Being in business over the past three years for myself has been one of the biggest learning lessons I have ever had. I’ve discovered that this experience teaches you more about who you are and what type of people are in this world than any other life experience could teach. Over the past three years, I have had both good and bad experiences with people (more good of course!) and it never ceases to amaze me… some people just don’t know how to have, and cherish, an identity of their own.

Being a virtual assistant, I encounter a lot of these identity issues. There are virtual assistants in business who are not interested in growing partnerships and relationships. A lot of them just don’t know the best way to grow an identity of their own and separate themselves from the crowd. This is one of the reasons I started The VA Coach – I want to coach people not only to launch a successful virtual assistance business but also how to find their inner identity and run their businesses morally and ethically.

I have found that when someone in business does not have an identity, a strong base to stand on, they then break some of the most basic ethical codes. They take business from the people they know and work with, they copy what someone else is doing in their business, they speak unprofessionally about their colleagues and they go to great lengths to stand out of integrity. These people aren’t necessarily doing this out of maliciousness, I truly believe it’s because they haven’t figured out their own magic formula for success yet.

When you are a confident business person who is very sure of your identity, you tend to get clear and focused on what it is you want and then you go after that – in a very true and positive manner. You form friendships, relationships and bonds with people who have similar goals in mind and you form mutually beneficial partnerships. You are then able to bring things to your clients and your colleagues that you weren’t able to before. You start thinking of others before you think of yourself.

When you aren’t a confident business person and perhaps you may be a bit envious of someone else’s success, you can then find yourself acting in a way that isn’t true to who you are – isn’t true to your identity. When this happens, you aren’t able to feel good about yourself inside and therefore, that projects onto your business and how you interact with your clients and colleagues.

The best way to find out who you are and locate your identity is to start a gratitude journal. I have one and I write in it each day. Instead of focusing on the negative things that may come in and out of my business, I focus on the positive and I then generate more positive feelings for both myself and my clients. By looking at what you are grateful for, you’ll start to feel good about who you are which will then translate into you making others feel good.

Always remember, who you are today is a reflection of your past attitudes and behaviors. You can decide today, right now, to make a change and stand on your own Be true to yourself and success and the things you want in life will come easily to you.

– About the Author –

Erin Blaskie is the owner of Business Services, ETC (see the website). BSETC is a virtual assistance company that gives freedom to small business owners, coaches and speakers by managing the BS, etc.

– For More Information –

Erin has a blog located on the main page of her website in which she provides advice on small businesses and running a virtual assistance company. She has recently started a free bi-weekly telecall for virtual assistants where they can come together with other VAs and get support. You can find out more on this website .

– Copyright Information –

All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording, storage in an information retrieval system or otherwise, unless this notification of copyright is retained.

Article Source

Tags: ethics, responsibility, legal issues, social , business

“Any corporate social responsibility strategy (CSR) must be fully integrated with the organisation’s brand management and commercial strategy. This means that the CSR strategy must support the underlying commercial requirements for the business and deliver to its customers or the ultimate consumer safe goods, products and services that are fit for purpose and deliver optimum quality, optimum price and the expected level of customer service. Internal and external stakeholders are increasingly becoming more concerned about the way an organisation delivers its commercial and marketing strategy especially how it balances the economic, social and environmental aims and objectives within this strategy. Ethical objectives that need to be embedded within the CSR element of organisational strategy include:

- Service related issues – service design, management of customer care initiatives, quality assurance and sustainable sourcing and supplier approval, ethical trading protocols;

- Product related issues – product design, quality assurance, quality control, sustainable sourcing and supplier approval, ethical trading protocols;

- Operational issues – management of resources including raw materials, land, energy, water, control of waste produced as a result of activities, including disposal, packaging recycling strategies, management of logistics including transportation of goods and product distribution strategies;

- Colleague issues – development of social policy and practice including worker facilities, terms and conditions of employment, personal welfare, health and safety, training and development;

- Community issues – management of the organisation impact on the local, national or global community including environmental issues, such as noise, smell, visual impact, use of resources, production and disposal of waste;

- Brand and organisational risk management – management of legislative, commercial, operational and brand risks

Does your organisational strategy address all these areas or do you need to revisit your management of CSR?

Read more here.

Article Source

Tags: ethics, social, responsibility, code, work

“An organisation has a direct impact on its stakeholders namely suppliers, customers, work colleagues, and consumers of its goods and services. It also has a range of indirect impacts on non-governmental organisations and an indirect, but often significant impact on the local community within which it operates, and on the national or indeed global community. It is therefore important for an organisation to recognise its responsibilities to its suppliers, customers, and staff and address the way it impacts on its social and physical environment.

Organisations need to review their current performance, determine if their current level of performance meets predetermined ethical aims and objectives and if necessary identify how the organisation could improve and communicate this to their stakeholders. The management team need to define these aims and objectives so that they can drive internal improvements, potentially decrease the cost of production and also build the confidence of customers and potential customers in the organisation. To be a preferred supplier they must inspire trust and confidence by consistently meeting the quality standards of their customers, ensuring reliability in meeting product and service requirements, and seeking to continuously measure and improve performance. They must also be able to demonstrate their understanding of the ways that their activities affect the local community.

A Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Strategy can deliver brand value and increase brand equity by acting as a management tool to:

• manage and where possible reduce costs,

• manage, mitigate or minimise risk,

• and identify new organisational opportunities.

Therefore, a CSR strategy describes an organisation’s vision – its key aims objectives and measurable indicators of success. It also defines an organisation’s governance structure and the management systems that are in place. Many organisations produce an annual report to inform their stakeholders of their CSR performance and report is increasingly being utilised as a marketing tool as well as an organisational driver.

So, how do you define your organisation’s key environmental, social and economic priorities? How do you measure business success?

Visit this site to read more.

Article Source

Tags: corporate, social, responsibility, business, jobs

“Much is written about the lack of integrity, poor work ethics and business ethics of the rank and file employees. Yet, is your management team or executives costing you business because of poor ethics and no integrity?

One example of poor work ethics and business ethics if the recent survey released by PopCap Games in the 3rd quarter of 2007. The results from this survey suggested that white collar executives wasted more time each day playing video games that those that they managed. Now this is a bad thing, but it is not the most serious behavior that affects the overall performance within any organization.

Many times I have had to coach small business owners to corporate executives who have had to deal with the unethical behavior of those they are negotiating with specific to work contracts. These coaching sessions usually center around a subordinate within an organization being given authority to negotiate a contract. Yes, my clients know they should have had a signed contract or least a letter of intent, but they are from the old school of high business ethics.

A gentleman’s agreement happens over breakfast or lunch because of the personal integrity between the parties. The vendor is told to proceed. Yet, when the contract needs to be signed, the subordinate’s supervisor starts changing the scope of the work. As an instructional designer we call this scope creep and can be very costly to any vendor.

