP is becoming my primary resource.
I have been a supporter of chemical-related REACH legislation in the European Union since its inception and have recently come to realize the bureacracy and cost of REACH in addition to how the US-proposed TSCA Reform is not addressing the real issue. The amount of chemical used is not addressing the actual dose of chemical it takes to cause harm.
Recently, I received a copy of Green Chemistry is Good For Business, a letter posted on Forbes.com by Craig S. Criddle, Robert G. Bergman and their colleagues at Stanford and UC Berkeley. Their post validates the concerns I am synthesizing through my own research on Safer Chemical and Non Ionizing Radiation Practices.
Written as a response to California's Bad Chemistry, Dr. Henry I. Miller's post on Forbes.com, the authors state that the California Green Chemistry Initiative is a "proactive regulatory effort" to create a process to "identify chemicals of the greatest concern [and] provide an analysis of safer alternatives."
By contrast, the Forbes blog post from Dr. Miller is written from a narrow view similar to the original post from Aneel Kunarni that sparked the #csrdebate in September. I feel that this post invites a similar debate with representatives who are working in the arena to eliminate harm to human health and environment through chemical toxicity.
Our public health research is always ahead of public opinion and government capability. My belief is that there are many good people working in manufacturing that stay abreast of the current public health research and opinion and the cost of media, promotion and education is exceeding the investment that many good people want to invest in programs of Safer Chemicals.
The Swedish-based non-profit ChemSec.org has become a premier example of a non-monetary incubator that can influence manufacturing and supply chains directly. Funding sources for this kind of venture are sourced through a lot of hard work and energy.
The expense of media, protest, debate, lobbying, drafting and campaign for legislation is costly and the time lines to organize laws out of fear continue to be the dominant drivers for change reported on by the press.
I believe we need to develop new formats of innovation and communities of practice that lead this change. It is not going to come from the tradition of how science, advocacy and business has worked in the past. It is going to invite new forums of communities of practice, like the forum my partners and I are launching for WE Care Global Health.
I have a professional background as a health care program manager, leader and capacity building of change. I have a personal passion for working on a safe chemical practice and defining a new capacity to insure every person's right to the best health possible in a world where one out of two people are likely to encounter chronic illness.
I am one person of millions of men, women and children who lives with a chronic illness due to unsafe use of chemicals. As a former health care program leader and manager, I understand more than most that safe chemical practices may in fact be the one of the best vehicles for reducing health care costs in the United States and any country if a perspective of "do no harm" is integrated into how we live, consume and care for health.
An advocacy approach to attack Seventh Generation or Procter and Gamble will not build the capacity we need in a sustainable economy to build safe chemical practices to "do no harm." We need new methods of building capacity, funding research and resources to manage the use of chemicals and identify chemicals that are hazardous no matter their volume of use. The amount of chemical in use is never the issue; it is the impact of chemicals of any amount that can be hazardous.
Jeffrey Hollender and I do agree on the importance of convening people of different views to a table to work on this issue. I believe this table has to invite representatives from industry, government and the non-profit sector to pull together to do the hard work, rather than simply present what each person is doing to contribute from the perspective of the sector in which they work.
I view there is a need to stop investing in educating politicians and congressional working groups to the need and how to author legislation and invite them to invest resources into community of practices who will seek out the right education on chemicals to find replacement for toxic chemicals or determine "precautionary toxic chemical use."
It is my goal to continue to contribute to build a new forum of "sustainable excellence," that impacts the health of women, children and men battling chronic illness as a result of exposure to chemical, environmental and non ionizing radiation.
While I happen to be a citizen who lives with the impact of this harm on my own health, I am also a former health care program manager, business woman and capacity builder. I have learned to live as best I can with my health challenges while developing the skill and capacity to define the necessary agenda to build "sustainable excellence" for the health and well-being of all global citizens. While this work is challenging on many fronts, it is the only way I know how to make a difference in a confusing world where chaos and protest often obstruct healthy progress.
If Seventh Generation, any company, consumer or politician wants to support this form of capacity building, I welcome any support in which to build this kind of forum of "sustainable excellence."
It was a challenge this weekend to try to make sense of what Jeffrey Hollender's departure from Seventh Generation represents. It inspired in me some thinking that was completely unexpected and actually resulted in my completing a draft chapter for my book, Tales of Meaningful Use.
Background for this Post
By the end of the weekend, Bernie Kelly, my partner in Melbourne AU, read the draft and we took some time on Skype to look at the implications of what I wrote in this book chapter to the current stage of our progress to convene the WeCareHealth Community in Australia. As a result of my conversation with Bernie, we decided that the draft chapter as written now is something we wanted to have reviewed by the people who are forming into our global alliance advisory group and our launching partners for our project in Australia.
I shared this draft chapter with numerous people I turn to for advice before the end of the weekend. It became clear that this draft chapter was a valuable piece of work that could leverage a dialogue of relevance for Seventh Generation that I want to give much greater thought to. Bernie Kelly and I have decided to do just that and mapped out a process for the chapter review that we will be acting on beginning next week to incubate our next stage of work and action research with people we trust.
By reflecting on these words, I found myself writing this post.
This important question helped me see how the draft book chapter I wrote shed light on Jeffrey Hollender's departure.
1. Can Anyone Replace Jeffrey Hollender?
After I completed my "business analysis" of the implications of the Board's resolve to let go of Jeffrey Hollender, I thought back to two years ago when a very important person in my life, Rabbi Alan Lew, went for a jog at a rabbinical retreat where he was teaching in Baltimore and fell to the ground dead. His heart had finally given out. Alan was a very important person in my life, like Jeffrey Hollender is to many people I know in CSR. I happened to be in San Francisco the day Alan died, where I had lived for 10 years. So I joined his congregation and very sizeable personal network of people for a week to celebrate Alan's life.
