Read this on Beths Blog. A blog called Dig Trends are going to donate $10 up to a 5k limit to the US Campaign for Burma for every comment or trackback to their post.

I think this is a great move by these guys, its driving traffic to their blog and probably their company site, increasing awareness about who they are and what they do, and somehow it feels ok. In other words I think they really do want to help and aren't just using the situation. I actually would like to see more companies doing this, companies that have great online presence, using that position to help others. How about if the top 10 sites all did this, what impact would that have? Linking back to a single cause, the impact could be huge, beyond the 5,000 limit.

So Im going to trackback.

On Monday afternoon I was in New York, standing in front of a bank of Weber Shandwick TV screens each running images of Mother Nature at work. In the mid-West, tornados had ripped through small towns killing everyone and everything in their wake; in the South East of the country, fires were ravaging family homes; in Burma, millions were homeless, hundreds of thousands dead or injured as the result of a devastating cyclone; in China, a massive earthquake had struck, the impact of which was only just being revealed.

And outside, on the bustling, rich and voluptuous streets of New York City, pedestrians were wrapped up against the bitter cold as temperatures plummeted to 35º below the norm whilst motorists, grid-locked, pawed over the headlines stating gas had just hit $4. Summer had arrived.

It’s as easy to dismiss it all as a meteorological blip, as it is to go gooey at the knees and panic. Right now the panic, the real panic, belongs to the minority. Global warming, climate change – what ever you want to call it – still has one foot in the intellectual camp and that, quite frankly, could be a disaster in its own right if the battle for the upper hand remains there.

Twenty years ago, the intellectualisation of the sustainability movement was a necessity. It is, after all, a scientific argument: X energy use, divided by Y energy consumption, multiplied by Z population % growth, squared, can be a bit of a struggle for some. And that’s why, in those days, the frustrated ones took to the streets and forests and got vocal. The protagonist’s policy of the louder the better.

Things have progressed a bit since then. The science is better, the crowds are more organised and more people are listening. But, still, the most effective way to kill a decent scientific argument is to muffle it in a blanket of new science. This, in turn, is wrapped up in more data rich science until, inevitably, no one knows whom to believe. It's the equivalent of drowning in algebraic soup and it's a policy that has been entertained to great effect by some Governments around the world.

None of this discounts the value of good science, because it will always be part of the argument. Nor does it dismiss the vocal minority or, indeed, the many companies that are taking it seriously and doing their bit for the planet. (And if you want to know who they are, you could do worse than spend a bit of time looking through my good friend and colleague, Brendan May’s blog).

But it does appear that our very own action hero, the ostracised protagonist of Hollywood’s knights in shining armour unit, remains bogged down in the intellectual debate. Unless some irrefutable evidence materialises, and does so pretty quick sharp, our leading man could be leaving it a little late in the day. Which is why in this particular disaster movie, it has to be the bit players who’ll save the world. Those in the crowd scenes will be the heroes. Those who advocate change and orchestrate action at a local, national and international level will increase the chance of their children having a decent sunset to watch.

Standing in front of those TV screens, I couldn’t help but think that we’re at the point in the movie where all is calm, birds are singing and children laughing. And the camera is panning out as an orchestral soundtrack grows deep and dark forces gather beyond the horizon.

On Monday afternoon I was in New York, standing in front of a bank of Weber Shandwick TV screens each running images of Mother Nature at work. In the mid-West, tornados had ripped through small towns killing everyone and everything in their wake; in the South East of the country, fires were ravaging family homes; in Burma, millions were homeless, hundreds of thousands dead or injured as the result of a devastating cyclone; in China, a massive earthquake had struck, the impact of which was only just being revealed.

And outside, on the bustling, rich and voluptuous streets of New York City, pedestrians were wrapped up against the bitter cold as temperatures plummeted to 35º below the norm whilst motorists, grid-locked, pawed over the headlines stating gas had just hit $4. Summer had arrived.

It’s as easy to dismiss it all as a meteorological blip, as it is to go gooey at the knees and panic. Right now the panic, the real panic, belongs to the minority. Global warming, climate change – what ever you want to call it – still has one foot in the intellectual camp and that, quite frankly, could be a disaster in its own right if the battle for the upper hand remains there.