Then the vendor is asked to make more concessions. Usually more is demanded for less money and in a shorter delivery time frame. What happens is that the potential vendor feels very used and abused. Also, the vendor believes that the subordinate has been set up by management to keep upper management’s image clean and above board.

When incidents like this happen, the end result is that business suffers. And the reason is that upper management is unethical, plain and simple. Of course, management may claim that they are doing what is best for the company, but that is not true.

Best for the company should always be measured against the organization’s values. If the best violates the values, then those actions are not the best ones. Of course, if there is not a values statement this also suggests there is not strategic plan and so everyone’s behaviors are up for grab.

When we look at the numerous failed companies such as Enron to Anderson including the recent mortgage industry challenges, the main cause for these failures are bad business ethics. Private industry is not alone as not for profit and government elected and appointed officials are equal and willing partners to bad business and personal ethics.

Bottom line all of these bad ethics are bad for business and costing the U.S. economy billions of dollars. Simply speaking, people want business as well as personal relationships with individuals who have high ethics. So if your bottom is suffering, check your ethics and those of your executive management team.

Would you like to increase the productivity of your employees? Then you may find the FREE Leadership Audit of interest here.

Article Source

Tags: business, ethics, responsibility, values, training

“As a general proposition, you’ve all heard that the consumer residential real estate mortgage lending industry is cyclical. This is best illustrated by thinking of a old grand-father clock, with it’s pendulum swinging back and forth. It swings in one direction for a period of time, then it reverses itself. It is those reversals we have come to call ‘corrections.’ In the early stages of these reversals, the industry goes through a cleansing period, a sort of punishment phase. The length of each swing before the correction, is as a rule, roughly for the same time interval.

So there I was, in my late 20’s with 7 years under my belt in the biz operating a branch office, the recently implemented landmark Federal legislation – The Truth in Lending Act was only a couple of years old, and both Fannie & Freddie were both newborns, as I faced the first industry wide correction. Thankfully, I was employed at The Mother Company, which sheltered me from most of the negative impact of it (my employer then was a rather large, solid, and sizable financial organization). Shortly after Watergate, it came rolling in all across the Nation. As I recall it was because of serious troubles in the American Economy in the early ‘70’s. We had run-away inflation, and long gas lines, etc. Rates on conforming were 10% to 12% on 1st mortgages and 16% to 18% on seconds.

The industry wide punishment segment of this correction lasted a few years, and since I was shielded from it I don’t remember it being all that extensive. This one wasn’t our fault, the industry didn’t do it to itself. What developed as a result, was the seven decade old subprime industry left the confines of the consumer finance companies, and began to be noticed by the more conventional mortgage world. The reversed cycle that followed was generally good for the mortgage industry and lasted more than 10 full years. I was young and fairly green way back then, and my memory could be off a bit on some of the details, but that’s what I recollect.

Only a handful of years after the MBS market was created , the Government de-regulated the Savings & Loan industry (they were most of the secondary market/portfolio buyers for residential mortgage loan transactions during that period), in ‘87-88 there was a huge explosion! Countless S&L execs foolishly began to make loans that were not on local SFR’s as they had traditionally been doing utilizing depositor’s money, the previous four decades (at modest LTV’s). Instead they began to finance large investor/builder owned apartment complexes in far-flung areas they knew little about, made risky business loans, plus funding a great many non-real estate related type loans, such as lending collateralized by cattle and such! That’s what started the snow-ball. As these S&L’s failed one by one, ultimately FSLIC failed (the S&L equivalent of FDIC at that time). Although it was the de-regulation that was the core problem that time; many S&L execs were easily fooled by being in regions they were unaccustomed to, losses were astronomical, many S&L senor execs and owners were convicted of criminal activity.

A few of you veterans will remember many scandals, felony convictions, and jail sentences … Charles Keating of Lincoln Savings and others. Industry wide, nearly everyone got punished, many MI companies went under, as did a great many mortgage bankers and brokers who fell like dominos … but basically it wasn’t our fault, Government corruption and de-regulation were at the center, was my analysis at the time. Today with the Internet, I found this article which summarizes it from an historical viewpoint. With my own head down and bullets flying-by close overhead, it’s not as tidy as Google shows you. The Government’s RTC bail-out (you can Google Resolution Trust Corporation) saved even more people from being punished. This industry punishment segment lasted a couple of years as well. During this one, I operated a fairly sizable nationwide wholesale company, with a $4+ Million annual overhead ($0 of that was commissions BTW), so I remember this one like it was just last month. I frequently had nightmares and was often scared to death throughout this period. As a result, the mortgage asset backed securitization market grew like gang-busters after this. The reversed cycle that followed was generally not favorable for the mortgage industry, it lasted more almost 10 full years like the last one. What I’ve written is from my memory, it was ugly, I was there and that’s how I remember it!

Two years after I closed my former company, underwent two Cancer surgeries and was an independent consultant helping mortgage operators locally, came the next correction. This last one, came as a result of the Russian Ruble crisis in the Fall of ’98. Worldwide Capital markets got squeezed big time … some of you might remember Old Stone, Conti Mortgage, Southern Pacific, and many more names back from that era, who didn’t make it. This market ‘reversal’ was a quick one, the industry wide punishment was mild compared to last time; it wasn’t a long prolonged slow bleed-out like today. We didn’t do that one to ourselves either. As a result, there were more than 350,000 new originators that jumped into this business, due to the paradigm shift of big commissions being offered to originators (a notion previously unprecedented) by the few lender survivors plus the new ones that developed – since there were many unemployed people available due to lender failures, this was the largest single growth period in the history of our industry … they’re exiting now.

As the pendulum swung back, this reversed cycle which followed, was historically the biggest boom-time for the industry I had ever seen. Housing values soared, rates plunged to the lowest levels in more than a half century, and generally a good time was had by all for the remained of this short lived 7 year cycle.

Today as a Teacher/Mentor and the semi-retired Founder of www.secretuniversity.com I see, unlike the three previous ‘corrections’, this late 2005-2006 reversal has not been due to circumstances generally beyond our control, this one is due entirely to actions solely by industry insiders. Many of my peers and I have seen this one coming since early ’04 as it became apparent ‘the wheels were starting to come off the wagon.’ On the rise we saw originators working in their jammies with the bunny-slippers at home, broker/LO fraud starting to become a concern to wholesalers, wholesalers promoting irrational No Doc and Stated loans to low FICOs with high LTV’s, etc … The early symptoms began showing up in our newsletters, in late ’03 and well into ’04. An epidemic of greed prevailed nationwide for several years, with an industry flooded by unethical and unbelievably poorly educated, trained and supervised personnel who were our industry’s front-line, exploiting the public – a virtually frenzied wild-west gold-rush mentality. RESPA violations overwhelmed those that policed the industry, Wall Street greed incentivizing foolish wholesale lending program extreme offerings, that literally gave away money to borrowers, unethical behavior and greed fueled ramped fraud and abuse at all levels. By anyone’s definition, the industry did this one to itself. And, it’s going to be a long and slow bleed out, The reversed cycle that will follow, will by and large, not be complimentary for the mortgage industry.

