ResponsAbility

Corporate Responsibility as Public Diplomacy

Boyd Neil — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:04:00 GMT

By Manuel Pauser, account executive in H&K's Washington office.

As a 17-year-old I decided to live in Malaysia for a year, to immerse myself in another culture, learn the language, live with a local family and attend a local high school. At that time, I saw the year mainly as a benefit for me, for my family at home, and for my host family and friends in Malaysia. It had never crossed my mind that this cultural exchange could be a tool of foreign policy and diplomacy—to share and advocate German ideals abroad while bringing Malaysian values back to Germany.

Only a few years later, as a student of political science and international relations, I realized how crucial such programs are to foreign policy. Whereas traditional diplomacy—the art and practice of direct communication between political representatives of different countries—remains an integral part of foreign policy, public diplomacy has become increasingly important to the foreign policy efforts of the U.S. Department of State and other foreign ministries around the world.

Instead of reaching out to officials, public diplomacy programs seek to engage a wider audience in a non-political fashion. These programs provide a country with a human face abroad—something that is tangible for the public. Prominent examples include the Fulbright academic exchange program and the recent concert of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra in North Korea.

Increasingly however, governments have realized that corporations and their corporate responsibility efforts can be part of public diplomacy strategies as well. Only a few weeks ago, the U.S. Department of State inaugurated its Benjamin Franklin Award for Public Diplomacy. The award recognizes the achievements of Americans who actively contribute to advancing America’s ideals through public diplomacy. In the category of corporations, Johnson & Johnson won the award for its Safe Kids Worldwide campaign, one that aims to educate the public and advocate for children’s safety at home and in school.

On another occasion, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier announced that the German Federal Foreign Office, together with the Bertelsmann Foundation, planned to set up an internet platform to highlight best practices in corporate responsibility among German companies at home and abroad. Embassies will provide background information on countries and confer on-the-ground insights regarding companies’ cooperation with the local public.

In both cases, corporate responsibility as public diplomacy is viewed as a new way to create understanding and appreciation for other cultures, while establishing a dialogue between people of different nationalities. Subsidiaries of companies in other countries tend to resemble the culture of that parent company, the quality of products and production processes, the relationship between management and workforce, and the relationship with local communities.

Each case also indicates that diplomacy not only serves businesses, but businesses can serve diplomacy as well. For the past decades, it has been common practice for country officials to travel on official diplomatic visits accompanied by representatives from the business community. Such trips help to build and strengthen economic ties with other countries and serve businesses.

Businesses, in turn, can provide grounds for closer diplomatic relations and increased collaboration. With strong corporate responsibility engagements abroad, businesses can help build and expand powerful ties among the publics and people, while at the same time, enhancing the image of their home countries.

Corporate responsibility is part of public diplomacy. And public diplomacy becomes an integral part of corporate responsibility strategies. Even though we are still miles away from a fully integrated relationship between public diplomacy and corporate responsibility, I am glad to observe that governments around the world are beginning to recognize that corporations can assist diplomacy efforts by conveying the ideals and values of their home countries abroad.

Transgender Protection in the Workplace -- PART TWO

Boyd Neil — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:24:00 GMT

by Michelle Tsai, senior account supervisor for the corporate group in the New York office.

This is the second of a two-part post on equal protection for transgender employees in the workplace.

In my last post, I brought up the point that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) employees are not protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws hiring or employment discrimination on the basis of the employee’s “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” but not specifically sexual orientation or gender identity. Early court decisions after the Act was passed held that transgender people were not entitled to protection from employment discrimination under Title VII. More recently, however, a new line of cases, based on intervening U.S. Supreme Court decisions, may provide protection for LGBT people in some situations.

One case in particular speaks directly to the issue of gender identity. In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), the Supreme Court held that Title VII was not limited to discrimination on the basis of one’s biological status as a man or a woman but instead prohibits the “entire spectrum” of discrimination on the basis of sex, including discrimination on the basis of gender stereotypes. In Price Waterhouse, plaintiff Ann Hopkins was denied a partnership at an accounting firm because she was deemed to be insufficiently “feminine.” To improve her chances for partnership, Hopkins was told she should “walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry.” The employer argued that Title VII did not prohibit discrimination based on gender stereotypes.

