Saturday, 29 November 2014

NHL Sustainability Report: Good but incomplete.

NHL Sustainability Report: Good but incomplete.
It is missing the good works by teams and players. Why?
The NHL’s recently released Sustainability 2014 report http://www.nhl.com/green/report/ was interesting, for what it contained, and for what it didn’t.
For all you readers from around the world, I’m Canadian and love hockey – ice hockey – so you will see occasional topics like this. For my Field Hockey friends - Ice Hockey is Hockey Proper! :)
Seriously though, the NHL Sustainability Report is good. It does what it says it will do, discuss the effort and results the league and various teams are achieving as they work to reduce their environmental footprint.
They are clear that is what the report aims to do, Commissioner Bettman's letter states "The purpose of the 2014 NHL SUSTAINABILITY REPORT is to address our recent efforts and the challenges we face from an environmental perspective."


The Sustainability Report contained a lot of good efforts and good information. But, there was a lot of good work and valuable impact that wasn’t included. I’m not sure why they didn't include the great work that players, teams and even the league are doing to support people, communities and important social causes. I think it should have been, especially when they went so far as to mention players on the contents.
But, I’ve seen other major players and great communicators make similar mistakes that ended up leaving a lot of value on the table for good works that they are already doing.
NHL teams support and sponsor all kinds of outreach and support in the community, touching hundreds of worthwhile charities and efforts and raising many millions of dollars for them.
They also spend time and money supporting and engaging with minor hockey. And, each team has many other things that they do to help make the community a better place.
Sure, this is all part of their marketing but so what. The best and most sustainable CSR happens when there is an alignment between community interests and business interests.
Nearly all players also give back to the community in some way, with some of them making major efforts. They are supporting a range of projects and causes and having real positive impacts on programs, people and communities.
Many players reach far beyond hockey and use their profile and personal wealth to help make a difference in the world.
Some players take their efforts international. And, I suspect if there was some organized support you would find more players making efforts to support people and projects in remote areas and emerging economies.
I live on Southern Vancouver Island in Canada, home to some great players and our local boys truly do us proud with the work they do in the off-season to support local causes and help local kids. They set a great example for my son and the thousands of other young players who see these NHL players coming home and giving back.


Ryan O'Byrne's camp, which has many local NHL players donating time and helping out, has helped over 200 Greater Victoria, BC to get into sport.



Nashville Predators' Mike Fisher, Chris Neil of the Ottawa Senators and Kevin Bieksa of the Vancouver Canucks helped World Vision to create awareness on the food crisis int eh Sahel  http://youtu.be/ewT_TLjSuVg 



There are other examples of players working with development organizations, or sometimes even on their own, to help address international development issues. 

I believe there could be a lot more if more was done to support and encourage it (and to communicate it in reports like the NHL Sustainability Report).
All of that good work is happening every day. By the teams and the players. I don’t understand why that was left out of the NHL’s Sustainability Report. The league, the players, the teams and owners and society itself would have benefited from telling that story.
The 2014 NHL Sustainability Report tells a great environmental story, about important environmental efforts being made by teams and the league itself.
It could have told a bigger story and shared about the wonderful work the teams and players are doing in society. It would have been valuable for the league, the teams, the players and society.
Strategic application of CSR communications principles could have created more value for all stakeholders, at virtually no cost.
Maybe they had a reason not to mention the social and charitable work of teams and player? If so, I’d love to find out. Because it doesn't make sense to me that they didn't.
I’d love to hear from anyone with insight into this.  You can reach me at


Friday, 28 November 2014

Eight more common mistakes in multi-sector CSR partnerships

Eight more common mistakes in multi-sector CSR partnerships

Natural Partnerships – Unnatural partners.  Last week I did a short piece on five common mistakes in multi-sector CSR partnerships.   This week I’m going to finish the list.

The numbering won't continue from last week because I don't know how to do that in Blogger!

If you haven’t read the last article you may want to go and read the opening paragraphs and the five mistakes.  You can find it here

1.      Not enough entrepreneurship and innovation
There is generally a high level of entrepreneurial energy and innovation amongst the partners at the beginning of a partnership.  In many cases they would not have gotten together to launch the partnership without the innovation and entrepreneurship of at least one of them.

