Posts Tagged ‘CSR’
The Trellis of Sustainability: Engaged Stakeholders - Afia Mansoor
Thursday, July 29th, 2010
Engaging the stakeholders of an organization is crucial for ensuring its sustainability. Engaged customers, employees and even industry rivals make up a cohesive trellis on which an organization can grow securely.
At the very beginning however, it is important to analyse how an organization views its stakeholders. Are stakeholders the means to achieve the end of results or are they the end themselves; securing results as they grow?
We at Schuitema profess strongly that for any organization to flourish, its stakeholders must be viewed as an end to the means of results. The focus of the organization must be to serve stakeholders indiscriminately. And, the process leads to remarkable results.
How to Serve the stakeholder?
The foundation of serving stakeholders lies in giving them significance. And giving significance is really about giving respect to the other. Giving respect in turn, achieves stakeholder engagement in extraordinary ways.
When a stakeholder, for instance the employee, is recognised as the goal of the game, the focus of the organization switches from what it can get out of the employee to what it can give to the employee. That, is also the essence of social responsibility.
There are two important ways that an organization can serve its employees:
1. Affirming the Individual:
Schuitema’s Care and Growth Leadershipâ„¢ Model advocates that an individual working for an organization must be cared for. This care goes beyond the immediate results the individual is supposed to secure for the organization. So the individual is not just a toolkit, but a human being with aspirations and emotions.
Telenor, our client for the Care and Growth Leadershipâ„¢ Model has practiced this philosophy in interesting ways. The company invests a huge amount of money in gauging employee concerns, aspirations and responses to work demands. A survey called IVC (Internal Value Creation) is managed by an external party and asks employees questions about their work/life balance at the company or how their work has been made easier by their bosses. The company adjusts its own dynamics for employees according to these responses – thus realizing the benefits of the hard work behind the survey.
Recently Telenor Pakistan also initiated a campaign where employees submitted true stories of how they lived the core values of the company. Even though most stories had nothing to do with work, the company appreciated the best responses with a view towards affirming the individuals working with it.
Telenor’s management believes that since steps like these have been taken to give significance to the employees, the company has been earning accolades for being one of the best employers in the country. And, the company is also doing very well from a business point of view. No surprise there for stakeholder engagement proponents.
2. Keeping the best interest of the individual in mind:
Serving employees in the best possible way also includes treating them appropriately in a given situation.
Serving and giving significance in an organization should not be misconstrued to mean management that is soft on all issues; including accountability. For instance, if an employee, despite having the Means (infrastructure, tools and systems required to do the task) and Ability (knowing how to perform a task and why it needs to be done) to deliver, shows consistent poor performance against the specified standards, then it is in the employee’s best interest to be held accountable for the lack of performance.
A workforce that feels accountable towards performing and has been given the means and ability to work, is an engaged team. No wonder that in many government sector concerns of Pakistan, where holding people accountable for their performance is often a low priority issue, workforce can be disengaged and do not act in sync with the objectives of the very organization they work for.
These two criteria form the foundation of the trellis of engaged stakeholders – who in turn spell the organization’s sustainability.
The article was published in Triple Bottom Line - A CSR Journal on 25 June 2010. Other insightful articles from the journal can be read from the website: www.tbl.com.pk
Photos Courtesy:
http://www.uncommoncloth.com/.%5C72%5Ctrellis_full_72.jpg
http://www.kristinbennettart.com/fresconuovo/grapevine%20firescreen.jpg
Telenor and the Enablement of Convergence: Etsko Schuitema
Monday, June 21st, 2010
The Divergent Species
I recently did a fascinating piece of work for Telenor Pakistan, where it became apparent to me that this business was deeply benign, not only because of how it was run, but also by the nature of what iT does. To get an appropriate view of the contribution that this business (and other businesses like it) makes we need to understand the pickle we are in as a species.
If you want something from someone else that person’s ability to withhold what you want, gives that person power over you. When the self wants something from the other the other’s ability to withhold what the self wants, it creates the conditions where the other has power over the self. This makes the other dangerous to the self. However, not only is the other dangerous to the self, but from the point of view of the other, when the other sees the self trying to get something from the other, the other experiences the self as dangerous.
Therefore, when you want something from somebody else that person is dangerous to you and you are dangerous to them. The necessary outcome of this is conflict and competition. The net result of this conflict is the self and the other cannot occupy the same place. The repel each other. They diverge.
This has been our story as a species. From the days of our earliest common ancestor (reputedly an African who lived between 120000 and 150000 years ago) we have been diverging, and in the process we have become increasingly distinct, inhabiting different parts of the globe, developing different languages, cultures and physical characteristics.
