Could it be that Gordon Gekko’s “Greed is Good” mantra is turning on its head for a more noble, “Greater Good is Good”?

Maybe.

On February 10, New York will join six other states that over the last two years began to permit businesses to incorporate as “benefit corporations,” a classification that allows companies to legally build “doing good” into their for-profit business models.

Benefit corporations are required to create positive social and environmental impact, and in exchange, benefit from expanded legal considerations of stakeholders beyond purely financial interests. And it’s not nonprofits or tax-exempt businesses that are incorporating, but for-profit entities, like Patagonia Inc., who have made social benefits paramount.

This is not just warm and fuzzy talk in a CSR report. These companies are required to report on their performance towards achieving social impact targets (which they are mandated to clearly specify in the bylaws) in an annual audited report.

What would Gordon Gekko say to this new legal structure that allows companies to consider social benefit over profit? My guess is he’d be utterly baffled since his worldview is grounded in the belief that it is a zero sum game where somebody wins and somebody loses.

Sorry, Gordon, but greed as a business model is about as out-dated as your insanely large 1980s cell phone.

mtorres CSR CSR, Gordon Gekko, Patagonia

Today is IBM’s 100th Birthday….it is also my daughter’s 16th birthday – so it is a big day all around. Unlike the celebration I am planning – which includes a party bus and a jam-packed day (and night) of entertainment, IBM is celebrating their day with service to the community.

This is an important trend in a citizenship movement by major corporations…the notion that service to others is more important than simple philanthropy. Checks to support the arts, medical research and hosting galas are all fine. Indeed, many worthwhile causes couldn’t survive without it. But more progressive organizations are looking at their ability to impact their communities in a hands-on, service oriented way.

For CSR to meaningful, it must be relevant – internally and externally. A service-oriented approach bridges that relevance gap in one simple swoop. Employees who are involved in a hands-on service project feel better about their companies, and feel proud to be a part of them. And demonstration of philanthropy and citizenship is more accretive to reputation than talking about it.

Here are some examples of great companies and brands who bring this philosophy to life:

• Starbucks has partnered with the HandsOn Network, a non-profit that organizes volunteer projects, and has a goal to donate 1 million community service hours from its employees by 2015. This is in addition to the $22.4 million Starbucks distributed in 2010 in corporate giving and grants.

• Disney’s VoluntEARS program allows employees to volunteer for causes of their choosing and aids in raising money for charities that employees support. Disney VoluntEARS assist in more than 2,200 projects through 495,000 hours annually. Employees also raised $1.7 million through Disney’s assistance.

• Intel supports its employees to volunteer all around the world and matches every volunteer hour with a monetary contribution. Intel also uses its employees’ capabilities to establish technology in classrooms in developing countries.

Similar programs from MWW clients – Deloitte’s Impact Day, a massive celebration of the organization’s year-round commitment to workplace volunteerism, and Nikon’s work in local communities both home and abroad contribute to a service-oriented approach.

Relevant approaches to worthwhile causes, which is meaningful CSR.

cwinters CSR Disney, HandsOn Network, IBM, Intel, Starbucks

We’ve all heard the sound bites about the importance of CSR…that doing good is good for business. And the trend to align CSR with the core business and operations of your organization has become increasingly common. And while doing that good, Companies are creating jobs, sustaining communities, and sometimes, even solving major global problems. The most innovative organizations deploy their unique resources toward solving mega-problems…with Google.org’s original mission as an ultimate example. Toyota’s Ideas for Good campaign, which I’ve blogged about before, is a creative example of the use of intellectual property to do good things outside the business.

But maybe the future of CSR will be simpler, smaller and more “back to the future.” Take the example of Pepsi’s support of local farmers, purchasing corn for Central America manufacturing locally – eliminating the middle man and creating economic and operational efficiency for the company while having a dramatic positive impact on the local economies by guaranteeing farmers a price upfront.

This reminds me of the iconic business that built America. Milton Hershey chose his Pennsylvania location to be close to the dairy supply necessary to manufacture milk chocolate. He later built a hospital to provide jobs during the Depression, and serve the community’s healthcare needs. The Big Steel families located factories near the rivers of the Lehigh Valley because they needed water sources to operate. These were basic business decisions that built economies and communities.

When businesses can serve a basic need of a community – and in the process, create a market for their products, that is exactly the kind of sustainability that the CSR experts talk about as the holy grail. CSR? Or just smart business decisions? And does it even matter?

cwinters CSR Google.org, Pepsi, Toyota

It’s hard to break through the clutter and make real news….and even harder to make a real difference. In the recent past, we’ve seen iconic Companies and leaders make the biggest, boldest predictions ever…Warren Buffet is going to get billionaires to give away half of their wealth. Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation are going to end HIV in Africa and Reinvent Education, among other things; and Google was going to reinvent philanthropy with Google.org (DotOrg).