As time goes by the partnership activities can become routine and the workers and leaders stop looking for ways to do things better and/or new areas that they might collaborate on that would be mutually beneficial.

Over time a stagnation can develop and energy drains from the partnership.  This can end up killing the partnership itself but more often it simply makes the partnership much more vulnerable to the impacts of other mistakes.

Diverse and committed partners collaborating and innovating together can solve complex puzzles

2.      Didn’t get to know each other deep enough and broad enough
Often partnerships will form quickly around a specific opportunity.  Partners will see that by collaborating they can advance their interests and objectives further than they could by working individually.

This can create a euphoria that tends to generate a forward momentum and the partners don’t take time to get to know each other well enough or deep enough.  This happens at the individual and the organizational level.

Then when issues arise and differences emerge they are often seen as surprises and somehow a betrayal of what was represented at the onset.  This can put a lot of strain on the relationships.

3.      Organizational stakeholders didn’t support it
Every organization has a range of internal and external stakeholders, many of which have significant influence and impact.  Sometimes a partnership will develop and create conflict with key stakeholders.

For example, many NGOs rely on individual and organizational donors for financing and for general support.  In some cases the same individuals and organizations are also writing checks to support advocacy NGOs that are in direct opposition to either the industry sector, or in some cases the actual partner (this can often happen where an industry partner has multiple projects, some of which are actively opposed by advocacy organizations)

This places leadership in uncomfortable positions and may result in the need to make hard choices if agreeing to disagree isn’t a viable option.

Similar situations can occur when development agencies begin to develop mechanisms that either enable direct funding of industry led CSR projects or that will facilitate or partner with such projects.

These development agencies often have key stakeholders that may be generally opposed to certain industries like extractives, or have unrealistic social performance expectations.  In many cases the development agency will also be providing direct or indirect support to the opposing organization.


Internal support and understanding is critical if an organization wants to be a strong partner
(see Seven proven strategies for getting colleagues onboard with CSR  http://bit.ly/7internalbestpractices)

4.      NGOs look at company as just a set of deep-pockets
A deep and nuanced understanding of the other partners is so critical.  Too often as the euphoria of the early days wears off deep seated, underlying assumptions and perspectives emerge that can be poisonous.

Partners (individuals and the institutions) forget that all partners are in the project because there is something in it for them. 

NGOs can start to perceive corporate partners as just a set of deep pockets, of money that should just be allocated in support of community and NGO priorities, without a thought for what’s in it for the company and how to optimize value across all partners and stakeholders.

5.      Company looks at NGO as just a do-gooder
In the same was as NGOs can see companies as just deep pockets, companies can often develop a perspective that NGO partners are only interested in doing good works and not understand the many other interests and realities of a modern NGO

6.      Project solitudes. 
No real collaboration between partners.  If not nurtured project partners can end up withdrawing, or being relegated to project silos.  This can result in each contributing individually, but can lose all of the potential synergy from the diversity of experience, perspectives and insights that each bring.

When this happens it can suck the energy out of a project and be the start of a downward spiral.

It may seem easier to carve things into discreet silos and minimize collaborative interactions, and the disagreements, stresses and tensions that can come with them.  In the long run it is far better to work together and get stronger by working through the differences, and staying open to the synergy that can be found in diversity.

  
As the African proverb says. 

If you want to go fast, go alone.  If you want to go far, go together.

Good partnerships go far.

  
7.     7. Unrealistic cost expectations
Cost expectations can be unrealistic.  Companies will sometimes think that NGOs will almost work for free, forgetting that they too have organizational and institutional overhead that needs to be covered.

NGOs will sometimes think that companies have tons of money and shouldn’t be concerned about cost.

8.      Different standards around quality, flexibility / adaptability and reporting
This can be especially true when small, nimble companies partner with development agencies that have seemingly incomprehensible sets of reporting and operational requirements. 

This can be especially true in partnerships where one partner comes with compliance requirements and obligations that are foreign to the other.





Multi-sector CSR partners can bring unique pieces of the puzzle to the table. They can create value and mitigate risk for all partners, and benefit society in the process.

Often they can be difficult to create and even more difficult to maintain, but the effort can be worth it.

I will be posting more thoughts on this topic in the coming weeks.  If you are interested, we are offering a certified executive training forum in Ottawa, Canada in March see below.