The Supreme Court disagreed. “As for the legal relevance of sex stereotyping, we are beyond the day when an employer could evaluate employees by assuming or insisting that they matched the stereotype associated with their group, for ‘in forbidding employers to discriminate against individuals because of their sex, Congress intended to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women resulting from sex stereotypes.’”

Despite this landmark case, transgender employees continue to struggle to be treated fairly in the workplace. Case in point: the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act by the U.S. House of Representatives last November, which was originally written to include protection for transgender employees facing discrimination on the basis of gender identity. However, that protection was stripped out of the bill in a controversial decision by Democratic House leaders, among them lead ENDA sponsor Barney Frank, the openly-gay representative from Massachusetts, in order to ensure its chances for passage. (Passage is mainly symbolic, since the Senate is not likely to consider the bill, and President Bush has already promised to veto it, should it reach the White House.)

What we are left with is a limited ENDA bill that – if it ever became law – would extend protection from workplace discrimination to straight-looking and acting lesbian and gay employees but leave the most vulnerable transgender employees bereft of such legal protection, as well as non-gender conforming individuals, both straight and gay, such as Ms. Hopkins, who are denied equal career opportunities based solely on their appearance and nonconformity to sex stereotypes.

However, there is progress being made, and the private sector is leading the way. Last year, 125 of Fortune 500 companies specifically prohibited job discrimination against transgender employees. In 2008, I am proud to say that Hill & Knowlton has joined this forward-thinking minority of companies by including gender identity in its current EEO policy.

Some companies, like Goldman Sachs, go a step further by adding health-insurance coverage of sex reassignment surgery, which can cost an individual anywhere from $5,000 to $150,000 if they paid out of pocket, depending on their particular situation. That figure doesn’t include hormone and other drug treatments. The company says it made the change as part of a push last year to attract top talent and recruit and retain a more diverse workforce.

Some U.S. states are also filling the federal void by passing their own laws protecting LGBT employees. Currently, 13 states and the District of Columbia have policies prohibiting both sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in employment: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. New York is one of seven other states that protect against sexual orientation only.

Protection for LGBT employees aims to the heart of fairness and equality that the U.S. espouses for its citizens. It’s also a hallmark of good business practice to recruit and retain the best available talent in the global market without regard for characteristics that do not impact job performance. LGBT employees deserve the right to work and be rewarded for their professional achievements without regard to their personal characteristics or situations. And straight women and men should not be forced to adhere to outdated sex stereotypes for fear of workplace discrimination. The business world, like the natural world, thrives on diversity, even if our society is often uncomfortable with it.

Transgender Protection in the Workplace - PART ONE

Boyd Neil — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:06:00 GMT

by Michelle Tsai, senior account supervisor for the corporate group in the New York office.

This is the first of a two-part post on equal protection for transgender employees in the workplace.

When I started my communications career in the early 1990s at the Texas Department of Transportation as a public information officer, my boss told me there was an unwritten rule that women were discouraged from wearing pants in the office, by fiat of the district engineer. But, she said, things were better than when she started her career in the 1970s, when women who flouted this rule were actually sent home to change!

We’ve come a long way indeed.

Interestingly, this example of our shifting attitudes toward sex stereotypes (i.e. that women wear skirts and men wear pants) has become a factor again with regard to non-gender conformist individuals increasingly present in the workplace. This group includes transgender men and women, people who are transitioning or have already transitioned to a different sex than they were assigned at birth; and intersex individuals, those born with genetic anomalies that can cause impaired development of secondary sex characteristics. But this group also includes individuals who simply are more comfortable with challenging traditional sex stereotypes, such as men with long hair, or women who don’t wear makeup.

In order to fully understand the issue, it’s important to make a distinction between three separate concepts: gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation. Gender identity is your own internal feelings of being male, female, both or neither. Gender expression is how you present yourself externally to the world, whether masculine, feminine or androgynous. Sexual orientation is your preference for a partner based on your physical, emotional and spiritual connection to the gender qualities of another person, and is usually described as being gay, lesbian or bisexual.