Twenty years ago, the intellectualisation of the sustainability movement was a necessity. It is, after all, a scientific argument: X energy use, divided by Y energy consumption, multiplied by Z population % growth, squared, can be a bit of a struggle for some. And that’s why, in those days, the frustrated ones took to the streets and forests and got vocal. The protagonist’s policy of the louder the better.

Things have progressed a bit since then. The science is better, the crowds are more organised and more people are listening. But, still, the most effective way to kill a decent scientific argument is to muffle it in a blanket of new science. This, in turn, is wrapped up in more data rich science until, inevitably, no one knows whom to believe. It's the equivalent of drowning in algebraic soup and it's a policy that has been entertained to great effect by some Governments around the world.

None of this discounts the value of good science, because it will always be part of the argument. Nor does it dismiss the vocal minority or, indeed, the many companies that are taking it seriously and doing their bit for the planet. (And if you want to know who they are, you could do worse than spend a bit of time looking through my good friend and colleague, Brendan May’s blog).

But it does appear that our very own action hero, the ostracised protagonist of Hollywood’s knights in shining armour unit, remains bogged down in the intellectual debate. Unless some irrefutable evidence materialises, and does so pretty quick sharp, our leading man could be leaving it a little late in the day. Which is why in this particular disaster movie, it has to be the bit players who’ll save the world. Those in the crowd scenes will be the heroes. Those who advocate change and orchestrate action at a local, national and international level will increase the chance of their children having a decent sunset to watch.

Standing in front of those TV screens, I couldn’t help but think that our own disaster movie is just getting started. All is calm, birds are singing and children laughing. And the camera is panning out as an orchestral soundtrack grows deep and unseen dark forces gather beyond the horizon.

It seems its all about water these days.

Ariel are doing a new campaign linking to water (will talk about that in a few days) and then after my Volvic 1 for 10 postI got a mail from Matt Guttridge, who works for Hyperlaunch and is helping to raise awareness for the Co-operatives Ethical Water Pledge.

The Co-operative are working with The One Foundation  (who were mentioned in the comments of my post) to help provide clean water to communities who really need it. The One Foundation, a registered charity who work with PlayPumps® International. 

PlayPump® is a great system. It doubles as a water pump and a roundabout for children, saving many hours of walking to reach water. The principle is simple; the PlayPump® fills a 2,500 litre tank above ground, which can be accessed through a simple tap.

The Co-operative are donating 5p from each bottle of Fairbourne water sold and it seems that sales of  One Water will also, naturally, go to the project.  The aim is in two years to help 1 million people over 2 years, that means providing 400 new pumps.

They have a nice element to the site and that is making a pledge. Im not sure if the word Pledge was the best to use, how about a Commitment, that is really what they are asking people to do, commit to buying ethical water. I think that would have been good. I wonder would there have been other ways to allowing people to then display their commitment, perhaps a badge for their websites/social networking pages (there is a facebook fan page)....the logo with a tag line?

I know one of the topics that came up when talking about the Volvic campaign was whether or not a corporation was just jumping on the band-wagon (and thats a brief summary!) but I always felt that they were doing the right thing, just because they may not have (like One Water) have been founded with a mission to provide water to those in need, it doesn't mean they shouldn't. I still feel that way. And let's face it the One Foundation wouldn't really be able to do what they are doing without the support of companies, so in a way they two campaigns aren't all that dissimilar?

I like ths one, it is well thought out, nice website to support it and the PlayPumps are great, I had seen them before and was a fan.

Here is a video to tell you a bit more

Day-End Dough-Nation

"Through the Day-End Dough-Nation program, unsold bakery products are packaged at the end of each day and donated to local food banks and charities. Over the past few years, we have donated more than $12 million worth of bread products to non-profits served by America's Second Harvest, the nation's largest domestic hunger-relief organization."

On Saturday 10^th May 2008 with 400 walkers taking part, 115 of these challenging themselves to the big 60km route. This means that our walkers covered a total of 12,540 km's of West Sussex countryside between them. Our first 20km walker took only 3 and a half hours to cross the finish line and the first group to complete the 60km challenge took an impressive 11 hours including their stops!

It was a beautiful, sunny day, hot at times, but this did not deter our walkers from completing the most rewarding challenge. Our walkers have raised an estimated £400,000 for around 117 different charities. They deserve a huge congratulations for completing the walk and working so hard to raise money for all their charities; without their enthusiasm and determination the event would not be the success that it was.