----------------
Advertisement
One week Certified Executive Training Forum:  How to create & manage CSR/development partnerships between industry, NGOs, development agencies and governments.   March 9-13, Ottawa, Canada   USD$3,495 / $3,195 before Dec 31   

This five-day hands-on Certified Executive Training Forum will leave you ready to develop and implement multi-sector CSR and development partnerships that will help drive your organization’s success.  The program brings together a global group of executives and managers from industry, NGOs, development agencies and international organizations to learn with and from each other.

Whether you work with industry, NGOs, development agencies, international organizations, communities or other group involved in CSR and develop this program will help you and your organization to succeed

Led by an experienced global faculty with decades of strategic and ‘in the trenches’ experience in CSR and development partnerships the program will leave you with the tools and knowledge to be successful in negotiating and managing multi-sector CSR partnerships.  It is based on a pragmatic blend of lectures, case studies, group work, strategic simulations and facilitated and spontaneous group experiences that bridge theory and practice in a pragmatic and effective way. 

Register here: http://eepurl.com/7Iy6b or contact CSR Training Institute for more information here

For more information on How to create & manage CSR/development partnerships between industry, NGOs, development agencies and governments click here  

Sunday, 23 November 2014

Five Common mistakes that destroy multi-sector CSR partnerships

Five Common mistakes that prevent and destroy multi-sector CSR partnerships

The private sector is playing an increasingly important role in development.  Companies from all sectors, including especially the extractive and fast moving consumer goods sectors, are investing in development initiatives in areas such as education, health, poverty alleviation and livelihoods, environment and gender equality.

The impact areas of these private sector social responsibility investments closely maps the impact areas outlined in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and anticipated impact areas of the soon to be adopted Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The MDGs and SDGs serve to guide the development activities of the member countries of the United Nations and the vast majority of development NGOs and organizations.  Official Development Agencies, national governments, multi-lateral and international organizations and NGOs focus development efforts on areas such as education, health, poverty alleviation and livelihoods, environment and gender equality

While the various private, public and civil society organizations noted above approach development with a focus on common areas, they often bring unique skills, experience and capacities to the work. 

In many cases these are complimentary and synergistic, at first glance, would seem to naturally invite partnerships and collaboration and the various sectors (e.g., ODA agencies, private sector, NGOs, etc.) even have stated goals of collaborating with each other in support of their development efforts. 

Simple logic would suggest that collaboration would result in efficiencies and more and better development impact per dollar spent or effort expended.

Value is lost for all partners and for society when 
multi-sector partnership opportunities fail to start or start and fail

Yet, the reality is that, while there are notable exceptions, this collaboration is not easy to achieve.  Whether on an individual project level or a strategic organizational level these natural partnership opportunities too often do not result in effective partnerships. 

Value is lost for the organizations involved but the real price is paid by their community partners who do not receive the full impact that they could have received had these natural partners found an effective way to collaborate.

Here are 5 common reasons why they start and fail, or even fail to start.

1.     Egos of main actors
This is common to the destruction of many different sorts of partnerships.  What makes multi-sector CSR partnerships more prone to ego related challenges is that, in many cases, the partnering organizations will have a general history of opposition or antagonism towards each other.

For industry to embrace and support the role that NGOs and development agencies can play in the success of a business or project is relatively new.  Similarly for NGOs and development agencies to acknowledge the important role of the private sector in development projects.  In many cases the sectors, or at least many organizations within them, have been actively opposed to each other.

These means that in some instances a 180 degree about face is necessary along with an acknowledgement that previous perspectives were flawed.  This can often be overlooked during the giddy early days of a partnership but will often come back in a destructive way as the partnership plays out over time

2.     Didn’t hang in through the tough stuff
Every partnership is bound to run into difficult challenges over time.  Project issues arise, personnel changes, partners have strong opposing views on external issues, finances come under pressure, etc.   Sometimes these come out of the blue and sometimes there is a slow build up over time.

In many instances if the partners can hang in there the issues will either resolve themselves, or they will find a mutually acceptable way to work through them.

However, for reasons discussed above, there are latent pressures in the partnership that can surface when other issues emerge.  This can make it more difficult to work through the inevitable issues and challenges that always show up.