A few years before Alan passed away, he had decided, like Jeffrey, to start a transition in his congregation and prepare them for a new congregational leader. Alan's talent and capacity as a human being related to spirituality, social justice and hospice had woven into his life a demand on his time from an international audience that was hard to tend to while tending to the needs of his local congregation in San Francisco where he lived.
The first rabbi hired to replace Alan failed and was fired. A search for a second rabbi took considerable time and I had occasion to talk to to two of the candidates that did not end up with an offer. In the Jewish Community it has been a repeated pattern that when a "beloved rabbi" transitions into retirement or moves on to a respected global role, the rabbi that is hired to replace the "beloved" rabbi lasts less than a year.
I actually know a "beloved rabbi" that was hired away from a congregation in the Southeast US and brought to replace another "beloved rabbi" in Southern California. So after serving one congregation flawlessly for 25 years, this rabbi was rejected by a new congregation in one year.
As I thought of this and Jeffrey Hollender, I was left with the question, can anyone really replace Jeffrey Hollender at Seventh Generation?
2. Was Peter Graham behaving like John Sculley at Apple in 1985?
By Tuesday afternoon, I was completely confused by @janmorgan's remark on Twitter: "Jeffrey Hollender gets the boot." The previous week, Seventh Generation had released its annual CSR report. In that report was a letter from Jeffrey and the CEO that had been selected to replace Jeffrey who had also recently left his post at Seventh Generation. What the heck was Jan Morgan talking about?
As the news of Jeffrey's departure leaked into digital ink on the Web, I found a blog post from @marcgunther on the “sad and shocking news”. This was the first report I could find about the incident that was grounded in some fact and contained a message from the Chairman of the Board, Peter Graham, who described Jeffrey's departure and the current goals of the company. Peter Graham is a friend of Hollender's dating back to childhood. Hollender's wife is also a significant shareholder and board member. One could only imagine the kind of tension this implies.
As I read the detail offered by Marc, this situation reminded me of the episode of change at Apple when John Sculley, Apple's CEO recruited from Pepsi, fired the founder, Steve Jobs. Recently, Sculley apologized to Jobs. It is now 20 years past this episode. It made me wonder: As years pass, what will shape from this episode in the story of Seventh Generation?
I have been a follower of the Apple story back to its founding. I became an even more serious follower when Jeffrey Pfeffer, faculty at Stanford Business School, summarized his analysis of the cost to Apple of hiring Sculley as CEO and Sculley then firing Steve Jobs. Pfeffer’s book, The Human Equation, provided a remarkable analysis of the cost and impact of this change within cycles of ups and downs at Apple.
There had been rumors of a growing tension between Chuck Maniscalco and Jeffrey. Like Sculley, Maniscalco has a Pepsico background as a President of a $10 billion division of Pepsico. This made me wonder if Maniscalco was acting as Sculley did, driving a company with a story and history of leadership and product excellence into the ring of operation dominated by brand and advertising operations?
I did a bit of a check-in and thought about other CEOs pushed out of service, e.g. HP's Marc Hurd, Carly Fiorina and Disney's Michael Eisner, and the rocky times those transitions created for these companies. Then I thought about a CEO who was not managed by his board and stakeholders, who led a very healthy company into decline and near death, Ken Olsen. Ken was founder and CEO of Digital Equipment Corporation.
3. What do these CEO departures have in common?
By week's end, Elaine Cohen’s post in support of Jeffrey offered an emotionally mature view from the position that as an outsider looking in, we may never know the real story. Her post also offered a very human side from the heart that spoke about the Jeffrey's contribution to the world of CSR. Elaine, with a posture of dignified emotional intelligence, expressed her concerns for the implications of this abrupt departure. She summarized her view and what this meant to CSR and Seventh Generation, its future, its performance and its moral, ethical and stand on transparency.
After reading Elaine's post, I ran into a couple I am friendly with at Whole Foods Market on Saturday morning. The two were taking a morning to relax with no plans. They were both exhausted. The previous day, my woman friend had lived through a pink slip session at Genzyme of 100 layoffs. Her life-partner told me they were were both vegging and he was going to cook and pamper her the entire weekend.
My woman friend currently works in a company that is going through the stress of change. If you read reports about Genzyme in the paper, the problems with the bad performance of the CEO, Henri Temeer, and the harm to Genzyme's reputation and performance have been spiralling since 2009. The Board went through a period of tension without being aligned, and now in light of the Sanofi bid to purchase Genzyme the board is aligned on one thing and one thing alone: The estimated share value of $89.00 they want from the sale of the company.
By the time I got home, I thought: Seventh Generation is not for sale like Genzyme, it is not being acquired, it is positioned for growth, its products continue to be relevant more than before. But the Founding CEO, the Board members and a short-term CEO, now candidate for the next generation of leadership, are all at odds and brought Seventh Generation into a transition grounded in a form of conflict—and that can result in harm.
4. What about the people?
Whatever I think of Jeffrey Hollender, Peter Graham or anyone in their networks of outreach, at this time, I am left with the same question Elaine and Aman asked at the end of the BSR conference: What about the people?
As a person more mature in years and age with a history of experience in the generation of CSR and Sustainability as a global practice, I have lots of opinions, stories and more. Some of them are now in my new book chapter.
In writing my book chapter, I concluded, as I often do with any project I work on: How has the leader I am writing about altered the lives of the people this person worked with, and what does his absence imply to these people?
My first answer is this. My hope and prayer for Seventh Generation is that the many competent people who served with Jeffrey to build Seventh Generation as a company of "sustainable excellence" do not have to suffer from a rocky transition that harms their capacity and ability to continue to work wisely to sustain personally, for their families and communities of residence.