Tony Ford the Event Manager for Just Walk had this to say:

‘The event was a great success and considering the warm weather we had few medical situations to deal with. We are all already looking forward to a bigger and better Just Walk 2009.'

So far the feedback from the walkers has been excellent and very positive, examples of comments are:

'Thanks to the whole team for a great day, it was such a well organised event and the support from marshals etc was excellent and much appreciated.'

'I just wanted to say that Mum and I had the most fantastic time today doing the 20km walk. The weather was perfect, the atmosphere was amazing, and we both thought it was extremely well organised. So many people worked to make it a great day and it really was. Neither of us have done anything like this before, but we'd both do it again!'

'I just wanted to share our feelings and express how much we appreciated all the hard work that went into making the day such a huge success.'

‘We had a fantastic time and thoroughly enjoyed ourselves; this was mainly down to the outstanding organisation and wonderful staff. The atmosphere was brilliant. We will see you again next year.'

‘A short note to thank you and all the Just Walk team for not only an excellently managed day on Saturday but for all the build up information e-mailed to the walkers.'

‘Thank you very much indeed for organising such a terrific day on Saturday. We all thought it was incredibly well organised and enormous fun.'

‘Just to say a big thank you to all the people who were involved in the walk on Saturday. I think maybe they had all been handpicked because each one was nicer than the next with big smiles and so helpful.'

In an article titled "Does Being Ethical Pay?", the Journal explores the question "how ethical do you need to be?". The conclusion series of interesting studies is that companies should be as ethical as the consumer requires them to be. 

But I take issue with this bare minimum ethical approach. This is like saying that someone is a "good person", even if they are greedy, contemptuous, and hateful, as long as they operate within the law. The world is engaged in a dance between good and evil (if you don't believe that, visit any third-world country). We  know intuitively that goodness does not come from the mere observance of the law or obeisance of minimum ethical standards. The law separates criminals from citizens; ethics distances the separation.  

How ethical should we be? The flip-side of this question is "how much harm can I get away with" before it becomes unprofitable. People and companies who operate this way would do well to remember that we are stewards of our world. This world will go on long after today's people and corporations have passed away. We can choose to squeeze as much use out of it as we can before we die. Or we can choose to steward our resources wisely, respect our people, and become the kinds of people and corporations that add value not only to our pocketbooks, but to each other and to the world as a whole. 

One of the most exciting things that can happen in the corporate world is when a company takes some socially responsible action even when there is no direct financial payback. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is based on the idea that doing good things pays off in the long run, not just the short, and indirectly as well as directly; in other words, you can do well _and_ do good. 

So the question that we should be asking is  "how can we do well and do good". 

When reasonable, companies should do good things because they're good, and not only because they return shareholder value. Many economists would argue that corporations' primary responsibility is to their shareholders. And while healthy companies contribute to healthy economies which in turn benefits everyone, in my estimation a strong case can be made that corporations also have an equal responsibility to steward the resources that they use: environmental, human, natural, and otherwise. Corporations, like people, cannot be required to be responsible. But like a good person, a good company is responsible, and acts in socially responsible ways. Not just because it brings any immediate return (though it may), but because it is the right thing to do. 

His self serving remarks actually reveal some truth. If workers were treated better through history, labor unions may not exist. Common sense and courtesy would be the guidelines in labor relations. Treat your workers as you want to be treated. Basic stuff, right from the Bible.

Is the same true for Corporate Social Responsibility? I often ponder these questions:

* If CEOs worked on their own factory floor, would the facilities be safer?
* If executives lived next to their manufacturing plants, would the air and water be cleaner?
* If publishers were fined for littering each time their subscription cards fell to the ground, would they continue to stick loose inserts into their magazines?
* If lenders lived in the same neighborhood as their borrowers of sub-prime mortgages or payday loans, would lending practices change?

Why even call it Corporate Social Responsibility? It’s really only “courtesy” with lots of extra syllables. I just wish it was more common.

Some highlights:

A panel with current and former executive leadership of BP and Shell agreeing that climate change is an issue that needs to be dealt with, only differing on how they were going to do it.  They both say that company profits fund alternative energy research, so I look forward to hearing about the developments of those investments at subsequent conferences -- and ideally sooner.

A closing panel on the economic impact of climate change that included Van Jones, the Founder and President of Green for All a non-profit dedicated to building an inclusive green economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty. Van was so charismatic, poised and on-point that he elicited applause after almost everyone of his comments. He was so good, in fact, that I didn't even feel compelled to tell you that Theodore Roosevelt IV and Chip Giller of Grist were also on the panel. And they too were excellent.