Those partnerships that survive over time will find ways to hang in and work through the rough spots and will also actively seek to reduce the latent pressures.


Conflict and differences of opinion happen in every partnership.  All the time.  There are ways to systematically prevent conflict and disagreement from destroying partnerships


3.     Internal buy-in wasn’t there
Multi-sector CSR partnerships are often developed and negotiated by front line personnel with some level of support or acquiescence from corporate and NGO head offices.  They frequently end up in place and operating without ever really getting the attention of key senior stakeholders.

In many cases the partnerships bring both an expanded and enhanced ability to achieve some of an organization’s objectives and, along with that, constraints in other areas. 

As partnership and relations issues arise, as they always will, there is sometimes a sudden realization in the leadership ranks that the partnership has taken away degrees of freedom to act.  This can be exacerbated by historical organizational opposition as noted above.

When this happens you can have key internal stakeholders, who hadn’t really paid attention to the creation of the partnership and don’t have any ‘ownership’ in it, start to question both the partnership itself and the general principle of multi-sector CSR partnerships.

.
Keeping everyone pulling in the same direction takes ongoing effort.  Just because everyone pulls together at the start doesn’t meant that they will keep pulling in the same direction.  
Many things can happen to change aligned interests to opposing forces

4.     Only business is efficient mentality
Historically there has been a strong theme in many business sectors that business is inherently more efficient.  The theme maintains that because it more directly subjected to the demands of the marketplace, business is somehow more efficient than NGOs and governments.

Dig deep enough and you will find that perspective exists somewhere in most businesses and sometimes can permeate individual businesses and even large swaths of industry sectors.

This mentality can surface when problems arise and present barriers that prevent the challenges from being worked through objectively or prevent constructive solutions from emerging. 

Too often you will see much effort being put into finding confirming evidence of inefficiency, rather than a balanced analysis looking for examples of efficiency and inefficiency and their underlying causes. 

This can create a dangerous spiral that can undermine even the best partnerships.

5.     Business is too greedy mentality
The NGO equivalent of the Only business is efficient mentality is the Business is too greedy perspective

NGO partners that fall into this perspective are prone to examining business decisions only from this vantage point and not taking a more balance and objective approach to understand the ‘why’ of business decisions.

Confirming evidence is sought and focused on and more and more partnership and operational decisions of the business are seen as being based, at least partly on greed

There is another discussion on the relationship between greed and shareholder interest, which are often quite different.  Greed based decisions tend to be short-term and with narrowly defined interests.  Longer-term strategic shareholder interests are broader and provide much more scope for interest alignment.

As with the only business is efficient mentality the business is greedy perspective can create a partnership killing spiral of unbalanced confirming evidence.


These are some of the reasons that multi-sector partnerships, that start off with enthusiasm, potential and goodwill, can fall off the rails and turn aligned interest into lose-lose situations

Strategy and insight can turn opposing forces into aligned interests
Avoid the temptation to pull apart.  Find a way to win together

I will be posting more thoughts on this topic in the coming weeks.  If you are interested, we are offering a training forum on the subject in Ottawa, Canada in March see below.


Advertisement
One week Certified Executive Training Forum:  How to create & manage CSR/development partnerships between industry, NGOs, development agencies and governments.   March 9-13, Ottawa, Canada   USD$3,495 / $3,195 before Dec 31   

This five-day hands-on Certified Executive Training Forum will leave you ready to develop and implement multi-sector CSR and development partnerships that will help drive your organization’s success.  The program brings together a global group of executives and managers from industry, NGOs, development agencies and international organizations to learn with and from each other.

Whether you work with industry, NGOs, development agencies, international organizations, communities or other group involved in CSR and develop this program will help you and your organization to succeed

Led by an experienced global faculty with decades of strategic and ‘in the trenches’ experience in CSR and development partnerships the program will leave you with the tools and knowledge to be successful in negotiating and managing multi-sector CSR partnerships.  It is based on a pragmatic blend of lectures, case studies, group work, strategic simulations and facilitated and spontaneous group experiences that bridge theory and practice in a pragmatic and effective way. 