In my own career experience that drew me to help contribute to the formation of sustainability and CSR as a practice, I simply have seen too much harm to the hard-working people. I hope 10 years from now, I won't be writing a case study similar to what Jeffrey Pfeffer wrote about Apple in his book The Human Equation.
Just as I am a follower of the Story of Seventh Generation, I have been a follower of the Apple story back to its founding. I became an even more serious follower when Jeffrey Pfeffer, faculty at Stanford Business School, summarized his analysis of the cost to Apple of hiring Sculley as CEO and Sculley then firing Steve Jobs. Pfeffer’s book, The Human Equation provided a remarkable analysis of the cost and impact of this change within cycles of ups and downs at Apple.
In my experience it is simply difficult for the "good people," who represent all the stakeholder groups that surround a company, to maintain and leverage from the good work they do in an environment of conflict where there has been an abrupt leadership change as a result of conflict within the board or with potential investors carving out a new stage of business for a company.
5. Serving and sustaining the future.
While I don't always agree with Jeffrey and his approaches within his closest network of colleagues, Jeffrey and I are aligned on the one thing that brought me to CSR in 1993 and led me to form WorkEcology Thought Leadership.
Like Jeffrey, I became committed to creating organization, business and economic forums that would serve seven generations forward. I wanted this personally to move beyond the harm my daughter and I experienced with millions of others from the abrupt changes imposed on us in Massachusetts during Digital Equipments's late 80's decline, followed by a very harmful recession cycle in Silicon Valley in the early 1990's. This harm imposed on millions in both California and Massachusetts became the dress rehearsal for the global chaos of 2008 and the worst two economic years in the United States, worse than the Great Depression.
The reign of a founder is often challenged when it is time to steer a course that is new and different. Only the passage of time will help the CSR world understand what the change in leadership at Seventh Generation implies, and if Peter Graham will be apologizing to Jeffrey Hollender 20 years from now.
Perhaps both men will find a new form of friendship, or both come to recognize they are both setting out to engage a new form of learning that is not based on Seventh Generation's success of the past. Any company, no matter how innovative, has to face change. This rings true for Seventh Generation and all the people associated with the company. A strategic framework will have to be shaped for all people working with Seventh Generation to allow them to work wisely, live well and sustain.
What happens when two women, who are colleagues and leading practitioners of CSR perceive a need to follow up the 20+ blog responses and 250 individual comments posted to Dr. Aneel Karnani’s #WSJ Blog post, “The Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility?”
Voila... Here is What Happened!
Susan McPherson, a Senior Vice President with Fenton.com and Christine Arena, blogger, author and founder of sparkUP, produced and moderated a panel of today's top thought leaders in CSR practice representing companies, think tanks and media outlets of reputation.
The panel, entitled CSR and the Role of Business, A Spirited Discussion, provided an accurate benchmark of CSR today and how it has matured and now operates beyond the "movement" that formed in the late 1970's from which it has taken form.
The event sponsors included Fenton.com, the Paley Center for Media and CSRwire; the leaders in reporting on the impact of CSR in society, business and culture. Fenton.com, true to its mission, produced this event as a campaign to create change.The Paley Center for Media has staked itself to be the hub of the intersection between media and society; CSRWire has created the leading wire service format for anyone working in or reporting on CSR.
Seven of the nine panelists were drawn from companies, networks and media that represent the "best practice" CSR today. Each of these panelists has exercised competence in the arena of CSR as a leader and contributing to this field of practice.
The CSR panelists joining Arena and McPherson were
Matthew Bishop – U.S. Business Editor and New York Bureau Chief, The Economist
Bob Corcoran – Vice President, Corporate Citizenship, President & Chairman, GE Foundation
Aron Cramer – President and CEO, BSR
Georg Kell – Executive Director, UN Global Compact
Dave Stangis – Vice President, CSR and Sustainability, Campbell Soup Company
Each individual made their case for CSR based on their own first hand experience and the results.
As result the reports offered benchmarked CSR as it operates in today's global marketplace within 15 minutes of when the broadcast began.
An Event Benchmarking CSR as a Business Practice Impacting Societal Change.
There is no question from the majority of people represented on this panel that CSR is fulfilling a need to address some of the most controversial complexity that effects business, the workforce and society today as reflected by the escalating frequency of catastrophes e.g. the BP Oil Spill, PG&E explosion and a summer of record hot temperatures.
The two panelists contributed to an opposing view of the value of CSR, Dr. Aneel Karnani, Associate Professor of Strategy, Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan and Chrystia Freeland – Global Editor-at-Large, ThomsonReuters. The academic view of Dr. Kurnani and mainstream press perspective of Freeland were based on generalizations to simplify a very complex subject matter expertise for which they both lack hands on experience and simply draw conclusions from what they observe based on their "expert" education and discipline.
I wondered if Karnani or Freeland had the education and experience to grasp the complexity of CSR agenda. I questions whether or not Karnani or Freeland have made note or participated in the learning available through the educational incubators. These non-profit incubators draw membership from business, government and non-govermental organziations that are advancing the CSR agenda and synthesizing the science and expertise that has become "mission critical" to building a CSR strategy in any company.
The incubators include
The Environmental Defense Fund
ChemSec.org
World Resource Institute
Radiation Research Trust
Each of these organizations have attracted participations that form into learning communities distilling the best science from which companies can base change on subject matter, e.g. climate warming, substitution of hazardous chemical, eco-system degradation and the effects of non-ionizing radiation.
Kurnani’s post stoked the fire that led to the production of this event. The reaction to this post ignited a new passion and recognition of CSR. While Kurnani views CSR as harmful and dangerous, he seemed to lack any experience or participation in the social networks that have formed and shaped communities of practice that are setting the standards and measuring the impact of CSR strategy in action.