These are major initiatives – the kind that get e-mailed about in ALL CAPS. They garner big headlines, and the kind of in-depth media coverage and ongoing discussion that is hard to accomplish in a world where stakeholders lose interest in seconds and minutes, not hours or days. They underscore your position as a game changer, a mega-influencer and certainly, a leader.

But what happens when you can’t deliver? Is it better to get credit for taking on the biggest, most unsolvable problems? Or better to tackle something smaller and succeed?

The easy answer is – it depends. One factor to consider when making such bold pronouncements is this:

Do you have the kind of leader who can pull this off? Who has enough gravitas to change the way others think, and act? And enough influence to get others to follow, and to play by your “new rules.”

Consider the three examples we began with:

Buffet’s fellow billionaire’s are jumping on his bandwagon. Not all of them, but enough of them to make a credible case that he is changing the notion of philanthropy among those who have the resources to make the biggest impact.

Gates is tackling far more complex problems than Buffet…things that have plagued the world for generations (on the short end) and even centuries. Has he solved one of those problems entirely? Not yet. Is he making an impact…I think so. And the Gates “likeability factor” has risen exponentially in the process.

Google’s Dot Org project is another story altogether. They’ve made good on their promise to commit their financial and human capital resources to reinventing philanthropy….but it’s hard to say they are actually succeeding in the bold, game-changing way they originally envisioned. The reasons for this are complicated….and in part due to a mismatch between the Google “silver bullet” model of change, and the nature of the problems they’ve tried to tackle. (This piece from the NYT does a great job in discussing the DotOrg issues). But I would argue it is also about their lack of a leader who really owns it, and is a meaningful “face” to both the Google brand and the DotOrg mission.

The moral of the story – big, bold pronouncements need a big, bold pronouncer.

cwinters CSR Bill Gates, Google.org, Warren Buffett

I am working with a client on a program to help celebrate their code of commitment, and bring it to life as a vibrant part of their culture. This is serious, important work….and I commend them for their desire to not just talk the talk, but to really walk the walk, and celebrate their colleagues who are living by their code, every day. Together, we are taking this project very seriously. Because living up to your Code of Commitment is serious business.

Lately, the discussion around CSR — which in its best embodiments begins with a code of commitment — has been very scholarly, serious and perhaps even a tad preachy. I’ve read pieces by smart people who admonish HP for not “living their code” and as a result, ousting their CEO who didn’t live up to the standards. I wrote recently about CSR being part of the 5 Commandments for brands. I’ve advocated that CSR should report to the CEO. And with 20 years in this business of reputation management, I suppose I’ve even been a tad preachy from time to time.

Last week, I visited a camp for children with cancer. Talk about finding perspective.

I went there with a client that is developing some new philanthropic programs as part of its commitment to CSR. They are not overly interested in how to get credit, generate publicity or engage their stakeholders. They want to help. It isn’t about being responsible…it is about being real.

As I entered the camp, I read a sign that said “Some people care too much; I think they call it LOVE.” I watched these kids “Sing You In” to camp, get a lanyard and race off to swim lessons. I forgot all about criteria for CSR, reputation management and employee engagement. And I remembered the many moments in these two decades when my company, and my clients, have provided me the opportunity to simply do something good…just because we can.

Responsibility. Trust. Transparency. All big concepts today….but not bigger or more important than REAL.

cwinters CSR Code of Commitment, corporate responsibility, CSR, HP, trust

Our CEO sent me this great piece about the 5 Commandments for Brands in the post-crash economy that was posted by Fast Company.

At its heart, the piece suggests that brands must help consumers achieve balance – defined as a move toward simplicity – and must be trustworthy. In fact, much of the piece reads like a primer for how to approach CSR.

One of the things I love about this piece is its simplicity – one of the core values it recommends for brands, by the way. And for me it crystallized a concept about CSR that has been on my mind.

I recently had a discussion with a colleague who is an expert in consumer marketing, and to her, CSR is all about branding, with a heavy emphasis on cause.

For me (and many of my co-contributors to this blog), CSR is all about reputation…about engaging employees and building a culture, about growing your business (and its value) and about earning the trust of key stakeholders in government, community, industry and the consumer marketplace.

It could be that when you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. But I think that what this really means is that we are both right.