Register here: http://eepurl.com/7Iy6b or contact CSR Training Institute for more information here

Sunday, 16 November 2014

Natural CSR Partnerships - Unnatural partners

Multi-Sector CSR Partnerships:  Industry, NGO, Development Agency collaboration on development

Multi-sector CSR partnerships can drive organizational successes and value creation.  Yet why do so many fail to start or start and fail?

Natural Partnerships – Unnatural Partners.  Business, NGOs and development agencies might have natural partnership opportunities but organizational history and the often conflicting perspectives of internal and external stakeholders can make these partnerships hard to realize.  Far too often they start and fail, or even fail to start.

The private sector is playing an increasingly important role in development.  Companies from all sectors, including especially the extractive and fast-moving consumer goods sectors, are investing in development initiatives in areas such as education, health, poverty alleviation and livelihoods, environment, gender equality and overall development partnerships.

These businesses strive to positively impact these areas at the community, local and national levels, recognizing that doing so is good for their business in many ways (or else why would they do it) and also good for the communities and countries in which they work.

The impact areas of these private sector social responsibility investments closely maps the impact areas outlined in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and anticipated impact areas of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The MDGs and SDGs serve to guide the development activities of the member countries of the United Nations and the vast majority of development NGOs and organizations.  Every member country approved the MDGs at a special Millennium Session of the United Nations.  Official Development Agencies (ODA), national governments, multi-lateral and international organizations and NGOs focus development efforts on MDG/SDG focus areas such as education, health, poverty alleviation and livelihoods, environment and gender equality

While the various private, public and civil society organizations noted above approach development with a focus on common areas and themes, they often bring unique skills, experience and capacities to the work.  Coupled with the natural diversity of their organizations this should/could add a lot of value to development efforts.  The synergies seem natural. 

Chasms often separate natural development partners



They seem like natural partnerships

In many cases this focus on common themes and areas appear complimentary and synergistic, at first glance, would seem to naturally invite partnerships and collaboration and the various sectors (e.g., ODA agencies, private sector companies, NGOs, etc.) even have stated goals of collaborating with each other in support of their development efforts. 

Simple logic would suggest that collaboration would result in efficiencies and more and better development impact per dollar spent or effort expended for all parties.

That government, NGOs and industry would see a more and better impact for their spending and their efforts.


Yet, the reality is that, while there are notable exceptions, this collaboration is not easy to achieve. 

Natural Partnerships are too often held back by seemingly unnatural partners

Whether on an individual project level or a strategic organizational level these natural partnership opportunities too often do not result in effective partnerships.  Value is lost for the organizations involved but the real price is paid by their community partners who do not receive the full impact that they could have received had these natural partners found an effective way to collaborate.

Value is lost by communities and all stakeholders when 
natural partners can't bridge the chasm that separates them


The good news is that progress is being made.  There is increasing collaboration amongst business, NGOs and development agencies. 

ODA Agencies such as Germany’s GIZ, America’s USAID, Canada’s DFATD (formerly CIDA) and many others are developing and implementing programs that enable co-investing in development with private sector partners.

NGOs such as Care, World Vision, WUSC, Cordaid and many others are actively working to find productive ways of partnering with industry on CSR and development programs.

Companies such as Golden Star, Kosmos, Tullow, Newmont, Kinross, IAMGold and many others are working with NGOs and development agencies.

There are some great examples of success – for example see From Pariah to Exemplar: CSR & Stakeholder Engagement in Six Best Practices (here) for an analysis of a 2001 CIDA, Placer Dome, World Bank and various NGO partnership that was credited with ‘changing the social face of the South African mining industry’.

An early success and yet, the progress is, in my opinion, too slow. 

Development Agencies often have approval and operational criteria that is slow, cumbersome and makes the cost of the partnership way too high. 

NGOs too often struggle with fully embracing the value of partnering with the private sector and communicating that value effectively to their internal and external stakeholders, including especially individual and organizational donors.

Businesses struggle to accept and adapt to the execution speed, launch processes and reporting requirements of ODA agencies and NGO partners.

Much more can be done, and should be done.

-------------- 

The CSR Training Institute is interested to learn more about the successes and failures of Multi-sector CSR partnerships in the space where business meets society.


If you have a case study that you’d like to share please contact us (info@csrtraininginstitute.com) and we may be able to work with you to develop and publish your case study.