The umbrella organization synthesizing this scale of activity is the UN Global Compact. George Kell, Executive Director, who contributed to this discussion/debate leads an organization that now sustains a membership of 7700 global companies. Membership into the UN Global Compact requires a demonstration of acting on the principles and values that have been authored by the community and fulfilling reporting requirements that show how a company is concretely acting on these principles and values with a framework authored for its membership by Deloitte Touche and a metric system and knowledge gained from Ceres and the Global Reporting Initiative.
The goal of this community is to learn to "exercise precaution" and work to prevent the oversights of harm that had historically been responded to by NGO campaigns against corporations that in turn invested profit to lobby and oppose the prospect of government regulations to mandate compliance.
The New Concrete CSR Agenda
Panelists provided reports of their experience with CSR as a vital business strategy, to create new markets, mitigate risk and lead to building as sustainable economy. CSR practice in its current formation has:
1. Demonstrated that the business motivation for CSR and Sustainability compliments rather than replaces what governments do and never as a substitute.
2. Built an accelerate response and trajectory of learning by global business that in the 20th century grew based on reaction to the tradition of NGO campaigns and the political processes to form and pass regulation to solve major problems that companies had not historically addressed proactively.
3. Become part of being a company's capacity to be competitive by staying ahead of the game and responding to new emerging markets in.
4. Taken on non-financial issues that fall between the cracks that can be very costly and decrease future profits.
5. Shifted the historical view of CSR as philanthropic/volunteer practice to a practice that integrates with core to the business strategy that takes responsibility to solve world problems.
7. Addressed the issues of complexity that business faces today. For example, Campbell Soup’s CSR strategy is one of the 7 core business strategies because it makes the company better, builds engagement, attracts talent and makes us better as a company, make us more nimble to drive a change in culture that drives the mission of the company.
8. Out of the challenge of the terminology of "corporate social responsibility," CSR has provoked a struggle that is shaping in a world of accelerated change where geographical boundaries and rules by which companies have operated in the past have simply become obsolete; hence creating new emerging markets (and economies of scale).
9. Challenged the Milton Friedman view that business's sole purpose is to make money; and therefore challenged the focus on short -term profits and the ways in which the stock market has not been prudent in influencing a long term business approach.
10. Recognizes that corporate citizenship is as important as compliance and for business to aspire to do ethical business.
11. Resulted in China adopting the model of corporate social responsibility and applying it to China's state owned businesses with the goal to keep these state owned companies competitive and build China's capacity to enter new markets and achieve outcomes that permit them to compete in the global world.
12. Opened a new understanding of how business issues spill over into regulatory issues; and where there is a conflict assure that business and regulators work it out by naming the problem and working it out.
13. Begun to reconcile the difference in perspectives, culture and diversity that exist around the world by recognizing in the global market place that the same rules cannot be applied everywhere.
Conclusion
CSR expert panelists summarized some meaningful points in the end that influenced the panel and debate.
Dave Stangis suggested that focusing a debate on articles, pushes people to get too simple.
Matt Bishop suggested that it would be valuable to shape a future debate around what companies are doing for CSR and Sustainability or Corporate Citizenship and how invite more transparency and quality of journalism to the debate.
George Kell pointed out that the American tendency to shape conversations that are generalized does not work for construction of complicated issues that involve CSR.
Araon Cramer provided an example of how Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Facebook have united to examine Freedom of Speech that goes beyond the grasp of government to deal with and for business to take this on collaboratively and not just sweep these difficult challenges under the rug, accelerates the an examination that would not be addressed at a pace that makes sense by government alone.
Any person working in industry, government or for a non-governmental organization should review this broadcast and consider joining this type of debate, which I believe will accelerate the value of CSR to society, culture and education.
George Kell pointed out that unlike most American press, generalizations cannot empower what is needed to have a constructive CSR conversation. One of Kell's final remarks offered related to reporting on the membership of the UN Global Compact response of 20% interest to climate change that he anticipated would grow to 30% next year represented an indicator of importance.
During the last 25 years, the global audience of companies interested in CSR has formed a learning infrastructure that has accelerated learning and adoption of this approach to core business practice. CSR has gained the traction of a living system of thought that millions of people in business and outside business now grapple with.
Join me in giving a standing ovation to Susan McPherson and Christina Arena for putting a stake in the ground with this event to redefine CSR and its value today. Susan and Christina produced an event of meaning that provided a shared understanding of CSR beyond its initial formation of a philanthropic and publicity strategy and tactics.
CSR has formed into a mature complex practice that I would not have predicted when I attended my first Stanford University BSR presentation by Anita Roddick in 1992. Anita was Founder and President The Body Shop. She conceived her idea for a CSR business in 1976, launched her company from her home and when she went to shape it into a professional global company, she wrote a business plan that was worthy of bank financing. Upon applying for financing by herself, she was turned down by the bank. When she returned to the bank with her husband, who offered co-signature she was funded.
Anita,one of the founding leader, who help to create this movement of change passed away September 10, 2007 at Age 64 of cancer. I am regret she could not live to see this acceleration of CSR principles and values in practice globally.
Christine and Susan, you have provided through your outstanding leadership and production of this event a form of celebration for this movement of change that has become a global business practice reflectin the hard work of men and women over the past 40 years working hard to build what you brought to light on September 17th, 2010.
The CSR panelists, for the #csrdebate, are role models of CSR professionals today who shaped the CSR agenda as an agenda that demands board and director attention and performance.
As a Massachusetts resident, I have been following the story of Genzyme back to Sept. 2001 drawing on my understanding of the ecosytem that surrounds a corporate balance sheet and the intersection of a business game with government, people and non government organizations.