What felt different about this conference was that there seems to be a palpable shift to issue identification and value creation.   There was less finger-pointing and more collaboration and discussion of important issues with the intention of real results.  It's a good sign and I, for one, look forward to  it.

Alex Hausman
Corporate Social Responsibility
The Timberland Company

A big chunk of that savings comes from making less waste when cutting out the car pieces from the blanking press, similar to cutting the most cookies from a rolled-out sheet of cookie dough. By cutting the car parts more efficiently, the plant has reduced its steel use by 47 percent since 2000. Plus, the company estimates that its CO2 emissions are down 20 percent in that time.

Subaru reuses just about anything else in the factory as well, including wood pallets and a variety of oil products. The company even takes the plastic, styrofoam, and steel braces the car parts come in and sends them back to the suppliers for continuous usage. The motivation for the company’s efforts may stem from the additional profits recycling provides. Extra styrofoam more times than none goes to factories that produce beanbag furniture. Excess paint from the cars forms into a sludge-like substance that can also be sold to companies who produce railroad ties, parking lot bumpers, and inner padding in bicycle helmets. In 2006 the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged Subaru’s environmental consciousness with the Gold Achievement Award—a status incentive for companies to go green.

Read more Biz in WeEarth's Voices E-Zine. Click here.

On top of expanding upon some of the ideas covered in previous posts on this blog, it also launches a new diagnostic tool on an unsuspecting public - the CR Continuum.

This is something I've developed during my time with SAS, and it aims to provide businesses with a simple, visual way of understanding where their strategy and approach to managing corporate responsibility positions them in the overall CR firmament.

The real value of the tool comes from understanding the different motivations and approaches that characterise each of the five levels.

The point here is not that everyone should be seeking to get to Level 4 or 5 necessarily. Rather it is just to realise that - based on the objectives of your business - there are certain things you need to be doing to occupy that space with any credibility.

Need to demonstrate to your customers, suppliers and other stakeholders that you are committed to conducting business responsibly and share their values? Fine, operating somewhere around Level 3 will probably suffice.

Just don't think that this kind of approach will give you any meaningful claim to differentiation. There's a lot of empty rhetoric out there about establishing leadership in CR, but not a lot of appreciation of what it actually takes to achieve it.

I graduate in five weeks, and I’m on the lookout for a job in the public relations field. Call me picky, but before I fire my resume off, a company has to pass a test: it must be socially responsible. And I don’t just mean green. In my opinion, companies have a role to play in fostering human rights, supporting philanthropies, preserving the environment, embracing cultural diversity, and treating their employees well. Corporations can’t act as isolated economic entities detached from broader society.

I’m not alone in believing so. According to a recent study by Care2, 73 percent of workers said it was “very important” to work for a company they believe is socially responsible. In addition, 48 percent of employees say they would work for less pay if they could work for a socially responsible company. Finally, 35 percent report having actually left a company because they believed it was not socially responsible.

Socially responsible companies more often than not enjoy an enhanced reputation, increased customer loyalty, improved employee morale, and greater support from investors.

How important is it for you to work for a socially responsible company? If it ranks high on your priority list, check out Care2 JobFinder. It's the world's largest listing of jobs at eco-friendly, socially responsible, and nonprofit organizations.

It must be really hard to be an insurance agency.  One, no on really wants your product.  People feel compelled to have it based on multi "what if?" scenarios.  Two, how do you advertise a product that no one really wants?  Hats off to the RAA  who are quite creative with the whole George says thing (although apparently no one knows that George is selling insurance!).

SGIC is not in the same league. We are know they are trying to say that they can compete with other insurers, but all they do is make themselves look like bad employers.

We'd hate to work there

 If you think about Corporate Social Responsibility, where one of the rules is moral management, then SGIC fails miserably.  We would hate to work in an environment where everyone is trying to out do each other.  It would be very stressful, and we would imagine that communication - at all levels - would suffer as a result.

And if SGIC want to attract staff to the organisation, they haven't thought about the sort of person who would be relish that environment (even if it's not really like that - we know it's just an ad).  How would women (or men for that matter) with family responsibilities be perceived?  How would part-time employees access promotion opportunities?  How would young people fare?  Is this the sort of environment that sets up good practices for future leaders?  We don't think so.