Wednesday, 12 November 2014

Willis Harman - Business and Responsibility for the Whole


In May 1996 I had the opportunity to spend a few days with Willis Harman at a World Business Academy meeting on Vancouver Island.  What a wonderful experience that was.

This morning, as I am trying to push through a report I am (as I often do when under pressure) finding productive ways to procrastinate (I claim it is making space for creativity to emerge).

Willis was an incredible visionary (see below), the Founder of the World Business Academy and architect of the visionary concept of Business and Responsibility for the Whole.

He argued that throughout history the dominant institutions in society had assumed some level of responsibility for the whole, or the society ended up not lasting long or well.  He noted that through time the dominant institutions had included; clan, tribe, church, nation-state and now we are clearly in a state where business is the most dominant institution in society.

In May 1996 I was just getting ready to enter the Sloan Fellowship program at Stanford Business School.  I was a bit apprehensive as my educational background was, well, unique at the least (I felt like I had earned a few degrees from the school of hard knocks but had never completed high school nor university.  A Masters from Stanford Business School was slated to be my first academic graduation.

Anyway, I had read many of Willis' writings prior to the meeting and was looking forward to meeting him.  He was even more interesting and insightful than I had imagined and very approachable.  When I confessed some of my apprehension to him he laughed it off and assured me I would enjoy the time at Stanford.

I left the week with him with an invitation to spend time with him when I was at Stanford and even had a half-formed plan that I would find a way to work with him and learn from him after graduation.

Unfortunately, soon after this Willis was diagnosed with cancer and did not last long.

His thinking and his energy helped to provide a lot of intellectual foundation for what is today called Corporate Social Responsibility.

I was very fortunate to have known him and spent some time with him, and my good fortune continues as I get to work and explore in that interesting space where business meets society.


Below is some more information on Willis and links to more on the internet.

Willis Harman (1918-1997)  founder of the World Business Academy (1987)—re-imagined the role of business from being solely focused on profit-making to include taking responsibility for the whole. Here is an excerpt:


Business has become, in this last half century, the most powerful institution on the planet. The dominant institution in any society needs to take responsibility for the whole — as the church did in the days of the Holy Roman Empire. But business has not had such a tradition. This is a new role, not yet well understood or accepted.
Built into the concept of capitalism and free enterprise from the beginning was the assumption that the actions of many units of individual enterprise, responding to market forces and guided by the ‘invisible hand’ of Adam Smith, would somehow add up to desirable outcomes.

But in the last decade of the twentieth century, It has become clear that the ‘invisible hand’ is faltering. It depended upon a consensus of overarching meanings and values that is no longer present. So business has to adopt a tradition it has never had throughout the entire history of capitalism: to share responsibility for the whole. Every decision that is made, every action that is taken, must be viewed in the light of that kind of responsibility.

-       Willis Harman

Above copied from http://www.creativityatwork.com/2009/07/03/taking-responsibility-for-the-whole/ 


Business and Social Responsibility:
An Interview with Willis Harman

By Scott London

As one of the world's leading futurists, Willis Harman belonged to a handful of forward-looking thinkers and practitioners exploring a new role for business in creating a more prosperous and sustainable future.
Harman believed that we're living in a period of accelerating social and cultural change, one marked by economic globalization, spreading democratization, quickening technological advance, and burgeoning global communication. But in the midst of all this change, we're also faced with a host of unprecedented global challenges, from the population explosion and the depletion of the earth's natural resources to a deepening divide between the world's rich and poor.

Biography

Willis Harman, PhD was President of IONS from 1975-1996.
Widely recognized as one of the practical visionaries of our time, Willis Harman was deeply committed to working with the global transformation that is evidently part of our immediate future. He exemplified the integration of spiritual and intellectual knowing that is at the heart of the work of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, where he was president until his death in 1997.
For 16 years, Harman was Senior Social Scientist as SRI International, a global -futurist think-tank in Menlo Park, California. He was emeritus professor of Engineering-Economic Systems at Stanford University, and a member of the Board of Regents of the University of California.
His books include An Incomplete Guide to the Future, Changing Images of Man, Higher Creativity, Paths to Peace, New Metaphysical Foundations of Science,and Biology Revisioned, as well as a number of monographs, including, "A Reexamination of the Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science" and "The Scientific Exploration of Consciousness."