Public attitudes and legal protection of transgender employees varies widely throughout the world, with Canada and Europe generally more liberal and the Middle East generally more conservative. Currently, there is no federal law in the United States that explicitly prohibits discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws hiring or employment discrimination on the basis of the employee’s “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” but does not mention sexual orientation, much less gender identity.

Early court decisions held that transgender people were not entitled to protection from employment discrimination under Title VII. More recently, however, a new line of cases, based on intervening U.S. Supreme Court decisions, may provide protection for LGBT people in some situations.

In my next post, we’ll look at one landmark Supreme Court case almost 20 years ago that continues to impact gender identity law today, and take a look at the progress we’ve made in establishing equal rights for LGBT employees in the workplace.

From Earth Day to Earth Week to Sustainable Environmental Practices

Boyd Neil — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:25:00 GMT

By Liz Purchia is an account executive in H&K's public affairs group in Washington D.C.

Last Tuesday was Earth Day and for many organizations, Hill & Knowlton included, it turned into Earth Week.

Everywhere you looked from clothing stores to TV stations to global corporations, people were championing the environment, offering environmental tips and discounts on eco-friendly products. In our Washington, D.C. office Hill & Knowlton handed out free reusable water bottles and tote bags to every employee to cut back on the amount of waste we produce.

I found myself logging on to various Web sites, signing up for petitions and learning tools that I can use to curb my environmentally harmful habits.

Sustaining Environmental Energy

I work on a lot of energy and environmental issues for clients in D.C. and what I’m wondering is now that Earth Day is over, what’s going to happen? Has everyone done their part for the year?

Recently, President Bush outlined the administration’s goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. As Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee said, “We can't wait until 2025 to deal with greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). That is too late, that is dangerously late, that is doing nothing.

The Warner-Lieberman bill, scheduled for debate in the Senate calls for halting growth in GHG emissions starting in 2012, 13 years earlier than the president proposes.

All three presidential candidates, Sens. McCain (R-AZ), Clinton (D-NY), and Obama (D-IL) support mandatory limits on GHG and are advocating a much more aggressive climate change platform. But with the election year, there’s very little chance that much will get done in terms of environmental policy.

Everyone’s looking to see what others are doing to support the environment and to reduce their environmental impacts. Before hiring us, some potential clients are even looking to see what Hill & Knowlton is doing as a company to address climate change.

Environmental Sustainability as Business Opportunity

In February, I was on a Hill & Knowlton exchange program in Brussels where we were the exclusive PR partner for the European Business Summit. The focus of this year’s event was “Greening the Economy,” underlining that the environment can become a business opportunity.

The U.S. can take a few notes from European businesses, which have incorporated environmental plans into their business models for many years. We can support our economy through green practices. What’s good for the environment can and should be good for business.

I recently read a New York Times article, “Millions of Jobs of a Different Collar” in which Jerome Ringo, president of the Apollo Alliance predicted that the U.S. could generate between three million to five million more green jobs over the next 10 years. Van Jones of Green for All is quoted in the article as saying that green jobs “cannot be easily outsourced…If we are going to weatherize buildings, they have to be weatherized here…If you put up solar panels, you can’t ship a building to Asia and have them put the solar panels on and ship it back. These jobs have to be done in the United States.”

As clients come to us to help shape their business and communications plans, inserting environmental practices will be beneficial to their business, their potential business and employees.

The market needs companies to adopt environmental practices. It may just be monitoring data center usage, improving energy efficient technologies or turning off the lights on weekends, but making a commitment to the environment means making a commitment to sound sustainable business practices.

The Greening of the Super Bowl – Important Step or Not Enough?

Boyd Neil — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:33:00 GMT

By Lena Davie, Vice President, Hill & Knowlton Tampa

If you are like me, you were glued to the tube on Super Bowl a few Sundays ago. Whether or not you had a personal stake in the game, you watched with interest to see whether Eli would triumph over Tom or if the 1972 Miami Dolphins would have to relinquish their perfect season crown to the Patriots. And perhaps (again, if you are like me) you watched the commercials with even more interest to see who would pull out all the stops and whose ad would be a bust in USA Today’s ad meter the next day.