Even if it’s as short lived as the last one, this pendulum swing should last at least another 5 years, while the industry punishment segment, should be generally over by next Summer, or Fall. There’s plenty of blame to go around. I do not believe the effect on the overall market will be as massive as the ‘87-88 collapse, but this one is gonna be close, and some in the know think even bigger!

As in the past, as the punishment portion ends, and this recovery ultimately begins, we’ll find many new and exciting organizations emerge from the wreckage of the retribution of this harsh reversal, and there will be countless innovative programs, products, and ways of doing presented. Even though scary as it is happening, this renewal of the business from time to time, gives us all hope, for a stronger and increasingly solid industry, that’s a critical and vibrant part of the American economy.

Article by Peter Cugno, Chairman & CEO of Secret! University, the educational division of Americas Money Center, Inc. with 40+ years experience in the subprime industry niche. Questions or comments may be directed online here.

Article Source

Tags: ethics, social, responsibility, code, work

“I just returned home from my 7th company event, two of those events I hosted myself. Since I joined my company as an independent distributor back in January of 2005, I have been told by countless people that attending these functions is necessary for the success of my own business and that I should “”Do whatever I have to do to get there”". In turn I have also (in the past) told my own team members to do what they had to do to get to the company event.

Attending this last event for me was not so much about learning new techniques or being educated on how to market my products or my business instead, it was more about confirming several things that I’d been pushing to the back of my mind for quite some time.

Two of the things I needed confirmation on were that I would not learn new techniques or be educated on how to market my products.

I have to question the ethics of telling people who are unfamiliar with network marking or multi level marketing that attending a company function is what they need to do to grow their business. These events can rack up a rather large bill once you factor in your traveling expenses, the fees for the event, hotel costs and the other expenses that are associated with attending a company function.

Because I have made a major shift in how I educate and train my team of distributors, I now have to question whether attending a company function is really beneficial not only for myself, but for my team members.

With 7 events under my belt I can honestly say that with two exceptions attending these events really hasn’t help me build my business or grow my retail base. For the most part, what I have seen are recycled topics and a speaker list dominated by the popular group. And then there are the endless testimonials that are better used on a personal website or opportunity call. Remember we are already a part of the organization and if we need to hear a testimonial to validate our decision to be there, it may be time to re-evaluate why we chose the particular business we are in.

Company conventions and events do have a place in todays world, but each individual must evaluate what they want to achieve from these events and decide on their own if attending the event will truly benefit their business or if it will take away from their business. Company functions are a great source for getting first hand information on the history of the company and its founders. They are also great for getting people pumped up about their business and product line. But keep in mind that attending these functions will probably not result in increased sales or a larger organization for yourself.

Keeping the company event in perspective, it’s more like a pep rally than a business building seminar. If you need a pep rally experience then attend the events but if you are looking for details on how to build your business or downline, chances are you won’t find it at the company event.

The types of people that we recruit are generally people who are looking for an opportunity to bring income into their household. Sending them to an event simply is not the way to help them achieve that. Telling them that they need to do whatever then can to get to these events when we know they still don’t have their business in profit in my opinion is irresponsible. Our primary focus needs to be helping these people in our downline to get their business into profit and until their business can afford the additional expense of attending an event, we really should not put pressure on them to attend to boost our own numbers.

It is far more responsible for us as leaders to encourage our downline to use their resources to run an ad for their own business building efforts or put that money toward increasing their customer base.

Once their business is in profit and the revenues from their business can support attending the company convention or function that is when we should be talking about going to the company event.

Here’s my bottom line on attending company events. Unless my business is in profit and generating enough income to cover the expense of attending one of these functions, I have no business putting my business or my family finances second in order to attend. Nor is it my place to encourage my downline to attend such an event when they are not in a financial position to support the expense.

I realize that my opinion is not within the accepted norm of my industry, however I believe this is a common sense approach that better serves my downline. I personally would be horrified if one of my team members did what they had to in order to attend an event only to have them drop the next month because they had to dip into their family budget to afford attending the event.

As responsible sponsors our first concern for our downline should be to help them to achieve profit in their business, not to rack up business debt in order to satisfy our ego by having the most distributors at a company function.

With a background in Human Resources and Retail, Cherrie Fishlowitz uses a common sense approach to internet marking and training that comes from her personal experiences both online and offline.

Visit Cherrie with your comments or questions at her website.

“Adjust PS is frequently being approached for help and support by businesses who are increasingly being critiqued on their treatment of green and environmental issues. Often the most highly visible aspect of a green business plan includes purchasing and the supply chain. Suppliers are being held to a higher standard, subjected to greater scrutiny and expected to respond to these challenges.

Procurement solutions to the environmental question can be achieved using business models already in place. These types of systems and processes are already applied to cover non-green issues when firms are dealing with their suppliers. Supplier audits already include checks for compliance with other regulations governing workforce diversity, workplace conditions, etc, so that the same model can be applied to cover environmental standards. Requesting environmental information is asking suppliers to become more accountable and then this information can be put into a balance scorecard to measure their performance, creating an incentive for them to improve.

By involving suppliers early and often in product, process, and strategic decisions that impact them, it is possible to reduce the potential negative fall-out from any changes. Add suppliers to planning teams to implement design for environment initiatives and, within your own company, seek to collaborate at multiple levels, involving the technical personnel that plan and manage day-to-day operations.

Sustainable Procurement refers to ‘policy-through-procurement’ issues where purchasing choices are seen as a lever to achieve wider objectives. These lofty goals may seem to pose a difficult challenge, but it all comes down to procurement having a key rôle in the business, together with the ability to assess suppliers correctly. Implementing environmental procurement may require a larger initial investment of time and effort, but it can pay lasting dividends in terms of reduced product life-cycle cost, overall cost efficiency, and minimized environmental risk.

A growing number of suppliers now recognize that the environmental qualities of their products can be a competitive advantage in courting and maintaining relationships with corporate customers — while poor environmental performance can put them at a disadvantage. Companies can team environmental managers with their procurement departments to leverage suppliers towards green practices as well as benefiting from increased accountability and the relationships that result.

Richard Hatton is Managing Director of Adjust PS, a UK company specializing in procurement consulting to professional buyers and suppliers. Adjust PS works with organizations to promote Green Procurement and co-presents seminars to educate companies how to adopt Green initiatives and save money in the process. Adjust PS’ services are based upon constant discussion with a range of industries, governmental organisations, and small businesses combined with a continuous audit of the appropriateness and readiness of the latest technology offerings. Visit Adjust PS here.