While I have not worked at Genzyme, I have developed an opinion that Genzyme operates a culture lost in its past success based on a founders passion and has not adapted itself in an ecosystem that can sustain itself and influence a health ecology around the globe. Genzyme is operating in the tradition of any company responding to "Wall Street" ups and downs and has shaped its agenda to sustain.
This is no surprise. Most US based companies that mustered fast growth profits based on a tradition of investment that limits its focus on ROI for shareholders rather than a triple bottom line. Most of the companies and economic decision makers perpetuate a corporate culture based on historical success profitable until a harmful event occurs. The response to the harmful event become the roadmap for the future.
Genzyme has experienced this kind of event. June 2009, a virus outbreak in its Allston MA manufacturing plant resulted in steep delays of production of drugs critical to the treatment of people with Gaucher or Fabry Disease. The initial response shut down this plants operations. In the months that followed, it became clear that Genzyme had not developed manufacturing production systems that prevent hazardous exposure. The delays to correct the problem indicated Genzyme did not have skill and competence in applying the systems and processes for manufacturing that comply with FDA requirements or are standard practice for a mature and stable company with profit. By April 2010 the FDA levied a $175M fine on Genzyme for the event and poor response.
The incident and the lack of quality response that follows is smaller scale than the impact of the BP Oil skill, but reflects the ongoing types of drama that occur when a profitable company grows in size and does not put systems in place to respond strategically to the requirements of GRI, GRI or ESG metrics.
Most of the ongoing drama's in industry today and years past reflects this viscious cycle. The State of Massachusetts where I lived has not been successful in breaking its this destructive pattern. I saw this pattern form in the mid 80's with the demise of Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC). In 1986, DEC stood strong with 160,000 employees globally. Then through the dysfunction of its CEO, Ken Olsen, who did not believe personal computing was the new wave, DEC began a cycle of destruction and downsized over the next 5-7 years from 160,000 employees globally to fewer than 35,000. DEC was then acquired by Compaq. Compaq was absorbed by Hewlett Packard and the drama continues with a focus on CEO behavior and ethic that has resulted in HP dismissing its past two CEO's; Carly Fiorina and Marc Hurd.
On the brighter side, I view Genzyme can shift away from this vicious cycle because of the current progress by 7700 companies that comprise the membership of the UN Global Compact.
Genzyme today stands at a door of possibility to sustain its company by adopting the action research practice of the UN Global Compact and can learn from the progress of companies, e.g. Danisco and Sanofi Aventis and the results they have achieved from defining a a steep CSR/Sustainability Agenda.
In this particular case, Sanofi Aventis happens to be a company that offered an unsolicited bid to Genzyme which was refused and is now rumored to be positioned to be conversing with Genzyme Board of Directors, e.g. Carl ICann; who are open to selling their stock to Sanofi Aventis.
Whether on its own or merged with Sanofi Aventis, the solution for Genzyme to sustain is to organize itself to view the Genzyme economy as a participant in an ecosystem that can sustain if it shifts its attitude and perspective to adopt a global agenda for sustainability from which to survive. If Genzyme economic decision makers embark on embedding sustainability as part of a global agenda, they could even influence a struggling state that has had massive economic decline and job loss and shift the US challenging experience of a declining economy.
Sanofi Avenits' virtual report provides an audio presentation Christopher A. Viehbacher, CEO, Sanofi Aventis outlines in less than 2 minutes Sanofi Aventis clear commitment to its steep global mission to improve the health of as many 6.8B people walking the planet. The strategy includes addressing present and future public health agenda, increasing innovation to R&D and opening the company to merger acquisitions and building infrastructure to make the world a better way to live.
How is the EcoSystem that surrounds Genzyme Responding?
If you take the time that I did last night to trace through 2 years of press dating back to June 16, 2009 - you can view some serious glitches in the the system of regulation that surrounds Genzyme based on the American tendency to respond to issues in business by evoking "laws of fear" or fall back on the drama of the shareholder reports authored by investment sites and legal authorities that Genzyme is leading itself into a corner to end up with a "hostile takeover." Yesterdays headline in the Boston Globe announced a 1,000 person layoff. If you read closely in the fine print, there is no immediate threat of a 1,000 person pink slip day of layoff. The threat of layoff was defined as a workforce reduction over the next 15 months of 1,000 employees.
The other feed to Genzymes instability has been it price per share dance since 2008. With the outbreak of viruses that contaminated the Allston plants drug production of Fabrizyme and Cerazyme that Genzyme's stock value fell from its all time high of $80 a share in 2008 to an all time low of $47.16 this Spring. With the press buzz regarding the Sanofi Aventis offer the stock climbed slightly above $70.00 a share by the end of July 2010. This would make any company ripe for a merger acquisition.
In contrast to share value, Genzyme profits in 2009 of $422.3M on $4.5B in sales sustains its position as a Fortune 500 company. So the $175M FDA fine paid from profit seems to have sparked more harmful activity rather than inspire a change to leadership based on ESG investment practices.
Biopharm has been slow to move into a Sustainability framework beyond the metrics of corporate citizenship, green building and volunteerism. Genzyme is proud of its Green Building Corporate Headquarters in Cambridge, MA. But none of this allays my continued concern as a person who residees in the United States in Massachusetts where Genzyme is head quartered. Successful Biopharm of the 90's is no longer the path for success today. Matthew Emmens, CEO made this clear in his presentation last April at Babson College Conference for the Life Sciences.
The ecosystem that surrounds Genzyme is a system of defeat perpetuating the economic downturn in Massachusetts that also swells throughout the United States. Genzyme lives in a system of government, regulation and economic development that is faltering on a federal and state level and does not speak the speak of a company living in a global economy. The FDA views this fine cutting into their profits as a constructive step. This makes me wonder why the FDA could not have simply asked that these funds of profit be directed to resources that correct the problems and steer Genzyme to a sustainable future?