However, the planet is a globe. When you move far away enough from the other on a globe you meet up on the other side. You converge. What is apparent is that the intent rules that sufficed when we were a divergent species are of little use in a convergent world. In any city today you will find people from every continent speaking languages from every content. We are living cheek by jewel with each other. There is no ‘there’ to go to. There are too many of us. Unless we learn how to learn live together, how to co-operate rather than compete, we are done for as a species.
Becoming Convergent
When you deal with the other on the basis of how you can be helpful to the other, what you should give to the other, then you are no longer looking at what you want from them. That person cannot withhold what you want and therefore no longer has power over you. The self slips out from under the other’s ability to manipulate the self. The self becomes free and safe from the other.
Similarly, because the other now experiences the self as helpful the other, the other sees themselves as safe from the self. When the self constructs its intent on the basis of being helpful to the other the self is safe from the other and the other is safe from the self. The result of this is harmony, co-operation.
While you deal with others on the basis of what you want from them you diverge. You are increasing disconnected and alienated from them. When you deal with other on the basis of the intent to give or be helpful, you converge; you become related and connected to them. You can co-exist.
The Technology of Convergence
Telecommunications businesses like Telenor Pakistan provide the connectivity that puts a Pathan villager in the Hindu Kush next door to me. They create a framework whereby I can begin to relate to this person, whereby I can increasingly experience him as a person like me rather than something foreign, alien and dangerous. They therefore create the platform that enables my compassion, my intent to serve. They cannot and do not provide the intent to serve, because only I can do that. However, they provide the technology that enables that intent by connecting me with all my fellow descendents of Adam. Life, existence, the Totality of the Other has graced us with the technological means to transcend the pettiness and moribund competitiveness of our current intent. Will we rise to the occasion?
The Death of Common Sense: Pam Pretorius
Sunday, December 20th, 2009
This is a really interesting article from a friend’s webpage, apparently an obituary originally printed in the Times of London:
Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:
· Knowing when to come in out of the rain
· Why the early bird gets the worm
· Life isn’t always fair
· Maybe it was my fault
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don’t spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).
His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate, teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.
Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.
It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student, but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.
Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses and criminals received better treatment than their victims.
Common Sense took a beating when you couldn’t defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.
Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realise that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.
Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents Truth and Trust, by his wife Discretion, by his daughter Responsibility and by his son Reason.
He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers;
· I Know My Rights
· I Want It Now
· Someone Else Is To Blame
· I’m A Victim
Not many attended his funeral because so few realised he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing.
The Intent Behind CSR: Afia Mansoor
Sunday, November 1st, 2009
Times are tough for the planet Earth. Numerous warning bells are ringing furiously in the shape of depleting physical resources, global warming, the financial meltdown and political turmoil, calling for urgent and a radical transformation of the way we have been thinking and acting for thousands of years. The lesson is clear. Our survival as a species rests on the degree to which we give back to the world that we have been taking from it unceasingly.
We cannot afford to exist as independent silos of assorted resource. For that would like an arm or a leg pretending to be the whole human body. Only the acceptance of our interconnectedness as the human race will quieten the warning bells and the disasters they portend. Unconditional cooperation and collaboration across all sections of a society are the key to its survival. Corporate Social Responsibility is one of the ways in which this ‘collaborative giving back to the world’ can be achieved.
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is not just a fashionable mantra to be intoned by corporate firms seeking to atone their grave misdeeds in the age of consumerism. It is in fact the inevitable and smart way for business companies and social concerns to pair together in a symbiotic relation and fill out the resource gaps that aid development and prosperity slowly but surely. More and more people around the world are waking up to this dire need of the day. For instance, the Social Enterprise Development Centre at the Lahore University of Management Sciences in Pakistan organised a roundtable conference in August 2009 with some of the leading business companies, their philanthropic concerns and nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) as participants to deliberate upon how CSR could be launched from a formalised platform and how should the hurdles in the way be removed.
Interestingly, some of the challenges highlighted during the event were (a) the presence of mistrust between NGOs and business companies towards each other and a feeling that each side is being used up as a means to an end, (b) the lack of communication between the CSR stakeholders, and (c) relationships formed to achieve a project rather than to build each other. Most of the participants voiced their opinion that the problem seemed to be a sense of paranoia between the companies and the social concerns that each one was out to have an upper hand on the other and the idea of win-win collaborations seemed far fetched. It emerged that before anything else, all stakeholders wishing to engage in CSR partnerships needed to be brought to the table and taught a lesson or two in teambuilding, trust, generosity and giving.