Article Source

Tags: ethical, responsibility, environment, sustainable, procedure

“Everything is transparent these days” says Larry Hochman and he is also known to be one of the best advocates on corporate ethics and responsibility.

And yes, everything we do as companies and corporations is transparent to our consumers nowadays, since via the new media they can compare and discuss and figure out what we are all about! And that is why it is important to have our corporate blogs and forums and podcasts to be able to participate in the dialog consumers are having about us online, because with or without us – this discussion is happening anyway!

And what is also becoming very important is our proof to our consumers that we deserve for them to be loyal to us. To give them more and more reasons to be happy to be associated with us and our brands – reasons off-line and on-line.

And here is one – just as an example, but a brilliant one on how social media and networking, the “consumer unions” as Larry Hochman calls them, are starting to lead the dialogue with corporations. I came across this yesterday and if you decide to invest the time, do watch it and here is why:

• First of all because it is from TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) and TED is knows for inviting some of the most brilliant minds to present at their events.
• Second because about 10 of those 18 minutes of your time might be one of these rare moments when we stop and remember how beautiful life actually is.
• Thirdly because it is YouTube and one more way to enter where a lot of our consumers dwell.
• And then at the end …. you will see how consumers are starting to demand corporate responsibility and all for a very good reason.

YouTube

Makes you think – does not it: What are the good causes your company would like to be associated with?

Would like to show your consumers where your stand on corporate responsibility and why they should be proud to be loyal to you.

Christina Vlahova is the founder of “Intellecta Srl” – Strategic marketing consultancy. She is also a “CSA Celebrity Speakers” associate, working with conference organizers from around the world in providing the best key note speakers and experts for their events.

To get an expert advice for the best speakers for your conference or event visit this website

Article source

Tags: corporate, ethical, ethics, information, responsibility

The question whether business and ethics are mutually inclusive remains to be one of the most controversial yet rational, reasonable and relevant topics that is worth the time and intellectual effort if committed for it. The topic has been the favourite grain for gossip mills mainly to the oriental ones and intellectual arguments with varying dimensions have also been credited with to have aroused out of this seemingly simple topic. Once the topic gets debated and deliberated mainly from issues and instances that underlines the need for mutual involvement of these two, the argument itself spirals up thereby creating a chain reaction that goes like wild fire drawing into it the comments and concerns of people from all walks of life surpassing limits of language, nationality and ideology.

Business and the role of ethical principles in it has been, and will be a topic that can fuel a lot of debates and economical derivations cutting across political, cultural, economic and ideological lines surpassing geographic and linguistic barriers. The terminology and its corresponding interpretation changes according to the context and the nature and scope of the subject acquires entirely different dimensions when it comes to engaging business and ethics. The notion of a healthy inter play between business and ethical principles is undoubtedly relevant in this context of engulfing globalisation, the only question remaining where the lines of ethics in business are to be drawn the same time safeguarding interests of the former and giving latter its due space. While it is true that there are no all time true and fitting solutions to this question certain notions are worthwhile being included.

As the world develops more and more into a free market economy with negligible exceptions, the relevance of ethics in business do surfaces as the tip of an ice berg with the major part lying deep waiting to be discovered, discussed and impartially deliberated. Interestingly there are entirely different dimensions to this topic. What is the responsibility of the corporate is a question that is being asked and already enough and more on this regard has been debated by focus groups, academic panels and politicians to this point of time. A corporate entity having varied business interests in different categories of products is liable to consumers as far as they are directly or indirectly involved and affected by the products. In an ideal civic sense, the common people and the citizens as a whole also comes under the wider purview. It makes perfect sense that the common folks are at a huge monetary and ethical disadvantage once a product, its application and most commonly its effects are misinterpreted. whether the error was inadvertent or not is another question. The victim in this case goes to the court in a much publicised trial and in most cases is awarded a great fortune by judicial intervention or by an agreement between the hunter and the hunted that goes behind closed doors outside the court. The society unanimously supports the individual and pours pages after pages of enriched encomium and a civic hero is instantly born. This is the most widely known dimension.

The next dimension of this topic that most in the dialogue does not know or does not want to discuss is the part of the citizen. what kind kind of ethical demeanor does the corporate as a service provider who have extensively invested, investigated and researched in the process of coming out with a product which despite all the efforts and the care followed throughout the process done has failed should receive from the general public. What about the basic ethical notions that must be followed while engaging with a corporate entity. Do they have the previlege of chance or doubt based on the principles of equality and social justice. There are all over the internet and in the traditional print media articles, full page stories and in peak times supplement papers that features the ugly side of corporate responsibility when they have been caught in the court for trying to jeopardize a free and fair trial that in most times where going in favour of the individual or group that spearheaded the campaign. It is perfectly just and in the best interest of social justice but what happens if individuals or groups who have carefully planned, co-ordinated and carried out with motives that are specious.

While investigating the corporate side and unraveling their part seems comparatively easy whereas the individual on the other side is often left exonerated. What about the goodwill of the corporate that has been built through years and decades spoiled by a single hoax which was deliberate from the part of a group or in some cases by support from another corporate competitor. What about the monetary loss that the corporate had to endure from the public relation disaster and far more despicable is the social apathy and the immunity given to the group that have in word, spirit and deed defamed the corporate. If a citizen has the right for compensation, then even by the terms of an eye for eye raw justice the corporate is also entitled to a claim and there are also cases of corporates being granted compensation but was it proportional leaves us thinking.

There have been instances where the corporate world was unfairly hunted and haunted by individual and groups with vested notions and cases where political vendetta triggered law suits and investigations. If found in cases where individuals misrepresented facts, the were left without strict punishments and the public took it for granted that it is okay for individuals to make mistakes and not vice-versa. Ethics being a normative science is hard to crack and the same applies to its objective measurement. The common man wants some fast solutions for which there is no clear border line that can be drawn at present between ethics and business.

This article is the property of Jimmy George, an online freelance article writer specializing in writing and configuring articles that are fine tuned with keywords for the predominant purpose of SEO.

Article Source

Tags: ethics, business, issues, conduct, responsibility

Indulgences are an ancient form of church-granted amnesty from certain forms of punishment, in this life or hereafter, for sin. The selling of indulgences, a practice that became generally accepted with the first Crusade and grew considerably during the later Middle Ages, allowed the popes and professional pardoners to sell the forgiveness of sins and during that time actually fund some of the Crusades. In Catholic theology, buyers of such indulgences eliminated or reduced the time necessary for their souls to be cleansed in purgatory before entry into heaven. Popes and especially professional pardoners loved serial sinners as they could become a reliable source of sales and relatively easy money.