The tradition of response in the United States to catastrophes of this kind, is to fire a CEO, fine a company or make the company directly responsible for the harm it has caused its consumers. Massachusetts now stands to have another decline in its job census the the Massachusetts High Technology Council and our State Leadership has failed to alter.
I could not find through my screen to the "Internet," anything that showed me that Genzyme has formed productive partnerships with government and NGO economic development leaders to breath life into a regional and global ecosystem in the economy of suppliers, patients, distributors through out is global geography.
The most popular news outlets reporting on Genzyme are perpetuating the tradition of reporting that focused on lost profits, hostile take overs, lost jobs, and a stock valuation that is unsteady and emotionally reactive. A human side to this story was brought to life by reporters, who interviewed patient families about their history of loyalty, but I could find no story on how Genzyme was going to assure a response of quality for the production and supply maintenance of the drugs these families have come to rely on. .
Can Genzyme find an Ecosystem to Regroup ?
No where have I found in the reports, a "tale of meaningful use," where Genzyme is adopting the priniciples modeled through strategy and action similar to the approach led by Kathryn Winkler, Chief Sustainability Officer for EMC. Aman Singh, Vault.com CSR and Diversity Editor interviewed me last April on how I perceived Kathryn's CSR role and why this is different response than most companies as to how they approach the green, csr or sustainability practices. In my interview with Aman, I pointed out that
"Kathrin's skill of engaging the EMC workforce into the vision of sustainability is based on a simple premise: 'corporate sustainability is really about business survival: Take the long view, or your business won't survive in a failing global society or environment. Long-term sustainability affects customers, employees, suppliers, neighbors, partners, governmental bodies, and civil society. If we make our business choices based on how we interact with those stakeholders, then we are promoting sustainability."
This view of engagement, which I teach in a program to my leadership clients hold high regard for the social network that surrounds an economy of resource that serves all stakeholders with a global view that we now live in a time of business, work and living that requires values, principles and infrastructure that sustains health, environment, and planet. Without this view, we will continue to perpetuate a more rapid stream of destruction as evidenced by the BP Oil Spill and the increasing number of hazards impacting the health of the environment and people.
What is in the future for Genzyme?
I chose not to approach Genzyme's current situation by writing a tale of woe that predicted more failure or advised a Sanofi Aventis purchase or merger. I cannot directly influence Henri Temeer, CEO of Genzyme and its Board of Directors on what strategy to follow. Ultimately the market will see a future for Genzyme, whether it remains standing on its own as a Fortune 500 global company or merges with another global biopharmaceutical leader. Ultimately Genzyme still has time to chose its own future if they are prepared to act to #sustainnow that exercises precaution.
Cordially,
Lavinia Weissman
Lavinia Weissman is an ecologist and sustainability leadership coach with a practice based in Boston MA. Through her practice, Lavinia draws on people representing all sectors of thought to build ecological approaches to work and the economy to sustain health and the environment. Her imagination and passion is to empower practical and concrete strategies of action that exercise precaution.
About Lavinia's Approach to her Work.
Lavinia's practice draws on knowledge of ESG, CSR and Sustainability pracitces and the system of network that surround this subject matter expertise based. She is a capacity builder who draws on social network analysis and to develop deliberately designed methods of educationthat lead cultures of change through the convening of people to learn to do and act sustainably.
Lavinia is available to guide the imagination and development of thinking from a practical view for anyone who choses to navigate the chaos at the present time and find a personal path that is more productive to assuring the eco system is nourished and lives so employees, patients, shareholders and economic regions can survive.
@elainecohen has been using her twitter and blog posts to mix up a lot of ideas that added great value to the idea of chemistry (#safechem) as a metaphor for a sustainable leadership practice of "sensemaking." Elaine directs us to think of the chemical practice of "mixing up of ingredients" as a metaphor from which companies can build learning and sustainable outcomes ( OR NOT).
I pointed out something similar this past week, as a guest blogger at IN GOOD COMPANY.In this post I provided my thesis for how CSR and Sustainability has to move from its frontier form of startup into a practice that mixes up all the ingredients that sustsainability implies.
By the time I completed and published this post, Elaine had me on my toes again without permitting me any time to take a breath!
Interacting in the CSR Social Media world has most certainly become an opportunity to gain more precision with life balance. While Elaine finds stress relief with Chunky Monkey; I have taken to the treadmill and nautilus for my own stress relief. Right now I can't imagine doing anything else but breathing and sweating my way through the chaos of opportunity that has shaped in CSR and Sustainability.
On a daily basis, I am pushed to distinguish my writing time to the art of research and story telling versus the art of summary and analysis. Your combined intelligence productively distracts me!
In the last few weeks, Elaine's blog posts and twittering have generated rapid forms forms of response and analysis that set me back from doing the thorough reearch my work requires to teach and capture the story of change in sustainability. Hence, I am getting far more selective in what I read and harvested these links most recently that are relevant to my own work.
This is keeping me on my toes to perform a more in-depth of analysis on how companies are embedding education in their culture to lead change responsive to a need for sustainability.
Within Elaine's Dow Chemical analysis, she asserts an important meta-perspective using the practice of chemistry as a metaphor for sustainable business practice, when she asserted:
"This rigid structure, together with the impersonal nature of the report (only one photo of the Chairman and none of employees or any other stakeholders) made me think of comparing the Dow report to a chemistry experiment - sterile laboratory conditions, detailed lab notes, exact measures of all materials, a process conducted in perfect sequence and an output which delivers a predictable result. A CSR Report is, after all, not just a report. It is a story. A story of how PEOPLE are doing sustainable business. Even chemistry labs need people."