We would really like to have a chat to their brand manager and get some insight into their thinking.

We came early for the forum, a snap shot of the venue while waiting for DOLE execs, ILO reps and other guests. Occupational Health and Safety is fast becoming a priority worldwide.

Though not quite Rousseauian, we at Social Symmetry believe that organizations are inherently good. We firmly believe that any organization would pay increased attention to making a positive social impact if the concept were not so foreign and if the concept were not so abstract. We also think organization's would pay more attention to making a positive social impact if the market rewards for investing time and money into these efforts were clear and tangible.

That's where we got this idea.

What is "Adopt a Client"?  We want to help organizations be good. In our opinion, the best way to do that is to dedicate some of our time, pro-bono, to helping an organization realize the potential and opportunity of paying attention to the two forgotten stakeholders: the environment where they operate, and the communities they affect. We are going to adopt a client for the month of June and walk them through our approach.

At the end of the process we are confident that our "adoptee" will be armed with a plan for either becoming good, or becoming even good-er. (Note: We didn't feel like the word "better" had the same effect.)

How will organizations be selected?  We are looking for suggestions. It would be easy for us to work with organizations we know really well (and maybe a lot easier for us to impress you all), but that is not the purpose of the exercise. That's why we will consider any project, from any organization (private sector, public sector, nonprofit sector), that meets the following two requirements:

• The project (website, report, product, service, process) must have a socially responsible mission (defined as positively affecting the surrounding environment and/or the community therein).
• The project must be okfor public consumption. We want to share the entire experience with the world, which brings us to the next section...

To submit your organization (or an organization you would like to see adopted), post the name of that organization and a 1-2 sentence description of the project in the comment section below, as well as a contact we can notify if that project is selected.

If you would like to be part of the team who helps make the final selection, send us an email (with "Adopt a Client" in the Subject Line) and we'll contact you come decision time: suneet@socialsymmetry.com.  We will be picking the project democratically.

What is the hook?  We want to feature this entire exercise on our blog. We will divide up the month as follows:

• Week 1: A description of the project and the "ask" posted by the "adoptee" on this blog.
• Week 2: Social Symmetry provides its interpretation and analysis of the problem.
• Week 3: Social Symmetry presents its strategy (with a high-level plan for delivery).
• Week 4: Social Symmetry scrutinizes the "projected" deliverable and establishes metrics and a process for measuring the social impact.

Do you have any disclaimers? Yes, actually: make sure the project is reasonable (remember, this is a short-term engagement). We can't think of a better way to say this. If Coke comes to us and asks us to overhaul its bottling and distribution processes pro-bono, in June, we may find ourselves a bit overwhelmed. The more well-defined the "ask", the more specific our solution. It's also important to note that we assume much of the exercise will be done remotely and through conference calls (depending on where the final organization is located).

Here are some examples of things that came to mind when we developed this concept. Please note, these are meant to guide, not constrain or limit:

• Conducting an analysis of a particular product and identifying "green" modifications or enhancements.
• Reviewing an organization's Corporate Social Responsibility Report and identifying ways to improve what is communicated, and how it is communicated.
• Evaluating an organization's Website (or the "Social Responsibility section" of a broader Website) and providing feedback on how to improve the experience and drive action (donations, involvement).
• Meeting with a Human Resources Department and identifying opportunities to improve employee satisfaction through volunteer and donor-related programs.
• Reviewing an existing process and identifying innovative ways to minimize the carbon footprint associated with the procedure.
• Designing and developing a cause marketing campaign for an organization, product or service that reinforces its value, while generating positive recognition for the organization.

When do we start submitting projects?Umm, now? We'll accept project names until May 15th, so spread the word. Make your posts in the comment field below (and please include a company name, URL, 1-2 sentence description of the "ask", and a contact in case you are selected).And don't throw us any softballs. We'd rather take a strike on a wicked split-fingered fastball then turn this into a game of homerun derby.

If that didn't make sense to you, don't worry. The Canadian on our team feels your pain about the baseball language--and just so you know, he kept insisting we make a hockey reference, instead.

Der Begriff will für mich einfach nicht zur Kommunikation 2.0 passen.