But what was perhaps even more interesting was what happened before and after the game, what most of the 90 million plus viewers were not privy to, and that is the greening of the game.

I was surprised to learn that over 150,000 people travel to the Super Bowl host city for the big game each year. And that an estimated 500 tons of greenhouse gas emissions result from local travel and events associated with the big day.

2008 marks the 15th year that the National Football League (NFL) has linked green “activities” to its festivities to offset some of these emissions and the second year it has taken great pains to host a “carbon neutral” event.

Specifically this year the NFL:

Powered their NFL Experience and the stadium completely by solar, wind and geo-thermal energy sources
Bought certificates through the Salt River Project to offset the amount of carbon generated through other electricity use
Planted thousands of trees to help offset greenhouse gas emissions. These trees helped reforest more than 84 acres of land devastated by fires. The NFL also hired tribal forestry crews, employing people who need jobs, to help do the work
Worked with local waste management officials to control the recycling of the trash from the game and events surrounding it
Used hybrid and flex-fuel vehicles as a substantial portion of their official staff cars
Partnered with Expedia and TerraPass to offset the travel of the two teams and their staff

But is it enough?

Depends on who you ask.

The NFL seems to be taking its responsibility quite seriously. It even has a director of environment, Jack Grohl, whom I heard speak at a Recycle Florida Today conference last June. I believe he genuinely wants to help the NFL help the environment and has dedicated the last 15 years doing so. And while he acknowledges that more can always done, efforts such as those taken this year in Arizona are a giant step in the right direction.

Naysayers will point to all of the places where energy leakage occurs as a result of the big game. This includes everything from the energy used when millions of American homes tune in, to the 400 plus chartered jets that ferried high-end travelers to and from Phoenix for the big game.

Grohl says that responsibility for preserving the environment lies with all of us and with all involved industries. It is not up to the NFL, for example, to convince airlines to use paperless ticketing, to require fans to carpool, to require FOX to air PSAs that talk about environmental protection or to persuade average Americas to recycle for that matter. Personal accountability can and should always play a role but I for one am thrilled to see the NFL taking such great pains to do its part.

Now that that is said and done, what did everyone think about the ads?

The Intersection of Privacy and Public Relations

Boyd Neil — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:15:00 GMT

(By Emily Crane, a senior account executive in Hill & Knowlton's Washington, D.C. office)

Traditionally, corporate responsibility refers to the various ways a company protects its stakeholders' best interests. When consumers and stakeholders consider CR, they often think about the environment, a company's spirit of volunteerism and how that company gives back to its community. An overlooked aspect of corporate responsibility is privacy. With reports of information leaks, lost laptops and hacked credit card files coming to light almost daily, it is evident that companies must be as responsible for protecting the personal information of their consumers, employees and stakeholders as they are for making sure they are energy efficient.

This post is not about privacy and information security policies and procedures. On a day-to-day basis, I see most corporations striving to put top-notch security and privacy practices in place. No corporation wants to damage its reputation and end up under a microscope. You can learn more about various thought leaders in privacy and their practices by visiting the International Association of Privacy Professionals.

But there are some interesting questions about privacy that public relations professionals should start thinking about. Should we be recommending to our clients that they consider positioning themselves as thought leaders in privacy? By doing so, however, would they open themselves up to greater scrutiny and legal vulnerability? How do companies determine if they should be ambassadors of their privacy and information security practices? While companies want to protect employee, customer and business information, does going out in-front of the crowd and talking about those policies and procedures open them up to greater liability if something should go wrong in the future? And is there an obligation to share and promote best practices in the area of privacy and information protection?

I can see it from both points of view. From a legal standpoint, I understand how companies would be concerned that discussing their policies might make them vulnerable legally. What if a company's talk on privacy procedures leads consumers to assume their information is "guaranteed" to be protected? But, I believe companies who strive to be responsible owe their stakeholders a better explanation then “they don’t want to talk about it.” I’m not saying companies should throw all legal concerns to the wind when talking about information security, but I do believe that corporate responsibility does not end with doing well.

