March 7, 2008

Going "Anti" for Corporate Social Responsibility

Now before anyone starts thinking I’m a hater of “causes”, I’ll just quickly note that I do believe in giving back and I’ve been a long time supporter and volunteer for a number of organizations like ACS, Gilda’s Club, NAC, and others. I’ll preface my point: I understand that the position of CSR is supposed to be a win-win situation for businesses and customers – businesses profit; the brand gains exposure and increases loyalty by building a relationship premised on conscience and cause; customers feel good, and society feels good for buying-in to it. * Hooray for business and the cause * Where I draw the line at corporate social responsibility is when it flies in the face of “transparency of motive” and I walk away feeling “duped”.

It goes back to that question of, why are you really supporting the cause? Some people think, who cares(!) – at least something good is being done. But I care. I care about disingenuous motivations and false pretenses.

What got me started on this whole raging path is something that happened yesterday. I’m walking down the street through town and have a need to buy some basic home supplies and I see two stores – one has a breast cancer ribbon in the front window and the other doesn’t. I opt for the breast-cancer supporter. * clap, clap, clap for the business * I pick out my things, and when it’s my turn to step up to the counter, I ask about a contribution jar or percentage of profit per item that goes to the breast cancer foundation. They tell me, and I quote, “We don’t contribute financially but we do believe in the cause.”

…Heh?

Maybe you think I’m overreacting but I tell you I’ve run into these scenarios many, many times and I am infuriated no less each time. Had I known the ribbon display was merely that - I would have gone to the second store whose prices are slightly cheaper. Clearly, the ribbon in the window was meant to draw me in as a customer - if they really believed in the cause - they'd do what many do and make a contribution to the cause. But what really gets my blood boiling is the "enviornmental cause". Here’s an example..

Charles Schwab had flown me out for an interview last year and I remember they put me up in the Orchard Garden Hotel – a green hotel near Chinatown, in downtown San Francisco. When I asked the recruiter about it, she gave me a very thoughtful, well-prepared schpiel that Schwab cares about the environment, and they’re doing what they can for their part.

Ok, I’ll bite.

Soy instead of ink, energy-regulated rooms, and recyclable bins (one for paper and one for aluminum)…I have no problem with that. The hotel was small, patterned with brown on brown colors but still trendy-looking in a chic “earthy” way, and my room was fairly comfortable. The major downside – it was also an additional 16 blocks from Schwab headquarters. After what felt like a dizzying 7 hours of interviewing, my mind came back to that “green” hotel and I did a quick review.

- They put me on the cheapest flight available (ok, understandable) but it also had me arriving at midnight, the night before my interview, and they had me flying out less than two hours after my interviews were done. That’s pretty harsh timing to save on a little reimbursement money. I was dead, during and after my interviews

- The airline they chose was so cheap they didn’t even have food on board; not even snack boxes just pretzels. And this was a cross-country flight mind you from Philadelphia to San Francisco

- They didn’t take me out to lunch and introduced me to the quick café in the main lobby

- Most of the standard hotel rooms in downtown San Francisco, for places like the Hyatt or the Marriott, average about $285/ night; the price for going with the Orchard was about $100 cheaper

So I’m thinking about this interview process and it suddenly dawned on me; promoting green wasn’t about social responsibility or supporting a cause – it was about cost-reduction. Like the rest of my trip – it was about minimizing expenses to the nth degree (and I mean going to the bare minimums without sacrificing company image). “Let’s go cheap and since it’s green, let’s play it up.” Admittedly, I was a little ticked.

Everyone wants to jump on the band-wagon of supporting "a cause". But from my review, climate change is a crock and for many businesses, so is asserting “earth-friendly” programs for the sake of the environment.

GE made their big splash with the “ecomagination” project, committing $2 billion to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving energy efficiency by 30 percent by the end of 2008 and 2012, respectively.

Seems to me that it makes perfect senses to invest in innovation and new technology for the future, particularly when you're the profit-hounding GE and one of the largest providers of energy-resource for homes and businesses. Investing in alternative technology that is, in the long term, cheaper to produce is called "smart business".

Toyota is promoting their new “green make-over” project intended to increase sustainability of production operations by emphasizing the role of nature in creating production sites.

All I can say is, weak; very weak.

Dell is beefing up their efforts to become “the greenest” technology company around by building-up it’s recycling program and “building earth-friendly PC’s”.