Also habe ich im Oxford English Dictionary nachgeschlagen und die klassische Definition des Managers als „a person controlling or administering a business“ gefunden. Auf der Suche nach einem passenderen Begriff bin ich beim „Leader“ gelandet. Der ist definiert als „a person who causes others to go with him, by guiding and showing the way; guides by persuasion and argument.'

Folgt man den angelsächsischen Definitionen, dann dreht sich beim „Führen“ alles um Visionen, Ideen und darum, Menschen zu inspirieren und zu überzeugen. Das passt, wie ich finde, besser zum Dialog. Man managt keine Dialoge, man führt sie.

Manager haben Dinge im Griff zu haben. Und Management hat traditionell eine enge Verbindung zum Bereich der Maschinen. Mancher Kommunikator spricht ja sogar von der „gut geölten“ Maschine der Unternehmenskommunikation. Die Kunst des Managements wurde populär, als Ingenieure und Buchhalter immer mehr Geschäfte von den „Unternehmern“ übernahmen.

Management von Kommunikation wird heute bestimmt vom Glauben an eindeutige Ziele und funktioniert in einem System von Regeln und Strukturen. Es gibt klare Anweisungen: Wenn - dann. Wie - wenn. Da werden Ziele vorgegeben und Ergebnisse kontrolliert. Es gibt Hierarchien, Freigabe-Prozesse. Hinter all dem steht der Wunschtraum, das Bild des Unternehmens in der Öffentlichkeit kontrollieren zu können. Es geht darum, immer zu wissen, wie der nächste Schritt aussieht.

Und genau das wird immer seltener der Fall sein. Kommunikationspläne? Sprecherbriefings? Freigegebene Zitate? Das war gestern.

In Zukunft werden in Unternehmen mehr Menschen gebraucht, die Dialoge im Netzt für das Unternehmen eigenständig führen können (Leading Conversations). Für diese Dialogführer, Evangelisten, oder wie immer ihr Titel dann heißen mag, wird es wichtiger sein sich als authentische Persönlichkeiten zu zeigen, als sich an Regeln zu halten. Sie müssen den Fokus auf den Menschen (egal ob Kunde, Mitarbeiter oder ein anderer Vertreter der Öffentlichkeit) legen und nicht auf die Einhaltung von Prozessen. Das verlangt eine Menge Vertrauen innerhalb des Unternehmens und einen langen Atem. Das setzt eine Unternehmenskultur voraus, in der die Mitarbeiter selbst das Unternehmen herausfordern und auf die Herausforderung durch die Öffentlichkeit reagieren können.

Im Gegensatz zu Managern (die man einfach ernennen kann) müssen „Leader“, Meinungsführer und Evangelisten anerkannt werden von denen, die ihnen folgen sollen. Glaubwürdigkeit und Authentizität sind der Schlüssel dazu. Für Evangelisten gibt es keine Job-Beschreibungen mit Kompetenzen, die man abfragen kann.

Kommunikation im Netz. Das ist keine klar strukturierte Umgebung mehr, die sich planbar managen lässt. Orientierung ist schwierig. Die Kommunikation hat eine neue Geschwindigkeit, eine neue Dynamik. Damit sind Unternehmen und Marken bestimmt von der Wahrnehmungen der Konsumenten.

Hier mal ein kleines Gedankenspiel: Was, wenn die Mannschaft von Persil- wie gestern im frisch gewaschenen Blog - über die Verwendung von 500.000 € für ein Corporate Social Responsibility Projekt diskutieren will. Und plötzlich kommen nicht nur die klassischen Ideen zum Sponsoring von Projekten für Kinder?

Was, wenn die Öffentlichkeit das mit der CSR plötzlich ernst nähme?
Der Nachhall Texter hat vorgeschlagen: „Projekte fördern, die Alternativen zum herkömmlichen Waschmittel entwickeln“.

Ist vielleicht zu viel verlangt von einem Waschmittelhersteller?

Es gibt andere Szenarien:
Was, wenn Leser plötzlich genau wissen wollen, wie es Persil mit der Corporate Social Responsibility bei sensiblen Themen hält: Sagen wir mal, bei Tierversuchen, Umweltverträglichkeit des Waschpulvers, Allergien - die Liste ließe sich beliebig verlängern. Was, wenn die Öffentlichkeit die Antworten nicht als glaubwürdig einstuft?

Die Frage ist: Kann ein Unternehmen mit klassischen Kommunikationsstrukturen heute zu so sensible Themen einen offenen Dialog im Netz zu führen, ohne dass die Kommunikationsmanager reflexartig den Plan für Krisenkommunikation aktivieren?