It is just as important that a company is responsible with its information policies as it is that the company makes sure people know how responsible it is. That type of thought leadership drives improvements, innovation and the conversation around privacy and information security. I think we need to give more credit to consumers and employees—and assume they understand the difference between talking about precautionary measures and legal obligation.

Is Green the New Black?

Boyd Neil — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:15:00 GMT

(Kelly Newton is a vice president with Hill & Knowlton. She is based in Washington, D.C. and represents a variety of clients in the technology, consumer and government sectors.)

In the past year we have witnessed a sea change in how business views the environment. Not only are companies instituting significant changes to their own business, but leading companies are driving change among customers and their businesses as well.

At Fortune’s inaugural iMeme conference in San Francisco in August, HP CEO Mark Hurd offered one of the boldest perspectives on the role of the IT industry in driving environmental change, “Environmental responsibility is good business. We've reached the tipping point where the price and performance of IT are no longer compromised by being green, but are now enhanced by it." (In the interest of full disclosure, Hill & Knowlton is the global agency of record for HP.)

Hurd’s view was supported in a New York Times op-ed in September, when Thomas Friedman stated, “Green is not just right for the world, it is better, more profitable, more healthy, more innovative, more efficient, more successful.”

Joel Makower, a recognized thought leader on sustainability, recently challenged public relations professionals to take the lead on driving business to fight climate change by leveraging the media to communicate real impact on the environment. In his blog posting, he asked some tough questions:

“Will you steer your clients beyond short-term media hits to create longer-term value by counseling them to aim high, to make bold, audacious commitments in order to stand out from the crowd? Or will you focus on short-term results, creating flash-in-the-pan media moments that celebrate incremental change in lieu of substantive environmental progress?”

This is a challenge many of us face each day, and it ties back to the age old conundrum – how do we prove the value of public relations for long-term business success?

GE’s Ecomagination initiative is arguably the best recent example of effectively communicating the business case for environmental thought leadership. Yes, GE talked about improving its own environmental impact by reducing energy use, recycling more, and limiting harmful chemicals in products. But GE went a step further. They pushed the envelope and changed the way businesses view environmental leadership today. GE created a market for products to help improve the environmental impact of its customers. As a result of developing these new products and providing them to customers, the program has produced $12 billion in revenue, with an additional $50 billion expected from pending orders and commitments, since it launched in 2005.

Granted, not all of our clients have the global reach and financial resources of GE, but I believe we must approach communications around environmental leadership in much the same way that we would approach any other emerging business topic. Here are a few tips:

Transparency is critical: A company must be willing to report its success and admit its failure.
Honesty is the best policy: Reporters and consumers are cynical and they demand facts and figures that prove a company’s claims.
Leverage experts: Third party thought leaders add credibility.

In the past, clients turned to PR for help in dealing with environmental challenges such as strict legislation and regulation, attacks from radical environmentalists, and hazardous chemical spills. But today, we are more likely to be engaged to help tell the positive stories about what businesses are doing to “go green.” It’s impossible to say if all of our hard work will lead to a cleaner, healthier environment, but I am confident this is not simply a trend. Business strategies have evolved to incorporate environmental leadership, and the PR industry is helping to drive this change.

Being Responsible Starts With You

Boyd Neil — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:11:00 GMT

(By Lauren Cozzi, a senior account executive in Hill & Knowlton's Washington, D.C. office)

Working for Hill & Knowlton, I’m fortunate to have a firsthand view of what many leading companies and organizations are doing in the area of environmental responsibility. And while so many corporations and institutions are ‘going green’ and discussing sustainability these days, it’s important to note that responsibility begins with individuals. There is much talk about what we should be doing, but taking action is what makes the difference. By taking a few simple steps and making some slight changes to our daily routines, it can be easy to reduce our environmental impact.