Today’s more ecumenical indulgences are bought and sold by those who think that the emissions of high levels of greenhouse gases or a lifestyle based on a big carbon footprint can be simply atoned for by paying into some sort of a fund that will look to reduce the high emissions from some other source. As in the church version, the presumption that buyers of these carbon credits operate under is that by simply paying into a fund they will have absolved themselves from responsibility and guilt resulting from their corporate and lifestyle choices.

Rather than biting the proverbial bullet and eliminating their sinning ways, these high emitters continue to harm the environment, exacerbate climate change and set bad examples for the rest of us. Instead of personal carbon credits and corporate carbon credit markets, we need leaders that understand that making the personal and corporate changes necessary to reduce long-term greenhouse gases and emissions is not only the right thing to do but it is also better and cheaper in the long run.

Tania Sole – Ms. Sole has been an environmentalist and travel enthusiast since she was a young girl growing up in Europe, the Middle East and Central America. For over ten years, she has worked at Greenslip Inc. Visit our website and get more information about what you can do to reduce your transportation carbon footprint.

Article Source

Tags: social, responsibility, ethics, corporate, business

Employers face a dilemma, each year, on which holidays to give off to their employees. Many employers do not give Martin Luther King Jr. birthday as a holiday. They do not want to be seen as racist or close minded, but employers are concerned about making enough revenue in order to pay for their overhead. For many employers its occurrence just two weeks after the week between Christmas and New Year’s Day, when many businesses are closed for part of or sometimes all of the week, is troublesome. However, employers have a lot of options in solving this dilemma without cutting into their revenue. Recognizing the role that Martin Luther King, Jr. played in promoting peace, social justice and racial and class equality is the primary purpose of the holiday which can be celebrated by the employees in ways other than giving a paid holiday.

On January 17, 2000, for the first time, Martin Luther King Day was officially observed in all 50 U.S. states. On November 2, 1983, President Reagan signed a bill creating a federal holiday to honor King. Opposition to the bill was led by Senator Jesse Helms, who questioned whether King was important enough to receive such an honor. He was also critical of King’s opposition to the Vietnam War and accused King of having Communist connections. On January 16, 2006 Greenville County, South Carolina was the last county in the U.S. to officially adopt Martin Luther King Day as a paid holiday. Many individuals do not celebrate the birthday of Dr. King, because as Jesse Helms opined, he was not important enough in United States History. However, Americans lose sight of the importance of the Holiday and fail to cherish their civil rights. The celebration of Martin Luther King’s birthday must be substantive as well as symbolic. It must be more than a day of celebration. The holiday should be a day of reflection, a day of teaching non-violent philosophy and strategy, a day of getting involved in non-violent action for social and economic progress and racial and ethnic equality. It is a day that is marked by demonstrations for peace, social justice and racial and class equality, as well as a national day of volunteer community service. In Utah, Martin Luther King Day is also known as Human Rights Day; similarly, in Arizona and New Hampshire, Martin Luther King Day is also known as Civil Rights Day.

Overall, in 2006, 31% of employers were giving employees the day off, with 35% of large employers over 1,000 giving time off and 29% of smaller employers giving time off. The observance is most popular amongst nonprofit organizations and least popular among factories and manufacturers, because most factories have been shut down for one week at the end of the year. Additionally, some schools and places of higher education are closed for classes; others remain open but may hold seminars or celebrations of Dr. King’s message.

How can employers celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday to give it meaning to their employees, other than another paid holiday?

1. Provide a lunch for your employees and have a seminar regarding elimination of bias and highlight Dr. King’s teachings. Read his speech “I have a Dream” he delivered during the March on Washington.

2. A Floating Civil Rights Holiday. Celebrate the diversity of your workforce by granting a day off for a Civil Rights leader that an individual employee’s race or ethnic group honours. There are ten annual Federal holidays in the United States: New Years Day, Martin Luther King’s Birthday, President’s Day, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas Day. Of these, Martin Luther King’s Birthday and Columbus Day celebrate not only the accomplishment of the individual but recognize that person’s race. There are large celebrations in the African-American and Italian communities on each of these respective holidays. In some locales, holidays are granted to recognize local leaders, such as Caesar Chavez day for the Latino community.

3. Community Service Activity. Have your employees participate in a community service activity. This could be from helping out at a Martin Luther King, Jr. celebration, to collecting food or other items to help a particular community service project. Employees could be given time during their work day on Martin Luther King’s Holiday to engage in the activity.

4. Sponsor an event. Let your employees know that you recognize the accomplishments of Dr. King and you will observe the day by supporting a local event.

5. Allow employees a few hours off to attend morning events on Martin Luther King’s Birthday holiday.

6. Have a moment of silence and distribute Dr. King’s speech I have a dream.

7. Speak up for an injustice in your community.

8 Pass on the legacy. Have your employees give a talk to children about him. It only takes a moment to recognize his contributions.

For an employer to be socially conscious does not have to be costly It requires an employer to open its mind and be inclusive for all.

By Elizabeth A. Moreno, Esq. a Los Angeles employment attorney and mediatior, who guides employers through treacherous rivers of employment compliance and litigation that threaten to sink their business.

Article source

Tags: ethical, business, training, social, responsibility

I well remember as a young bank clerk many years ago, sitting at my desk one morning. Around me were the sounds of hustle and bustle of a busy office – people were sipping their coffee (in those days it was instant!) opening the mail (ah, for the days before email!) and telling of the events of last evening or their trip to work that morning. As a morning person, it was my best time of the day when I was at my most positive, creative and effective best, so I had my head down and bum up. Time later for relaxing. Suddenly, the air was split with an earth shattering yell. My usually very quiet, reserved manager, had come out of his office, red in the face and yelling “Who did this?” Everyone stopped dead. When he recovered enough to tell us what the “this” was, I discovered to my horror that it was obviously something that I had done that had upset him. Apparently, I had made a blunder that would impact one of our best customers most unfavourably. I very tentatively, put my hand up “Mm, mm, mm, me, Sir”, I managed to stammer. “Into my office, now!” he replied.

By the time we had both sat down in his office, he had recovered his composure somewhat. To my great surprise, he started the conversation with “Bob, I really appreciate your honesty in admitting to this mistake. I am very disappointed that it has happened, but with some luck, we can probably correct it. Thank you for owning up to your mistake so readily”.

That experience for me was bitter sweet and obviously long lasting. It certainly had a major impact on my later mode of operating when I became a manager. On the one hand, I was mortified to have made such a stupid mistake yet on the other hand, I had really felt good and upbeat about the way it had been handled. I thought of that experience as I read an article in the Herald Tribune this week (Jan 3, 2007) titled “2 of 5 bosses don’t keep their word”. The article reported on a soon to be released study in The Leadership Quarterly that found that by and large, many bosses today are dishonest with and about their workers. The study specifically pointed out some damming evidence reported by workers about the honesty of their bosses:

• 39% said their supervisors had failed to keep promises.
• 37% said their supervisors had failed to give credit when due.
• 31% said their supervisors had given them the “silent treatment” in the past year.
• 27% said their supervisors had made negative comments about them to other employees or managers.
• 24% said their supervisors had invaded their privacy.
• 23% said their supervisors had blamed others to cover up mistakes or to minimise embarrassment.