Ich bin gespannt, wie es weitergeht. Nicht nur bei Persil. Auch bei Daimler und all den anderen.

The article, in a question-and-answer format by William J. Holstein, opens with the following:

Top managements of companies around the world are confronting a growing chorus of demands to articulate their corporate social responsibility strategies, yet 76 % of top executives polled by IBM acknowledge they don't truly understand their customers' concerns.

Pohle provides interesting insights about corporate social responsibility issues -- and links CSR clearly with corporate business strategies. Here's a sample:

Q: For years, corporate social responsibility (CSR) was an add-on to businesses and was basically a kind of marketing. But now it seems customers want companies to embed social responsibility into their strategies, right?

A: That's right. In the past, when many of us were going to business school, the focus was on shareholder value. Now with the influence  these other stakeholders have, it is really about a broader definition of "who are the folks you're trying to please while running your business?" It's about shareholders and other stakeholders, as opposed to focusing only on shareholder value.

Important issue. Interesting perspective.

by Rob Jewell

• Equality = sameness (when we treat people the same, we ignore differences)
• Equity = fairness (when we treat people equitably, we respect differences)

Before you dismiss this as pure semantics, just pause for a second and consider the first thought that comes into your head when you hear the word diversity.

For a lot of people, it still conjures up ideas of political correctness and affirmative action - synonymous with "equality for some" (a focus on minorities), rather than "equity for all" (a focus on talent).

The latter is what it should be about. There's a huge body of evidence to suggest that well-led, diverse teams significantly outperform homogenous ones - by 15% according to Katzenbach & Smith's "Wisdom of Teams".

The business case is ready-made, yet many HR departments fail to get the point across because their language promotes the perception of diversity as an end in itself, rather than what it is - a means to improve business performance.

Want to engage people in your diversity programme? Then stop calling it your diversity programme! Diversity is the delivery mechanism not the outcome.

According to figures from IT market research company Forrester Research, a data centre with 2,500 servers - relatively small compared to many out there - will devour enough electricity over the course of one month to power 420,000 homes for a year. *

That's bad news for the environment - and it also takes its toll on a company's bottom line. Analysts at IT market analyst firm Gartner calculate that energy expenditure typically accounts for about 10 per cent of the IT budget, and is likely to rise to as much as 50 per cent over the next few years, as energy prices continue to soar.

As the comments on the post hint at - how well is IT covered within an organisations ISO 14001 scope, impact and assessment exercises? Or even within their CSR, Corporate Social Responsibility remits? With something like 60% of a buildings / organisations energy requirement being IT related, it needs to be a central theme.

But its the ability of data center energy to power homes that needs urgent investigation. If these numbers are correct thats a staggeringly high, unbelievably high, number of homes and would resolve the domestic electricity demand at a stroke. I will check the research and invite Forrester Research to comment here,

>>> LISTEN HERE <<<

Baby Boomers of Today Radio Show with Cindy Speir: Each weekly show features: an hour long intelligent and lively discussion about your health, your relationships and your abundance with guest appearances by inspirational speakers, authors and spiritual leaders from all over the world. "Your Peace of Mind is at the Heart of our show".

Cindy Speir is the co-author of Baby Boomer Express From Long Hair to Silver Hair: Where do we go from here?

The idealistic dreams of our youth had the power to reshape an entire society and continue to do so. As Boomers mover into their sixth dedicate of life, we're older wiser and reinventing our selves once again. No matter what dreams you set aside years ago, this new stage of life offers some wonderful opportunities to recapture some old dreams and create new ones along the way.

Our health, wealth, relationships and happiness rest on our ability to renew our spirit, challenge our minds, and continue to create. The Boomers created the idea of living life to the fullest and see no reason to stop now. Whatever your past or present circumstance, you can teach yourself to think differently and most importantly, learn to dream again. Why wait -your life can begin again today! -Cindy Speir

Learn More:
My First Philanthropic Travel Experience
Life Changing: Philanthropic Travel
Understanding Philanthropic Travel
Teach your Children Well: Philanthropic Travel
Travel Philanthropy: Creating Peace
Asking & Receiving: Philanthropic Travel

Philanthropic Travelers:
Butterfly Tree Project: A Philanthropic Travel Success Story
Marc Gold's 100Friends lead Philanthropic Travelers in Asia, Africa & South America
Beau Bressler: Philanthropic Visionary

comments (0) e-mail

"If you are coming to help me, you are wasting your time but if you are coming because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together." -Indigenous Saying

Occasionally, we need to pause - and step away from the hustle and bustle of modern life. One way to do this is to get away from our daily life and go on retreat. Far more than a vacation, a retreat offers us time to ourselves to rest, heal, reflect, and renew our spirit. It is a time to cocoon so that we may emerge renewed, refreshed, and ready to return to our everyday lives with a new perspective. A retreat gives us time for uninterrupted meditation so that we may go deep within and spend time with ourselves.