Small things, like turning off the water when brushing our teeth and taking shorter showers, can help conserve water. At home and at the office, recycling, rather than throwing away recyclable items, is another way each of us can minimize input into landfills. It’s also pretty simple to add a separate container, reserved for paper that can be recycled, next to regular trash bins.

Lately, there has been discussion surrounding plastic water bottles because of the overwhelming increase in our use of them. Using water filters at home and in the office can counteract this. If the use of water bottles cannot be avoided, steps to recycle should be taken to reduce the build up.

Some good Web sites for general information about recycling can be found at:

http://www.re3.org/
http://earth911.org/
http://www.nrc-recycle.org/consumers.aspx
http://www.recyclecurbside.org/
http://www.epa.gov/osw/
http://www.recyclenow.com/

Many companies have pledges and business plans which incorporate responsibility into the business. Especially among the IT industry, individuals have the opportunity to take advantage of what is being offered. Purchasing electronics with eco-labels, like ENERGY STAR® and EPEAT, to name only two, is a great way to buy products with confidence that you limit your environmental impact.

http://energystar.gov/
http://www.epeat.net/Consumers.aspx

Many of these specially-labeled IT products are also designed to use less energy, which saves us money, while helping to protect the environment.

One of the clients I work with, HP, has developed some great energy-saving tips for individuals.

Taking responsibility to do our part is the least each of us can do to preserve our environment. As a public relations professional who works on environmental responsibility issues each day, I’m sensitive to practice what I preach, but the same tips can be helpful regardless of what anyone does. We should each take advantage of the great information resources available to us, which offer ways to minimize our environmental impact. By taking responsibility for our own actions, we can help make a difference for the better in the near future, and for generations to come.

Rejuvenating Recycling – In an Age of AL

Boyd Neil — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 22:11:00 GMT

(By Lena Davie, a vice president in Hill & Knowlton's Tampa, Florida office)

It has been 36 years since “Iron Eyes Cody” (aka the Crying Indian) shed his famous tear that helped spawn a nationwide anti-litter revolution. Now, the dominant environmental images of the day include blocks of glacial ice crashing into the ocean and a snow-suit clad Leonardo DiCaprio on the cover of Vanity Fair.

There is no question that recycling, whether at home or away, is the easiest way for everyday Americans to help the environment. No hybrid purchase necessary. And yet, rates are declining and while the demand is there for recycled material, the supply is not. This means that U.S. companies are spending more money and energy to use virgin sources to create and manufacture goods. This affects all of us in the form of rising prices.

Has recycling gone the way of terrestrial radio? Should companies deeply affected by declining recycling rates get off the bus or should they fight their way through the crowd?

If you ask the “forward thinkers” in Corporate America, they’ll say that corporate reputation and environmental stewardship go hand and hand. And while their fundamental purpose is to make money, they also know the importance of “giving back what you take” and for the most part, are doing their part. But with newfound attention directed at the environment thanks to Al Gore and others, comes the unintended consequence of more noise and more “talk the talkers.”

Many major corporations are doing it right, however. They are riding the global warming tidal wave and are using their marketing prowess and brand recognition to make a real impact. Companies like Hewlett Packard have developed highly successful programs around recycling. In fact, this summer HP reached a recycling milestone – over one BILLION pounds of products recycled. An important contribution for sure. And they have plans to recycle another billion by 2010. HP has truly found a way to enhance the price and performance of their product by being an environmental leader.

U.S. industry is also deeply affected by declining recycling and while not as historically powerful from a brand recognition perspective, they are implementing community-based programs that are also having a significant impact. Over ten years, companies like Alcoa, ARCO and Novelis have watched the recycling rate of aluminum cans drop from 65% to around 52%. Each rate point is approximately 33 million cans that now have to be created anew, placing a tremendous environmental and financial strain on an industry already reeling from globalization. Recognizing this, they have joined forces with companies like Ball Corporation and Anheuser Busch to help communities better educate their residents about recycling at home in an effort to increase the supply of recycled cans. Communities are facing uphill budget battles that cut in to programs like recycling, but the desire is there to improve and consumers are responding. In fact, consumers say “where have you been?” They simply don’t hear about recycling anymore, like they hear about other issues such as melting glaciers. And they know that recycling is beneficial, but they often just don’t have time or don’t really understand what to do. “Just remind us” they say. “Everyone else is in our face, why aren’t you?”