Florida State University, the authors of the report, suggest that such dishonesty creates problems for companies such as poor morale, lower production and higher turnover. These results confirm my own research in interviews and focus groups with managers and their employees over the last twenty years. I too found that the major reason why people leave an organisation is because of poor management and leadership. People don’t leave a company, they leave their boss!

What may surprise some readers is that the Florida State study also confirmed many earlier studies about the relationship between pay and turnover. It found that a good working environment is more important than pay and that “employees were more likely to leave if involved in an abusive relationship than if dissatisfied with pay.

My own research also throws up two other factors of note:

• People join a company because of the excitement or enticement of an interesting job.
• People stay in a company because of the values they share with their fellow workers (assuming of course, that they have good management).

So, where does that leave today’s managers? And, most importantly, what does it suggest for companies who want to boost morale, increase productivity and decrease staff turnover?

I suggest there are three answers to this question on which every employer should focus in the relationship with his or her workers, whether he or she be the CEO or a new supervisor.

1. Make sure pay and conditions are appropriate for the job and industry; and that they are fair and equitable. This removes one of the stumbling blocks to effective employee morale and satisfaction.

2. Ensure that the job provides the employee with the ability to gain:

• a sense of real achievement for the work that they do
• recognition for what they achieve – regular “thank you’s” and notes of appreciation go a long way
• responsibility and even increased responsibility for what they do – make sure they are able to make decisions regarding their area of responsibility without having to “upwardly delegate”
• from a job that has real interest and meaning for them
• advancement and development, either by way of career progression, professional or personal development.

Remember, people join a company because of the excitement of the job. It is up us as managers to do whatever we can to keep that excitement level high.

3. Above all, be honest in what you say and do. A true manager’s mantra should be “Do as I do”, not “Do as I say”. People leave a company because of poor leadership and management. I have found that people will accept mistakes if we are open about them. They will not accept cover ups. The foundation for effective leadership and management is honesty. These are qualities that everyone values.

So, where have all the honest managers gone? I have no “amazing* research to provide the answers (although it would make an interesting study). However, I will suggest that:

• Honesty, particularly in western society, is in decline generally due to the emphasis on individualism not community. We have become a “Me too” society, where material and personal gain are valued above the good of the community. Every day one reads in the press or hears on the TV some new “revelation” about a cover up, lack of integrity, or just plain dishonesty that has led to yet another major commercial or international disaster.

• Organisations, particularly since the late 80′s, have spent an inordinate amount of time and resources on boosting the job “satisfiers” (as Frederick Herzberg called them) – pay and conditions at the expense of the true “motivators” – achievement, recognition, responsibility, meaningful and interesting work, and growth and advancement. The result? When material gain becomes the all consuming and overt goal pursued by organisations (such as maximum shareholder returns and exorbitant senior manager benefits) over intrinsic basic human motivators, managers will do almost anything to “cover their bums” so that their extrinsic rewards are maintained.

Am I being too harsh on today’s managers? I’d appreciate your thoughts, opinions, comments and stories. I wonder how many of today’s managers would take the same approach as my old manager when faced with a similar situation to that of “my mistake”?

Copyright (c) 2007 The National Learning Institute

Bob Selden is passionate about developing leadership and management within organisations. He also works with individual managers in their personal development as a part time faculty member on the leadership development programs at the International Institute for Management Development in Lausanne and the Australian Graduate School of Management, Sydney. He’d like to hear your thoughts on leadership development via the National Learning Institute

Article Source

Tags: business, ethics, corporate, responsibility, managers

Social responsibility is the belief that firms should voluntarily contribute to society and the less fortunate. There are many different ways companies can make their voluntary contributions. Examples include donating percentages of profits to charities, causes, local communities or society in general. Firms can also make contributions to improving the quality of life for employees and their families through benefit packages such as profit sharing and 401K accounts. Examples of some companies who practice social responsibility are Ben and Jerry’s, UPS, Starbucks, Walt Disney, Apple, Johnson & Johnson, and McDonald’s. Larger firms and corporations seem to make the largest social contributions. Many people would argue that this is because they have the largest net profits to work with.

Although social responsibility undoubtedly benefits society, it has become a hot topic because of different concerns that circulate the issue. There are those who argue for social responsibility; since society benefits from the firm, they should give back to society. Others believe the only social responsibility of a firm should be to make a profit.

Corporate social responsibility has many supporters. Firms support social responsibility because it can benefit them in many ways. Many firms have realized that social responsibility is a great recruiting tool when looking for new employees. People are attracted to a company that does good things for society. Also, socially responsible firms have a higher retention rate than those that are not. People enjoy being a part of an organization that is bettering society. Employees of socially responsible firms may be happier in the place of work because they feel like they are a part of something larger than themselves. Furthermore, in a competitive marketplace how a customer views your company is crucial. Companies that are socially responsible build a positive reputation for themselves. In return, more customers may buy their product, or purchase their services.

Social responsibility is also supported because of the way it benefits society in general. Many believe that if enough firms practice social responsibility, in the long run a healthier economy will be molded. A stronger marketplace will be a result of this. People believe that since firms benefit from society that they should in return plow back in some of their profits.

On the contrary, there are many who criticize social responsibility. Refuters of social responsibility argue that this practice can actually harm the balance of a business. Profit given away may disposition a company because these means could have been invested into growth, and improvement of the firm. When portions of profit are being given to charities as opposed to reinvestment for internal growth these socially responsible firms are being put at a disadvantage to those firms that are not.

In addition to this, challengers also argue that it is unethical for corporations to deprive or short challenge stockholders’ dividend payments because of social responsibility investment. Since they are the ones investing in the success of the company in the first place, they are the ones that should be benefiting from profits. Many argue another place these funds should be allocated is to the employees themselves. If they are the ones that are driving the business’s high profits, they should be benefiting from their labor. Instead of investing these additional funds into society they should be reinvesting it into their employees in the form of bonuses. In my opinion, corporate responsibility should be the responsibility of only those who desire to make a difference. Responsibility should not be pushed onto anyone and everyone as a requirement. Only those who will take the time to assure the money they donate will go to a good cause should practice this behavior. Otherwise it is a waste of money that could be spent elsewhere. If the financial situations of the people who work at the company or the stockholders are at stake then I would view social responsibility as irresponsible. I also believe that if social responsibility denies the firm of a reasonable profit margin than this as well is wrong, and a bad business decision. I believe that social responsibility should be a choice, and a luxury, to those firms who can afford to use this tool to their advantage.