Why don’t companies just say what this is all really about – cost reduction for profitability and growth, or, in many cases - pretending they give a darn to drive loyalty and spend for customers who do give a darn. Was that so hard? Let’s talk about Dell’s “green” efforts – first of all, traditional computer parts are power-sucking nightmares and people are looking for power sustainability in their PC products. To achieve this – you have to look for alternatives; it’s a no-brainer. But to promote this as an earth-friendly project is ludicrous – the packaging box is a recycling nightmare (meaning it can’t even be recycled), not one component of their PC’s is made of re-cycleable material and the mercury contained in laptops can damage the CNS. What’s so “earth-friendly” about it??

Now there’s even the CRRA - Corporate Responsibility Reporting Awards; an international event with a prestigious gala evening, ceremonies, parties, and awards with titles like “Best Corporate Responsibility Fiscal Report” and “Best Carbon Disclosure”.

And guess what SF-based company was on the list of attendees. Yea, really.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

However it's labeled, I believe that all companies that profit from "taking", need to give-back. But I agree with your point in so far as marketing-based "sell-sell" initiatives: buy a product and we will donate. THESE campaigns are a sham. If companies really want to give-back, management and employees should endorse a contribution match program and leave the consumers out of the mix except on a voluntary contribution basis only.

Anonymous said...

I really don't care what contributions a company makes. I go for product quality and price and nothing else. Call me a hearless bastard, so be it. Sounds to me like CS is cheap period, even if they do genuinely support the environment. Their treatment of you as employee candidate speaks loudly of them in the area of employee satisfaction. I bet this extends well beyond the interview process.

Deanna Shaw said...

Chris-
Yes, you make a good point. I do believe in employee contributions/employer match programs. It's really the transparency from business to consumer that I'm referring to, how it's promoted and for what purpose.

Anonymous said...

interesting article and video about GE's CEO, Jeff Immelt, and the ecomagination project:

http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/mar2008/ca2008034_906295.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_businessweek+exclusives

Anonymous said...

here's one with a political bite. green-collar jobs - the future "class" of America?

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/greenbiz/archives/2008/02/green_jobs_and.html

Anonymous said...

agree that any merchant that uses causes as shams to lure customers is reprehensible; moreover, they should be penalized by the Anti-Illegal Use of Causes Police; & their suppliers ie, beverage, food & other marketers should also be put on the carpet esp. if they espouse pro-cause policies

I'm a bit more amphibious (AKA ambivalent) re companies that engage in green causes; as long as it helps the environment, it's all good though their lack of transparency in supporting these causes is shameful; if only once a company included in their press release 'and we also do this b/c it's good biz'

David said...

Truthfully I behave like Anonymous when he/she says all they go for is quality and price. This is only because I am not in a position to afford organic and green if it is more expensive. I tend to favor any one who is giving back and green but the very moment they mention global warming I cringe and become completely turned off. I believe most of the time companies are greening up to either make more money or as you say, to save money.

Dan said...

Deanna -- first, I am sorry that you were mistreated by Charles Schwab (and they did mistreat you); I am now boycotting Charles Schwab! I should point out, however, that not starting a new job in the financial services sector in 2007/2008 is probably a good outcome for you! :-)

This is not going "anti-" on your "anti-," but a few comments:

1) The hotel may well have been chosen for environmental reasons given a particular budget. Budget and environment are not mutually exclusive. And the location (Union Square), while not convenient to their office is a more interesting (fun) location than the financial district -- not that you were given the opportunity to find out.

2) Every transaction includes externalities. Personally, I welcome the growing transparency of companies informing us of what they are doing to reduce energy usage, limit toxic byproducts, etc. It is far from perfect and some (much?) is BS, but it is better than before. Not that long ago, if asked about pollution from their manufacturing process, most companies would have responded with some variation of "don’t you worry yourself about that stuff" or "that’s none of your f***ing business!"

3) The "green" campaigns of many companies is marketing, but it usually ties into something tangible such as energy efficiency. Yes, it probably also translates into lower costs, but again these are not mutually exclusive. It makes a lot more sense to me that buying something because it makes me part of the "Pepsi Generation" or something like that!

Deanna Shaw said...

Hey! Don't knock the pepsi generation buddy! I'm still waiting for my club card. ;-)