|
I had the privilege to meet with 30 of the founders of the fields of corporate responsibility and social investing at Columbia University last week. Convened by Columbia’s Sustainable Investing Research Initiative, Harvard Kennedy School’s Corporate Responsibility Initiative, and the High Meadows Institute, the gathering brought together individuals I have worked with throughout my career, including a number of whom I have not seen in years, and even a few whose work I have admired from afar but had not met. These 30 people have been founders, CEOs, board members, and advisors to almost every organization and initiative addressing business responsibility over the past 50 years. Most have had roles in multiple organizations, the champion connector perhaps being Jane Nelson, founding director of the Kennedy School Corporate Responsibility Initiative (a conference co-convenor), who is a former Citibanker, has had key roles in dozens of U.K., U.S. and global organizations, the U.N., the World Economic Forum, and has now taught corporate responsibility in the Kennedy School and the Harvard Business School for over 10 years. My co-author, David Grayson of the U.K., and I both participated, gleaning ideas for the final edit of our upcoming book on the history of business responsibility. Chris Pinney of the High Meadows Institute and Caroline Flammer of Columbia’s Sustainable Research Initiative, the other two co-convenors, also had the goal of establishing at Columbia a national archive on corporate responsibility. David Grayson has led a successful initiative to create such a national archive in the U.K., into which the founders and founding institutions of the business responsibility field are contributing their papers. Each conference participant took away learnings useful to them. For me, the most interesting aspect was a review of the past 50 years and the different tools and strategies these individuals and their institutions have used to influence corporate practice. I think all would agree that there is no single effective strategy. At times, their tools were more cooperative with business, and at other times more confrontational. Sometimes, different tools were complementary: the efforts of activists enhanced by consultants and convenors who worked within business to develop best practices in response to the pressures. At times, corporate practice actually led activist thinking; at other times, corporations dragged their feet and adopted responsible business practices only under duress. Here is a list of the tools and strategies we discussed. Each has had its moment in the past 50 years; most are still used today. Shareholder resolutions urging business reforms and action. Social investment funds allowing investors to target responsible firms. “Principles” organizations asking companies to join (e.g., Sullivan Principles). Academic, think tank studies, and journalistic studies and articles documenting actual business practices and the impacts of those practices. Investigative journalism and exposes of objectionable business behavior. Appeals to the morality and ethics of business practices. Systems to measure business behavior (e.g., indexes, reporting regimes). Standards of accountability that promote and compel specific business behaviors. Academic and research studies to demonstrate that responsible business can be profitable. Awards programs that harness corporate concerns for reputation (e.g., 100 Best Companies to Work For). Executive and employee training on dimensions of business responsibility and how to implement specific practices. Training and empowering employees and board members to be advocates for responsible practices. (Sometimes called intrapreneurs.) MBA education of the next generation of business leaders. Development of economic theories or concepts of capitalism that support the call for more responsibility. Thought leadership to endorse specific behaviors (books and articles by respected individuals). Regulatory and legislative regimes to require responsible business practices. Prosecutorial and sentencing guidelines giving credit for existing best practices. Civil and criminal liability lawsuits targeted at specific behaviors or practices (e.g., class action suits). Governance reforms (e.g., public interest directors, board ESG committees, annual reporting to the board). Corporate governance regimes, such as stock exchange requirements, chartering standards, or alternative governance regimes, such as public benefit corporations. Use of scandals and disasters to motivate and coerce business reform (e.g., Bhopal disaster, Exxon Valdez oil spill, Rana Plaza deaths, Wells Fargo sham accounts, Enron fraud, 2008 financial collapse). Public protests against specific companies and/or their directors (i.e., energy companies) or capitalism in general (anti-WTO and anti-globalization protests in Seattle).
Even a list as long as this does not exhaust the strategies and tactics employed by this generation of business responsibility activists. The discussion highlighted several consistent themes that transcend the specific tools and strategies: The importance of good data: Little can be accomplished without good information about current corporate practices and their impact on employees, communities, the environment, and other stakeholders. The importance of leadership: Even though this meeting was not a gathering of business leaders who pioneered responsible practices, all recognized that little was accomplished without the leadership of individual business and financial leaders, as well as social entrepreneurs like ourselves. A core concern for human welfare: Fundamental to the work of all this meeting’s participants was a core ethical or moral concern for human welfare and “human flourishing” (one of the latest terms of business responsibility). Some avoided my use of the specific term business ethics, but agreed that morality was core to the movement. Business responsibility concerns evolve, as does the geopolitical environment in which they are addressed. New technologies, new economic and financial realities, and new corporate strategies all demand different behavior by businesses and different strategies by advocates of business responsibility. Addressing responsibility issues in the age of populism and Trump is different than at earlier times. Finally, there was a realization, sometimes with humor, that our work has proceeded under many flags and labels. Early efforts were described as corporate social responsibility, urban initiatives, business ethics, social accountability, compassionate capitalism, then later ESG (environment, social, governance), corporate purpose, and more recently, sustainability. The terms do not matter as much as the commitment to business’s role in a changing society.
Above all, there was a fundamental hope and confidence that each generation would produce a cadre of business leaders and social entrepreneurs concerned with the contribution business can and must make to the society we all live in.
|