This metaphor implies and supports how critical PEOPLE and HUMAN CAPITAL are to '"mixing the ingredients" of CSR into sustainable business practice.
As a consultant to @jeffreyhogue, Elaine provided the idea and driver for the the Danisco synthesis of its report with the title she gave to Danisco for their 2010 report, "Ingredients for Sustainability."
This morning, Elaine twittered the link to Sanofi Aventis 2009 CSR report
After quick review of these links, I formed these questions:
1. What is the obligation of a company in a merger acquisition to to repair any harm created by the previous CEO and Directors?
For example, what lessons and change did Dow Chemical lead with the acquisition of Union Carbide and its repair of the Bhopal Chemical Crisis?
2. What can other companies can learn from Danisco's culture as to how they Danisco embeds a sustainability agenda into its operations at 80 sites around the world? What does this imply?
Is Danisco seeking to follow Walmart and General Electrics' example of reorganizing as an ecological economy by design rather than focusing on strategy as an exercise of organization and business planning?
3. Will Sanofi Aventis rapid position and action steps their leadership has taken to acquire Genzyme for $18.5 Billion embed sustainability into its agenda?
Will the focus for the merger be based on how much Genzyme's CEO, Henri Temeer can personally gain ($23M projected personal gain). Or will Sanofi Aventis bridge its sustainable agenda with Genzyme influenced by Sanofi Aventis' membership in the UNGlobal Compact?
Deloitte is inside Genzyme now as we speak conducting an analysis or audit. Given their role in developing the UN Global Compact Framework for Sustainability will they use this as away to value the company and contribute to the design of the merger/acquisition?
If Sanofi Aventis acquires Genzyme, will it introduce an initiative that leads current Genzyme employess into a culture of change that engages Genzyme's social network to experience sustainable improvements through the supply chain
What is at risk here?
Will competent employees be put at risk by downsizing and layoff for what or will Sanofi Aventis value the richness of human capital and address the barriers within the culture that have prevented competent people from performing for the benefit of all Genzyme stakeholders?
How will Genzyme improve on the delivery of current and new treatments to patient populations suffering with illnesses related to diseases, e.g. renal failure, leukemia gaucher disease?
The implications of questions like these are critical to embedding education into a culture of change initiative. This type of perspective requires looking and engaging outside the traditional boundaries of organization.
What are the core group economic decision making patterns within all these companies and what makes their CSR performance distinct and valuable or not?
A Personal Thank You to Elaine
Elaine, thank you so much for inspiring my week with your fast pace and intelligent analysis; While keeping me on my toes to shape my message in a productive and cohesive form, please forgive me if I occassionally seek out quiet from your very on demand world of media, please forgive me for not reading every valuable word of what you write. It seems after a year of posting on AboutWorkEcology,
it has become time to focus on my book, the indepth analysis I am doing to
to market and conduct workshop program (for individuals, communities of practice and organizations) to inspire new formations fo social networking that embed sustainability into Stakeholder Engagement to construct education formats of learning that impact and measure economic metrics for sustainability;
defining a new forum that is responsive for #safechem practices;
getting focused on taking my book proposal for Tale of Meaningful Use; Giving Economic Backbone to Sustainability the attention it requires to complete the book sooner rather than later.
And for now, simply adding a note of Congratulations to @Jeffrey Hogue on his marriage. Jeff, I saw you could not keep away from twitter, before your 9/6 projected return to work. Jeff, I hope I can connect with you constructively sometime post 9/12 so we can review my questions on the impact of Danisco's sustainability agenda from an economic point of view beyond organization practice.
Through Joan Borysenko, I learned about Peggy La Cerra's work on neural networks and the impact of neural networks on positive consciousness. As a result, I started digging more into Peggy's work on consciousness. After reading her most recent editorial in Spirtuality and Health, it did not take me long to remember a book that I read a few years back by Ervin's Laszlo on the Akashic Field that describes where spirituality meets science. By late Sunday night, I was rereading everything I enjoy and value about Multiple Intelligence and the work of Howard Gardner that have sparked new horizons in the disciplines of leadership, education and health.
Joan
Ervin
Howard
Peggy
All this synthezing spurred my imagination and creative process to begin to think through a new approach for developing a new scheme of thought leadership material my forthcoming book, The Tale of Meaningful Use. I have refocused to examine how to tell the story of where the intersection of science meets spirituality and healing. This is challenging subject matter to conceive and frame, and to embed in a culture of positive intention and healing.
Right now it seems very timely to convene people from science, investments and health to create a neural network of condition that inspires a change in scientific practice that builds sustainable practices for health, environment and economy.
The inspiration for this new line was a result of some wandering around I did this week attending events and investigating some stories and work of other people.
1. First, I attended a meeting of the Epilepsy Advocates hosted and funded by UCB Pharma. UCB has funded a unique program that I saw need for in the mid-90's after advocating for a family with a son, who had tonic seizure disorder. There was no easy way to synthesize the knowledge about seizures at this time, even with my exceptional skill of research and ability to contact and interview the intelligence that surrounded epilepsy at that time. The activity I sustained for Epilepsy, I found had relevance for numerous other communities of people suffering with or learning to construct a quality of life after a chronic or life threatening diagnosis.
My inquiring mind, assessed and synthesized what I knew about health, scientific research, medication, clinical trials and alternative medicine: how anyone who was chronically ill could claim a quality of life in the United States that assured them the capacity to function in the best way possible even when there was no cure.
There is an increase of people and families afflicted with this challenging diagnosis. There are now 68K elderly and a total of 200K people diagnosed annually with some form of seizure disorder. Seizure disorder usually accompanies another form of chronic or life threatening illness and results in a challenging pathway the patient and caregivers similar to what was depicted in the movie Lorenzo's Oil relative to Aleuko Dystrophy (ALD). Lorenzo's Oil is part of the AboutWorkEcology Film Roster.
