The most effective critique I heard against corporate social responsibility was one that played to the notion of the incompetent CEO.
As a faithful listener to the Freakonomics podcast, I was very excited when it was trailed that the team would be covering corporate social responsibility.
According to David Goodhart, author of 'The Road to Somewhere', the real division in our country is no longer between left and right, or any of the other old traditional tribes, but between 'somewheres' and 'anywheres'.
In all the chatter about the value of purpose-led business, one rather important element is ignored or swept under the table. Simply put: For purpose to be powerful, you need a powerful purpose.
We all know that Facebook has been under fire in recent weeks. We’ve seen Zuckerberg being quizzed (mostly incompetently, but the symbolism remains) in Congress. We’ve seen mainstream media outlets queueing up to bash the platform, and some advertisers taking fright as a result.
It’s one of the most commonly quoted attributes of effective leaders that they don’t waste time blaming themselves or others for things that go wrong. Instead, they hold themselves accountable and move on.
Let’s suppose we have a values-driven business, or at least a business led by leaders with values. Their objective is to build long-term value through the business, and to do so in a way that makes society better off and more sustainable.
As our political process has become more polarised and dysfunctional in the face of difficult embedded problems, so the need for businesses to step up and show leadership has become widely acknowledged and discussed.
Almost for as long as companies have had CSR managers, and now sustainability managers, some people have put forward the proposition that the ultimate aim of such people should be to put themselves out of a job.
The messages, according to the company, are all about drawing attention to our out-of-control throw-away society
According to a new report, 100 oil companies "are responsible for most of the world's carbon emissions". Well, no. Actually - they're not.