My take:
Working in natural resources, I found this book very valuable reading, though am somewhat less sanguine about its conclusion that a radical transformation in public trust is so readily on offer. My view is that people are inherently lazy and find changing their views inconvenient. Categorically casting big business as shady saves a lot of mental spadework of figuring out who are the good and bad actors. Even investors with stake in big business often seem inclined to call it a “necessary evil” without any substantiation, willingly calling themselves complicit in the dubious enterprise that’s popular to hate.
So while I agree with the risks and prescriptions found in this book, I don’t think that any corporate social connecting, however genuine, deep and “radical”, will culturally cleanse business’ of its “Shylock-ness” in the public imagination. Maybe though, there could be an enough impact at the margins to bolster enough good will for one company to weather some storms of public disdain, where others might sink… and in business I guess that’s enough.
If nothing else this book gives a thorough accounting of the fact that at some point, most CEOs begin to care more about the moral stature of their legacies than they do the profits anyways, so following these prescriptions seems a sure enough way for those big-fish to get themselves on the right side of history, if only in their self-interest.
What’s the book about:
People in business tend to adopt a patronizing attitude to those who complain about corporate behaviour. Critics they believe do not understand how things work in the ‘real World’. Society on the other hand has lost sight of the good that business does. Governments are caught somewhere between the two.
This book, written by former BP CEO aims to find a way for business to escape the historical trappings of society’s distrust towards it, by better contributing to society. The book was written with the insights of McKinsey researchers who looked at the long-run results of integrating social concerns into core business strategy, and the risks companies run by not doing so.
It is part history of corporate social responsibility, meditation on business strategy, the failures of standard CSR, and evidence-driven manifesto for where companies should go in the future.
The conclusion:
-The bottom line: Focusing on authenticity and integrating societal concerns deeply into commercial strategy has the capacity to dislodge the historical distrust society has held business in, improve companies’ bottom line, and ability to survive public relations crises in the long-run --> value at stake from plausible government interventions represent ~1/3 of corporate profits.
-The top line: Connecting effectively can set companies apart through developing new revenue streams and reduced regulatory risk to reputational enhancement, market access and lower resource costs --> The shares of companies which connect effectively outperform those of their competitors by more than 2 percent every year.
Strategies to note:
• Map the world: Analyze stakeholders as precisely as customers, understanding trends and discontinuities, and quantifying the value at stake from external relationships.
• Identify value at stake: Translating societal issues and interventions into monetary estimates imbues connected leadership with the necessary rigour.
• Track your context: That includes the macroeconomic environment, attitudes towards industry, expectations of stakeholders and employees, and the company’s actual behaviour.
• Rethink organization design: It is only possible to integrate society’s needs by changing the roles and responsibilities of teams and individuals. This starts with the redefinition of the CEO’s role and must cascade down throughout the company.
• Contest: correct misperceptions and push back against unfair or illogical regulations which threaten to harm citizens as well as business. Successful companies are not afraid to challenge the logic of established thinking among regulators if they think they can win the argument. What we should want is balance When the regulator is in the pocket of the regulated, society almost always loses out. In the long run industry suffers too, even if it gains a significant advantage in the short or medium term. Regulatory capture eventually causes scandals and accidents that result in draconian government interventions (e.g. after Japanese nuclear operators exploited the system, they found all plants were taken offline after Fukushima until they could be proven safe). --> Ignore government and it’s influence will inevitably catch you off guard; commandeer it and you risk a backlash from society further down the line. Government has unbounded power to create and destroy value in the pursuit of real or perceived natural interest (e.g. Walmart felt it was being targeted unfairly about its treatment of employees and used academic studies to establish a fact base.)
• Concede and lead: Admit when the industry has got things wrong and lead the way in finding solutions. Requires taking responsibility for negative impacts (e.g. Walmart accepts its negative environmental impact and pushes managers to make the company a leader in eco efficiency).
• Collaborate/engage radially: meet important stakeholders regularly (industry government and civil society) and making friends before they are needed; communicating to outsiders in clear language without resorting to propaganda.
• Connected leadership. Companies must integrate societal concerns deeply into commercial strategy and operations at every level. Company success depends on its relationships with the external world, not just customers and investors but also employees, regulators, politicians, activists, NGOs, the environment and technology.
CSR:
CSR has failed to bridge the divide between companies and society due to its isolation from the core commercial activity of a company and treatment of reputation as an artificial construct. Executives view it as a distracting cost centre while NGOs criticize what they see as propaganda. At best CSR initatives distract attention from the vast societal contributions made by day-to-day business. At worst, they represent a doomed endeavour to get away with irresponsible behaviour elsewhere. CSR has proven to be irrelevant to a company’s reputation in the event of corporate scandals; it is not the answer for companies who struggle to articulate the broader social value of their core business.
Four main CSR flaws:
• CSR ambitions are rarely realized because they lack the active participation of the big spending commercial functions such as production and marketing
• Centralized CSR teams tend to take too narrow a view of the relevant stakeholders. Managers on the ground have a much better understanding of the local context, who really matters, and what can be delivered.
• CSR focuses too closely on limiting the downside. Companies often see it only as protecting their reputations, perhaps to get away with irresponsible behaviour elsewhere.
• CSR programmes tend to be short lived.