A retreat may offer quiet, solitude, and sometimes even silence. Retreats often take place in humble dwellings with simple fare so that our senses may be reawakened to the beauty of unadorned tastes and the sights and sounds of nature. When we spend days in contemplation, we can more easily hear our heart when it speaks to us. We also are able to really listen when a bird sings, deeply breathe in the smell of flowers, grass, or earth, and delight in a soft breeze blowing on our cheek. When we go on retreat we have time to connect to the sacred geometry of a labyrinth, discover epiphanies through asanas, or take a long, reflective walk through the woods where we can give each step our full attention.

Without the pull of deadlines, relationships, the Internet, or other media, we give ourselves time to go deep into our own solitude where we can fully reflect on our joys, sorrows, and fears, owning and releasing them as needed. We may even come to know and understand our life path more deeply. Hopefully, when we return home, we can take a little bit of this time alone back with us and create the space for deep reflection on a daily basis. We also may come back to our life renewed and ready to take on the world. The beauty of going on retreat is that no matter where you go or how long you stay, you'll always meet yourself when you get there.

Learn More:
Multi-Generational Philanthropic Travel: Exquisite Safaris
2007 World Travel Market London: Luxury Travel with a Conscience
Travel Philanthropy: Creating Peace
The Fable of Stone Soup
Understanding Philanthropic Travel
Approaching the Omega Point: Philanthropic Travel
Travel Connoisseur Magazine on Exquisite Safaris Philanthropic Travel Worldwide
Fast Company Magazine on Philanthropic Travel
Philanthropic Traveler funded High School opens near Victoria Falls, Zambia
My First Philanthropic Travel Experience
Affluent Parents Dedicated to Instilling Philanthropic Values in their Children
Giving while Living: The Deeper News About the New Philanthropy
Dr. Jeffrey Sachs on the Strategic Steps Out of Poverty

Philanthropic Travelers:
Visionary Philanthropic Traveler Chellie Kew
Milton & Fred Ochieng: Philanthropic Travelers
Jane Kaye- Bailey: Philanthropic Traveler
Richard Branson: Philanthropic Traveler
Angelina Jolie: Philanthropic Traveler
Oprah Winfrey: Philanthropic Traveler
Palm Beach Life Magazine: Philanthropic Travelers

comments (0) e-mail

Hi All,

Greetings from AccessAbility!

Over the last few years, the issue of employment of persons with disabilities in the private sector has been on top of many minds, but it has mostly been perceived as a social issue needing a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) approach instead of being looked upon as a business case needing the regular Human Resources (HR) approach. With our association with the Indian Tobacco Company (ITC)-Welcomgroup as access consultants, we were able to closely observe its evolution in employment of persons with disabilities, from being a CSR concern to an HR practice and have tried to document (in the form of a handbook) the learning that came out of it.

The handbook, “Employing the Disabled” is a step by step guide to demystify the perceived complexities around employing persons with disabilities, and can be downloaded in PDF format at http://www.accessability.co.in/files/Employing-the-Disabled.pdf (369 Kb).

I hope you find the handbook useful and will really appreciate if you can provide your feedback on how this handbook can be improved further.

Warm Regards,
Shivani Gupta
Director
AccessAbility

EmployAbility | AbilityForum

D8/8073, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi -110070 | Tel Work: + 91 11 3266 0862 | Fax: + 91 11 2613 0862 | Mob: + 91 93102 45745



Subscribe to We Can Do
Learn how to receive an email alert when new material is posted at We Can Do (wecando.wordpress.com).

Other Resources at We Can Do
Catch up with the news; explore resources, toolkits, or funding and fellowship opportunities; find research, reports, papers, or statistics; or look up conferences, events, call for papers, or education/training opportunities.