John Gies, @jrgies pointed to the idea of fostering dialogue.
The dialogue that surrounds health care reform, health and much more has been confusing and reflects a form of discourse that surrounds the Arizona Shootings. If you look at the cover of the NY Times Community Blog, you can see all the elements of conversation and thoughts that come to people's minds when a difficult event or societal issue of scale requires change and is unresolved in the public view.
Joel Yanowitz, @jyanowitz, has pointed out a very good place of examination that is deserving of inquiry in my opinion. I can get behind Joel's statement,
Thanks for giving voice to some important underlying issues. I am saddened by the fact that we are no longer considered citizens as much as we are seen as consumers - measured by what we buy rather than how we participate and contribute. And I am troubled by the growing gap between rich and poor, and the fact that society does not see this as a problem.
Joel, I know you have a lot of valuable input to give this inquiry. I especially would love you to weave your experience with the Uganda community that you have been working with into this dialogue.
I think globally from a precautionary point of view, we have lost sight of the complexity that now stands behind poverty. Poverty for philanthropists, government and business continues to be defined by the view of the "haves and have nots," or the "third world developing countries," versus "the western developed hemisphere."
Dave Wann's activity defining the "new normal," provides definitive insight into changes that occurring around the world that will directly influence how people work and live for health. Dave has been giving this thought for over a decade now with all his writing and television production. He is drawing attention around the world from his home and garden in Harmony Village, Golden Co.
Bernie Kelly offered the distinctions for community versus sustainable health. There is even more complexity with respect to this in Australia where Bernie works and resides where this statement does not recognize the contrast of developed Australia and the Australia where Australian Aboriginies.
I could go on...there are many layers of health that are not defined in the way anyone speaks, so that leaves me thinking how can we finance health, if we don't know understand health and recognize all the cultural aspects of health beyond health care. I addressed this last year in my editorial on Ethical Markets.com.
I want to dig more into the idea of poverty and give that some thought to identifying the hidden assumptions that have grown behind this word. I can describe elements of poverty related to numerous issues right now that tie to employment, downsizing, safety and occupational health, chemical practices. I could go on. I have been journalling about my own growing view as to why the United States health care culture has become a culture of poverty based on deprivation.
Jeff Doemland, @Jdoemland, I honestly believe financing is not the issue. Finance is an exercise of institutions and government. If you read the my editorial on Ethical Markets.com, I think you will see that our economic landscape does not embed within it a thorough understanding of what health is and how it is sustained. I sent you just before Christmas resources from my book that analyze issues of health from a personal and international perspective.
I plan to connect with a few people here and others advising me about will be the best way to build a hub of dialogue that is strategic and generative. I welcome all here to collaborate with me. I am beginning this conversation tonight with someone that did not comment here and then chatting with John Gies tomorrow. I hope to be in touch with Joel Yanowitz very soon.
Rosalinda Sanquiche, @ethicalmarkets has been advising this project six years into its inception and has contributed a lot of good thought and exchange, which led to the publication of my oped last year as a mentor for Ethical Markets Sustainable Research Group for EthicalMarkets.com.
What is really clear now for me is involving people 20, 30 and 40 something from around the world with siginificant cultural diversity is more critical than ever. The advisory group that surrounds me as a respect journalist contributing to CSRWire.com and a member of the #csr community has been my way of learning to work with that voice. I am now designing a strategy of action that will expand on this.
Follow @wecarehealth to watch the journey or more important to participate. The future and the answers are with the new workforce or global citizen. Watch for my next blog post soon.
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."
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.