Article Source

Tags: corporate, ethics, responsibility, business, governance

Review website are popping up all over the Internet giving their reviews “more like an opinion” on every topic imaginable. These review sites are not here to give you their honest opinion but rather use their website to gain commissions from those websites that they are in fact reviewing.

Who really cares what their opinion is, when their opinion is based upon weather or not they are going to get a big fat commission check for their opinion in the first place.

These sites are mere feeding off of others hard work by running comparisons between one another for the sole purpose to get you to come to their review site in the first place. The reviews that are posted are based upon which company owner will pay the biggest commission, and not on the facts or reputation of the reviewed company itself.

ScamReviewSites.com is based in the USA to bring these varmints out in the open and tell the general public why and what they are up to. Their agenda is to trick us into believing that they really have done some research on the companies they claim they have reviewed when the facts show these review sites are merely cut, copy and paste the information from a different review site and changing the company’s name to suit their agenda.

ScamReviewSites.com has nothing to gain, they are independent of others, they do not accept ANY affiliate links or any type of commissions on their reviews. They point out the Good, the Bad and the Ugly for any and all sites without accepting a dime for their time and hard work.

You will NOT find a better source and a more genuine Review Site on the Net today. The information is straight to the point and written without any money agenda, go visit, it’s free for all.

Samuel Portier

Article source

Tags: social, ethics, business, issues, responsibility

Corporate social responsibility is an important-sounding phrase, but what exactly is it? Well, increasingly nowadays corporations have to be seen to act in a social, ethical and responsible manner. This arose because of the changing perception of the environment, the developing world and all the other issues of our time. Corporations have a huge influence over all these things – often a negative influence, for example in cutting down rainforests and employing children to make shoes for westerners. Social responsibility is the effort to give something back and improve, not exploit, conditions in poorer areas of the world.

Social responsibility isn’t just an ethical concern – it makes good business sense too. Every time a consumer doesn’t buy a brand of clothing because they’ve heard it’s made by children it hurts the business they’ve shunned. Consumers vote with their wallets and it’s important to present a good company image, otherwise you risk people choosing someone else.

So how can corporations embrace social responsibility? After all, there’s probably some kind of outlay involved and no-one likes spending money where they don’t have to. Well, cultural change within the institution is normally the first port of call. It’s imperative to change the attitudes of management so that they understand being socially responsible can actually benefit the business further down the line. The perception of your company within the target market can make or break your business in the long-term.

It’s important that if your company does take a stance on a social issue, it’s an issue that your customers care about or something that you have a direct impact upon. Beware of taking on debates with already strong pressure groups as you run the risk of getting a lot of bad press. It’s even more important that whatever issue you take on, you’re thoroughly prepared. You need to understand that you’re in this for the long run so if you make any bold claims be sure to follow them through. You should also be able to counter any bad publicity, not to mention answering all the questions you receive when you talk about what you’re doing.

The best corporate social responsibility comes from within the company, when members really care about change for the better and embracing new ideas. Sometimes it’s easier to get an outside agency to help with this – pr consultants for example who have done it all before and can help you see where change is necessary. If management-level staff embrace social responsibility this trickles down to the rest of the company a lot easier than if the change is forced from the outside.

Social responsibility will cost time, effort and money to implement, but your ongoing projects can give your company a greater ability to do good. It also gives you a greater perceived ability to do good, meaning that consumers buy into you more and trust that they’re buying from an ethical supplier or doing business with an ethical partner. Social responsibility is something that no corporation can afford to overlook.

Sylvia Kittens lives in Harrogate, England

Article Source

Tags: social, responsibility, ethics, corporate, business

Out with the old! In this new paradigm, the only way to make a dime is by giving talent and time. Today’s successful people focus on caring and service. The paramount concern in today’s business life looks at being in service for the greatest good of all concerned.

Rather than worrying about the competition, today’s business people see that servicing 5% of their niche makes them a good living. They do not need to hog the entire 100%. Everyone who provides an honest and ethical service or product gets an honest piece of the whole. The new thought form is, “There is enough to go around.”

There really is, you know, enough for each to enjoy their share without depriving others.

Let’s clean up the mess of failed businesses and life. Let’s take the knife of creation and sculpt a new world. We can detail it with love. Fill it with abundance that comes from above.

Bless everyone you meet. Bless everything you see. Bless all you do to make this a better world complete with love, caring, and sharing.

We can make life about giving and receiving. No keeping score. No deprivation. No hoarding. Did you ever notice those who keep their possessions for themselves, seem to experience the greatest fear of loss? Interesting, how that works. Those people will never have enough of what they fear losing. Never.

I do need to clarify one point. Many people really cannot take care of themselves. I believe in assisting them. However, I believe it is a rare person who cannot contribute something in return. For instance, some people are terrific at smiling. They lighten your heart just by smiling. Some people are great listeners. Some people can clean and wax a floor better than just about anyone.

Every person possesses a unique gift and talent. I do not believe in handouts. I think handouts keep people stuck. I believe in showing people a way to share their unique gift and talent to contribute so others may benefit.

People are social creatures. Let’s all make this world a great place to live together.

The bottom line is only you can change your life…when you are ready to do so. Change comes from within. Knowing the programs running your subconscious mind allows you to override what does not work and replace it with programs that do work. Discover the basics of conscious living in Ali Bierman’s ebook What You Don’t Know You Don’t Know Runs You. Grab your complimentary copy now at http://creatingthelife.com/ebook.html

Article source

Tags: ethics, work, responsibility, new, paradigm

Two friends and colleagues of mine , Mark and Doug, recently retired from the active work force in the automotive sector of the economy. They were gainfully employed as field parts attendants (warehouse support staff) in a Service Parts Operation divisional warehouse setting for one of the Big Three automotive giants.

They started their careers back in the days when the market share prices for the stock were substantially higher and the future outlook of the company that employed them was not as dismal and bleak as it is today. At one time the shares had sold for over $120. A different story today as we are all painfully aware.

Mark began his career path after he graduated high school. He was 19 years old and began his work path as a janitorial staff member. Eventually he learned about an opening at the warehouse and was hired a few days after his employment interview. He knew he was a hard worker and believed at the time that his future at the company was assured. The automotive parts market in those days was booming and he faithfully invested a portion of his monthly salary into the optional employee stock saving program. He believed in supporting the company that supported him and his family.

The work was labor intensive and at times challenging but he loved the physical side of his job. Management at the time adopted an employee appreciation program. Another innovative tool the company used to foster employee suggestions was An Ideas For Excellence Program. Employees received financial rewards for their ideas if adopted by the company. The program meant to increase efficiency and address safety issues in the company. Mark frequently submitted ideas on how to improve the internal operations at the warehouse. His work was rewarding and management seemed to understand him and his needs on a personal level. He knew that he was more than just a number or lines on a graph.