We cannot take for granted the need for ongoing communication. Al Gore didn’t stop at one slide show. He went on to lobby legislators, meet with corporate leaders, publish a book, launch a Web site, film a documentary and even produce the worlds’ largest one-day concert. U.S. corporations can influence environmental issues by staking their claim on one that closely touches them, such as recycling. But the space is crowded and the voices are loud. Those who are successful find a way to rise above the clutter.

While recycling may be an “old school” answer to a newly popularized problem, there is nothing wrong with old school. It’s tried and true; it’s easy and it can make money. Just ask Will Ferrell.

A Seat at the Table for CR

Boyd Neil — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:02:00 GMT

(By Madeline Turnock, vice president at Hill & Knowlton NW in Portland, Oregon)

The old adage is true that if you’re going to make change happen, you first need a seat at the table.

Hill & Knowlton (H&K) is providing the table, and we’d like to invite you to take a seat. Topic: corporate responsibility (CR). We’re taking the initiative to educate and engage our colleagues and clients on the topic, by way of this blog, research and special events.

In just one example, H&K recently released the results of a global cleantech survey of 420 senior business decision-makers, titled “Return on Environment.” Then, business leaders were invited to the table to discuss, digest and, ultimately, take CR action steps.

Among the research findings, 65 percent of the executives polled said their firm has not yet defined an energy strategy, but many of these are working on expanding their executive suites to include a chief energy officer (CNO).

Most recently, in the San Francisco and Portland markets, company executives joined roundtable forums to share insights into their firms’ CR and environmental practices.

Nik Blosser, publisher of Sustainable Industries Journal, led one such roundtable discussion in Portland last month. Among the attendees were executives from key local organizations including the Portland Development Commission, enXco, Torrent Energy, Metro Regional Government, and the Department of Environmental Quality.

Sustainable Industries Journal editor’s column accurately highlights Hill & Knowlton’s position on cleantech this way, in the editor’s own words:

“I like how Hill & Knowlton defines cleantech to include ‘a broad range of technological solutions designed to reduce or eliminate negative environmental impact while offering significant financial returns and economic sustainability.’ The firm, which publicly states a refusal to “greenwash” its credentials or those of its clients, reports, ‘We are now set to embark on … a “green” revolution whose impact will go far beyond the energy industry as transportation, manufacturing and agriculture will all have a major stake in the changing environment.’”

Read the full article.

So, now what can you do to make sure that a corporate responsibility champion has a seat at the table?

Here are a few simple first steps:

Identify individuals to be the organization’s CR champions and set up a regular gathering.
Gather, assess and benchmark the organization’s current corporate responsibility-related efforts.
Identify a short-term, mini-project that can demonstrate traction and success.
Share that success story – and more – to begin developing internal support and traction for a new organizational culture that values and strives for CR.
Incorporate CR into one person’s job description and evaluation.

On another note, if you don’t have a table, please join ours at Hill & Knowlton. Corporate responsibility is what we’re doing – all day, every day.

Corporate Volunteering Extends Past Soup Kitchens and Fun Runs

Boyd Neil — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:54:00 GMT

By Leigh Nakanishi

(Leigh Nakanishi is an account executive in Hill & Knowlton's Washington, DC office. He was also a City Year Fellow and currently serves on the Alumni Board for City Year Washington, DC.)

In the past when many people thought of corporate volunteering, images of soup kitchens or fun runs came to mind. Although these programs are important, companies today are finding ways to tie volunteer activities to key business and HR goals. The Corporation for National and Community Service found that in 2006, 62.1 million volunteers dedicated 8.1 billions hours of volunteer service in the United States. As volunteerism continues to increase in the United States, having a well developed corporate volunteer program has become an essential part of corporate responsibility planning.

Volunteer programs, if done right, can have many positive benefits for businesses. Volunteer programs can help to raise the visibility of companies in communities in which they do business, build teamwork and develop the skills of employees. A recent survey by Deloitte & Touche USA found that four out of five respondents (78 percent) see volunteering as an opportunity to develop business skills including decision-making, problem-solving and negotiating.