At MWW Group, we’ve always advocated a total stakeholder approach. As CSR continues to drive further convergence of corporate reputation and brand, this approach will be more important than ever.

cwinters CSR Balance, CSR, Fast Company, reputation

Tilde Harris at GreenBiz.com points us to the 10 Green NGOs Businesses Should Know About. Most of the list should be familiar to anyone working on corporate responsibility and sustainability/environmental issues, but a couple were new to me.

Her broad argument is right on – businesses must engage with the appropriate NGOs to make real progress. If you aren’t, you aren’t serious. It’s that simple.

It makes sense from a business standpoint – these groups have a lot of expertise – and from a reputational/risk mitigation standpoint – association adds credibility and stems rock-throwing from the sidelines.

As Harris puts it: “Many now view NGO-business partnerships as the rule, rather than the exception.”

msacks CSR, Sustainability

In the world of business media, there are rankings and ratings and lists galore. Carreen just wrote about one.

Marc Gunther at GreennBiz.com now tells us that Underwriters Laboratories, an non-profit organization that helps set standards and provides certifications, in partnership with Greener World Media (publisher of GreenBiz), is taking on the difficult task of creating and launching a sustainability rating system.

I’m excited to see what the ratings and standards look like. Because Gunther is absolutely spot on: “This is a big deal because it could help bring credibility and clarity to the very crowded and confused business of sustainability ratings, rankings and eco-labels.”

For many sustainability or green ratings and rankings, the methodologies are always a little shaky. They seem easily gamed through voluntary reporting, they allow for omission of key elements of sustainability, and the results never seem to really stack up. It never seems “right” when an oil company tops a list of “green” companies. As such, it undermines the business value of sustainability when it seems you can get the credit without doing the hard, long work. A widely accepted, credible and comprehensive point system will begin to force out the posturing and the true leaders on sustainability will rise to the top.

msacks CSR, Sustainability CSR, rankings, Sustainability

Bottled water, once a cash cow product ballooning in consumption from the early 2000s until 2007, is now a difficult business. Ask Nestle.

Along with others, Nestle is facing pressure from activists groups and other opponents to reform its bottled water business. The Wall Street Journal reports:

In Cascade Locks (Oregon), Nestlé is trying to tap 100 million gallons of water annually for its Arrowhead water brand from a new spring—and keep the environmentalists happy, too. A key is proving that water drawn from the spring—which supplies a hatchery that raises Idaho Sockeye, an endangered species—can be replaced with municipal well water, with no harm to the fish.

Nestlé is running a one-year test here to raise 700 rainbow trout in a tank filled with well water. Worried that activists might sabotage the test, Nestlé put the 1,700-gallon tank under lock and added security cameras.

Further:

Its role as leader of the U.S. bottled-water market and the fact that it taps springs in often-pristine rural areas has exposed it to particular criticism from opponents of bottled water.

The article goes on to recount the number of, to my mind, reasonable measures Nestle is taking to ensure they are (at least currently if not historically) tapping water sources responsibly. Engaging the local community, working with government entities, conducting studies. In general, it sounds like they are listening and trying to do this right.

But in the zero-sum game of activist campaigns, that counts for very little.

A couple months back, my colleague Ame wrote about Nestle’s response on the social Web to a Greenpeace campaign on Nestle’s purportedly harmful palm oil sourcing leading to deforestation. Since then, Nestle has, as some media has put it, “caved” to activist demands and reevaluated its sourcing.

But the truth is Nestle has, at least, a respectable track record of trying to do the right thing for the environment. This isn’t some big company mindlessly gobbling all the resources it can sink it’s ravenous teeth into, regardless of how activists paint it.

My advice to Nestle is, keep doing what you’re doing. Rebut critics with facts. Work with all stakeholders to understand their often real concerns. That’s where reputation is made.

Mike Sacks can be reached at msacks@mww.com.

msacks Crisis Communications, CSR activists, Nestle

It isn’t often a company makes headlines for writing a philanthropic check. But Walmart decided to go big. Two billion dollars big in cash and food to fight hunger.

This isn’t a simple, though extraordinary, act of charity. It’s smart CR. Walmart is taking some ownership of an issue that can be addressed through its core business and is in a substantial position to do something about.

It has an astronomically large consumer base, many of whom (judging from the data in the article) rely on food banks. Such a gesture is about connecting with the communities in which Walmart operates, and Walmart operates just about everywhere. The company also has “donated the services of its staff to help food banks improve lighting and refrigeration, and develop ways to increase the amount of fresh food on their shelves.” So, it’s about coupling the bills with the skills.

Mike Sacks can be reached at msacks@mww.com.

msacks CSR corporate responsibility, CSR, Target, Walmart