While neither UCB or the Epilepsy Foundation are directly addressing issues of the cost of medications and access to the quality brand medication that works for all patients, this program was an exquisite representation of what kind of progress can be achieved through education that is patient centric.
2. In talking with Peggy LaCerra @ Joan's FB page in the company of some other good people, I was reminded how limiting I often see the new age movement in the US for all its glory. The focus seems to be so deeply on empowering an individual to act and claim a power of consciousness to take control over his/her life without regard for the complexity of circumstance that surrounds this person, e.g. economy, health and environment.
This raised a red flag for me in thinking about the people and communities harmed by the BP Oil Spill.
I see the region and people afflicted by the harm of this spill as individuals, families and communities of people faced with responding and learning through a crisis of change which most individuals cannot survive on their own. A case in point simply is the impact we know already on human health re: Benzene and how it can implode a rise in lymphoma and leukemia.
Bottom line, people have been inflicted and exposed to a form of harm that requires a response that is far greater than any one individual can muster.
This left me with 2 questions
a. How do we construct a health system to surround these people in the context of a new format of consciousness that assures everyone the resources they need to live and sustain?
b. How do we move beyond the boundaries of the economic system and mess that surrounds the US Federal Government and BP --- which empowers the world of blame and devastation? instead of empowering the opportunity for growth in our consciousness to work with others to create a neural network of conversation that gives rise to a quality transformation based on consciousness and quality science?
3. Everyone needs some good entertainment and work in front of them when the influx of media and news is depressing. In fact, Paul Krugman's New York Times' editorial on Where did the Economists Go Wrong? inspired me, opposite what one would think in reading about how Paul views that the global recession has become a depression and why that is so.
The basis for Paul's editorial gives me a foundation from which to frame and present my own work as a positive opportunity and response. Paul believes that those who have money to spend have stopped spending it and therefore the response to the downturn in inhibiting innovation and creativity for much needed change. Paul also asserted that one significant symptom of the problem is that our system of government globally as reflected in conversations that surround the G-20, are out of date and not responsive to the change that is needed on a societal and global scale.
By the week's end, there was more positive inspiration that came my way and provided more fuel for my thought leadership described as WorkEcology and the fuel for my blog posts, AboutWorkEcology.
The real grappling for me at this time, comes with trying to gain an understanding of what conditions can give rise to a more rapid method of meaningful discovery of science that impacts the growing array of diseases that have resulted in 1 our of every 2 American's living with a chronic or life threatening illness and the recent news that 41% of Americans have cancer.
Is it solely about praying for miracles or can we stand behind people like the Crowley Family,
who organized themselves to care for two kids in need of treatment for Pompe Disease, where there was no scientific evidence that a treatment was possible. Dad John Crowley out of the inspiration he saw in his daughters will to live after a week of 3 near death experiences went out and raised the $100M required to assure the research that resulted in the clinical trial that saved her and her brother's life. While Crowly a BioTech Executive supported himself in the discovery process, he did not stop short of resigning to assure the ethic required (no conflict of interest) so his kids could be eligible for a sibling clinical trial.
You have to wonder why in this culture where there is money to fund activities like this, emotions and anger have to be part of the path of consciousness on the path to discovery which is a less than satisfying positive experience.
Danisco is a top 10 global leader in biotechnology. Danisco has a workforce of 6800 people who have formed a stakeholder engagement based on a a possibilistic risk assessment and future scenario. Danisco has chosen the top 4 most challenging areas of sustainability relative to its company and network of outreach business to business that include:
1. Food - reduce excessive waste, inefficiencies in production and challenges presented by a degrading environment:
2. Health - identify and act on the implications of an aging population of people who are obese and malnourished;
3. Energy - move from use of oil based energy to renewables;
4. Chemicals - find biobased alternatives with which to replace petrol based chemicals:
Danisco's claim and key driver to taking such a complex agenda few leaders would be willing to tackle. Of its 6800 person workforce, 80% of Danisco employees are inspired by an agenda of sustainability and view this kind of agenda an opportunity to use innovation as a key driver of influence to draw on imagination and creativity to create a "new reality."
While many people and companies use the excuse that sustainability is to complex, to costly and too difficult to innovate, within the Danisco report is a story and organization of achievements and metrics that assure innovation, progress and change.
Last Thursday when I received a link to this report, I was captured by its layout, presentation, journalism quality and much more. I replied to Jeffrey's twitter, "@JeffreyHogue, Extracting from how you map out the ingredient of your report.
I learned all of this from my initial skim of the report. By Sunday night, I learned that Danisco has "embedded a format of education," into its culture. The report left me with an impression that where While the report scored an A+ from GRI and achieved Deloitte stamp of approval, I found this report distinct from all other reports I have read in story, format, graphics and journalism.
This report conveyed to me that Danisco leaders have brought to life a company culture of change based on the key driver of innovation. This innovation practice had embedded a new format of education that I so frequently write about as a possibility. Danisco has made this culture real.
I am now organizing questions and a more detailed review of the report to deepen my understanding of this report. I want to learn how the authors, contributors and team that worked on this report brought to life so effectively through graphics, technology and journalism a description of a company at work that has actualizes sustainability through stakeholder engagement.
I want to capture a story fundamental to Danisco's mission, purpose and vision that conveys a story of why challenging opportunity is a qualification for the next wave of Sustainable Investing and a forum in which some of the most challenging issues relative to health, chemicals, foods and supply chains can be addressed for the common good.
Whether Danisco can or chooses to cooperate with me, I most appreciate this report for the possibility it represents for my documenting proof of concept regarding a thought leadership I have been midwifing for many years. Thanks you Danisco.