Here are a few ideas that companies should consider when developing and improving their volunteer programs:

Tie Volunteer Activities to Key Business Strengths and Capabilities

Finding ways to lever the core values and business capabilities in volunteer programs is probably the most important thing to consider when developing a program. This strategy will allow a company to utilize already developed talent and cut costs through using in-kind goods. Having a program that surrounds key business capabilities gives companies new avenues to present product offerings and can help position them as leaders in their field. Many technology companies have developed programs to donate their software, computers or infrastructure to educational institutions to help bridge the technology gap. In conjunction, many have also run volunteer tutoring programs where employees teach staff and students how to use the new technology they have received. The companies are able to reach future customers while demonstrating to the community how their products are able to help people.

Establish a Committee to Plan and Promote Volunteer Programs

Having an internal team plan and oversee volunteer programs is an important part of making any program sustainable. As in business, effective planning is essential for a successful program. The committee should consist of members from all parts and levels of an organization to ensure that the programs being developed will be of interest to a wide variety of employees. It is also important to identify or develop internal communication tools to share the successes of efforts with employees to build buy in for future programs.

Brand Volunteer Programs

Branding is an important driver to raise visibility of a volunteering campaign and can help ensure that the public knows the good work a company is doing. Branding should go well beyond wearing company t-shirts on service days. Finding creative ways to brand support materials is one good way to raise visibility. Many companies have gone the extra step of developing specially produced versions of their products as part of their campaign. For example, the Aluminum Association created branded canned water for recent Habitat for Humanity builds they worked on. Consider working with company communications staff on local media outreach and signage for events.

There are many great non-profit organizations that provide resources to companies and individuals looking to build a volunteer program. These include the Points of Light Foundation (http://www.pointsoflight.org/), The Corporation for National and Community Service (http://www.nationalservice.org/) and The Hands On Network (http://www.handsonnetwork.org/welcome-corp-partners/)

Clarence Walton’s notion of CSR . . . 40 years later

Boyd Neil — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:03:00 GMT

By Chad Tragakis

(Senior vice president in Hill & Knowlton's Washington DC office, Chad co-leads the firm's North American corporate responsiblity team. He also serves on the advisory board of the Association of Americans for Civic Responsibility)

The year 2007 marks the 40th anniversary of the publication of Clarence Walton’s book – Corporate Social Responsibilities. Walton is without question one of the founders of the CSR movement and in his 1967 landmark work (and in many others published before and since), he helped to establish, clarify and advance the concept that we know today as corporate citizenship.

In his pioneering work, Walton acknowledges the cynics and skeptics of CSR, those “who insist that a firm best serves the public interest when it best serves its own private interests through effective service to consumers, adequate profits to stockholders, fair working conditions for employees, and scrupulous observance of the law.”

These are the same critics, Walton says, who argue that “to go beyond these commitments is folly.”

Even four decades ago, however, Walton wrote that in spite of the prevailing attitude of the day, “one finds evidence, especially in large enterprises, of a willingness to support not only higher education and the arts but slum-clearance projects, reduction of air and water pollution, civil rights, job training for the unskilled, and the like. In most cases, the justification is enlightened self-interest—a principle cherished in the orthodox business creed and hallowed over centuries by slow accretions in the common law.”

Walton goes on to say that: “growing evidence indicates that the modern corporation is consciously placing public interest on a level with self-interest and possibly above it. This development is explained by the fact that a corporation is really as much a social and political entity as an economic unit.”

Again, that was 40 years ago. But so much of what Walton writes sounds like it could have been published last week in Boston College’s Journal of Corporate Citizenship or the Business Civic Leadership Center’s Corporate Citizen newsletter.

There is much that business today can still learn from Walton, but it’s not always easy to find time for the classics. As the pulsing drumbeat of daily commerce moves us forward at an ever increasing pace, it can be insightful, instructive and enriching to take a few minutes to glean some golden nuggets from the yellowed pages of Walton’s book.