The findings of this event confirmed what Schuitema has been saying for long.
That an action is measured by the intent that drives it.
Corporate Social Responsibility becomes a cosmetic procedure if carried out without a will or intent to enable the individuals tied to it. No matter how much money is thrown into a CSR programme or how much it is marketed with fanfare, it becomes a superfluous exercise unless the stakeholders and specially the corporate firms injecting finances into the projects realise that their intent in the exercise must be to GIVE rather than TAKE.
Schuitema propounds that there are two intentions that drive all kinds human action; the malevolent intent that drives actions which are concerned with acquisition or taking for the self, and the benevolent intent that drives actions that enable and give to the other. The degree to which each intent influences a particular action is where the attention of an individual rests.
The heart bed of benevolent intent is therefore when an organisation dwells in the third attention which makes it say: I am here to GIVE. When an organisation acts as per this intent and attention, it naturally excels in enabling the CSR stakeholders as well as achieving its own CSR targets beyond its expectations. This is the ultimate win-win situation for the business company, the NGO, and the community that benefits at large.
CSR programmes for organizations which are externally formulated (as in case of many multinational firms following an international plan of CSR projects), politically motivated or driven by random and temporary philanthropic attentions are not sustainable because they fail to enable the involved stakeholders to their best potential. These approaches seek to enforce their own agenda onto what actually needs to be done and therefore are driven by the attention to take. A CSR initiative therefore succeeds only when it is based on the benevolent intent to give to the stakeholders and partners that which is in their best interests. Such an approach is responsive to the needs of the partnering firms and community and naturally filters out the feelings of mistrust and paranoia
CSR101: Afia Mansoor
Saturday, October 24th, 2009
Corporate Social Responsibility is the current buzzword with business corporations, public sector concerns and society watchdogs. The concept of CSR, sustainability or triple bottom line began to gain currency in the 70’s however, in all fairness; it has existed since the beginning of commerce itself!
Simply put, CSR is to a company as ethics and responsibility is to a human being. In corporate speak, CSR involves a business identifying its stakeholder groups and incorporating their needs and values within the strategic and day-to-day decision making. Companies can no longer be considered as mere engines of wealth creation with no social concern and duties. The fact that out of the 100 largest economies of the world, 51 are business companies (Chris Pinney, 2007), is a testament of corporations being platforms of affluence in an increasingly deprived world. That in itself puts a whole lot of responsibility on business companies to be the drivers of equitable wealth distribution and community development.
Arguments and Counterarguments:
1. CSR is a goodwill exercise restricted to times of prosperity: We say, CSR brings prosperity if planned and executed smartly. The key is in identifying the stakeholders accurately and then serving their needs and values strategically. If a company acknowledges that its employees are the most crucial stakeholders and serves the needs of these as well as the people buying its product or service, there is a natural case for it to flourish. This is exactly why CSR is strategically embedded within a company and is not a philanthropic exercise to be carried out in times of boom.
2. CSR is a hoax. That is why corporate giants have practiced CSR and yet cheated on their stakeholders: That’s a fair argument considering the examples of Enron and Shell. Both these companies invested a huge amount of money into CSR and yet indulged in intentional misreporting. This is precisely why we insist that a company must clarify its intent before pursuing a CSR policy. CSR indeed becomes a hoax if executed with an intention to paint a saintly picture of a business that is malevolent at heart. We say a company need not be in the market if its core function is other than to serve its stakeholders in a responsible and ethical manner.
3. CSR is a soft concept: No more. There are several authentic reporting standards for CSR now, which are based on stringent financial criteria and evaluated by experts who mean business; literally. These include reports by FTSE 4 Good, The United Nations Global Compact and the Global Reporting Initiative to name just a few.
Approaches to CSR:
American definitions of CSR encourage a philanthropic approach whereas European approaches follow a rather holistic, embedded and voluntary approach (Baker). This is why that despite American companies leading European firms in CSR efforts currently, we believe that these efforts will be sustained comparatively stronger in Europe during recession.
Schuitema and CSR: Schuitema’s models on Intent, and Care and Growth™ present the groundwork to companies who wish to initiate CSR frameworks. Our job with CSR begins way before the action sets in.
Over the past 30 years, Schuitema has trained, researched with and given consultation to over a hundred clients from various sectors, industries and from diverse cultures. We have seen through our experience that organisations which have aligned their core values and business strategy to Service, Care and Giving grow steadily over their competition both in terms of market presence and employee satisfaction. To us, CSR means serious business because our own ideology is based on cultivating the Intent to Serve, to achieve Growth and Excellence.