Mark retired about one month ago. He received no financial incentive package to do so. He retired after 30 years of service and is almost 50 years old. Friends that know him say that his overall health has improved as well as his disposition. He has mellowed and is actively pursuing a new career.The internal political networks and the constant managerial harassment he faced daily at work have now been replaced by a gentler, more reasonable way to make a living. He was forced to sell his shares in the company at a substantial loss. He enjoyed his time at the company.

Doug , almost 60 years old, retired a few days ago and says that he is still in a state of culture shock. He reluctantly admits that yes, there is life after retiring from work. He has been with the company almost 35 years. He actively participated in the employee suggestion program and offered many valuable ideas on how to improve or enhance the company’s performance He took an active role in the well being and safety of the warehouse and its employees.

He worked in the dealership returns section of the warehouse and examined the resale potential of the parts the dealership’s returned for credit. Over the years he was able to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the dealer returns section in the warehouse. He too invested in the employee stock option and suggestion programs. He proudly labeled himself as being a company man. He believed in the company and enjoyed his time working there. He received no bonus for retiring.

He too noticed over the years the decline in the quality of employee morale and active participation in warehouse events and the increase in the amount of scrutiny the company was placing on each and every employee. Production rates and employee performance charts and flow sheets were generated daily. The creation of a production meeting place, called The Wall, attempted to indoctrinate each employee into blindly accepting corporate values and ideals. With the recent economic downturn the amount of managerial badgering and nitpicking increased as mid level managers tried to justify their jobs and salaries.

Three other employees also retired in late 2008. One was a female self appointed executive secretary and two were male shift supervisors. All had the requisite 30 years of service in the company. All received a $75 thousand retirement incentive package for their efforts. This fact stunned and angered a number of employees at the facility. They saw it as good money spent badly. The company was viewed as being penny wise but dollar foolish. Were the employees in question really worth the money spent or was this fiasco part of an old boys network attempting to cover up loose ends and by retiring these people make way for other employees eager to move up the corporate ladder?

Many of my fellow employees as well as myself are approaching the retirement year plateau. Many are awaiting for a package deal that will encourage them to retire and call it quits. The packaged incentive plans seem to be destined for upper managerial types and not the lower level grunt workers. The rumors are running rampant in the warehouse as to who will be the next person to retire. Speculation and low level hysteria and paranoia run rampant on the workplace floor.

When an employee faces a forced retirement situation what should a person do to cover his assets? Is a bird in the hand worth two in the bush? Is it better to forgo that 30 year retirement deadline and take any amount of monetary award the company offers you or should you bravely go about your job and hope that things will turn out for the best?

The going rate for forced retirements these days expressed in the press has been pegged at roughly $20 thousand dollars and a new car employee purchase allowance of $25 thousand as ballpark figures. But then again that is only for unionized employees and not the non unionized salaried staff working in the regional offices and distribution centers.

Each person facing this career decision must decide for him and herself the benefits and the rewards that accepting such an incentive package will offer. The rest of us will anxiously wait for the market and governmental forces to decide where we fit in the whole scheme of things. Only the passage of time will let each employee know if he/she made the right decision for themselves and their family and their financial futures.

Article Source

Gerry Charbonneau – EzineArticles Expert Author

Tags: ethics, responsibility, legal issues, social , business

A few days ago I had one of those “random” conversations that sets the brain blazing down a hundred different paths almost immediately. The topic was DDT, and how that chemical was bought and sold with impunity in Latin America years after it had been banned in the United States for causing serious health and environmental problems.

In the beginning it was the wonder chemical of yore. From getting rid of vermin, to use as an agricultural pesticide, to eliminating malaria, the new potion apparently knew no bounds. Soon however, nasty little pieces of evidence – cancer, birth defects, and environmental hazards – started to spring up against the wonder chemical. Consequently, during the 1970s and 1980s, agricultural use of DDT was banned in the US and most developed countries.

However, it would seem this urgent health and environmental update somehow bypassed Latin America and some other parts of the world. In countries like Ecuador and Colombia, DDT and similar derivatives remain in active use especially for agricultural purposes. All this despite the 2001 Stockholm Convention calling for the elimination of such “persistent organic pollutants” in agribusiness.

DDT and other such persistent pollutants are just that – persistent. In human and other animal life, they cluster in fatty areas and proceed, nonstop, to erode the system from within. And this is just the proverbial tip.

Marketing and selling chemicals in developing countries, where public awareness of negative effects may be lower, is irresponsible, to say the least. And obviously certain businesses thrive by courting governments that are either more susceptible to manipulation or prone to allowing the unchecked commercialization of such hazardous products.

The ongoing side effects from the continued use of such chemicals in Colombian and Ecuadorian floral workers – headaches, nausea, impaired vision, asthma, stillbirths, congenital malformations, miscarriages – are graphic and constant reminders of the blatant sociopolitical and economic double standards at play in our current global dynamic.

Sneaky history. It’s almost impressive the way it keeps recycling itself. Well, at least we can’t call it unsustainable.

Columbia is the second largest flower producer in the world. Two-thirds of all fresh cut flowers sold in the United States come from Columbia. Dole, the leading producer of fresh fruit and vegetables, is also one of the largest flower producers in Latin America.

Dole’s official CSR report reads like a dream. That is, until you consider the fact that Columbian and Ecuadorian floral workers, many of them women, are exposed daily, to some of the most toxic chemicals available. Or unavailable – about a fifth of these chemicals used in the greenhouses are either banned, or not registered for use in the US or Canada for various health reasons. Dole has agreed to participate in an environmental standards program, but the question is whether the affected governments have any real monitoring systems in place.

The promotion of agribusiness should not come at the cost of human health, environment, or wildlife survival. This should be the business bottom line. However, looking at the plight of flower workers in Columbia and Ecuador, this common sense goal starts to look more like a foolish dream.

Is a rose just a rose anymore? I would argue with the bard. It would seem that its thorns are more the norm in certain parts of our world.

Jane Esi Hagan is the Corporate Engagement Liaison for First Peoples Worldwide, where she works to facilitate equitable and sustainable development initiatives for Indigenous Peoples. She holds an MA in International Affairs, with a specialization in Spanish/Latin American Studies from American University in Washington, DC.

Ms. Hagan is a passionate advocate for socioeconomic justice and equity. She has a varied and diverse interest in various international affairs issues including corporate social responsibility and international human rights.

Article Source

There are many factors within general business practices that are altering to ensure that every person benefits from the continued functioning of the company. Previously many businesses have subscribed to practices that may have had negative effects on their stakeholders. This is now changing as the realisation sets in of the true importance of the different stakeholders in any particular business. There are many different manners in which a company can implement corporate social responsibility measures for the benefit of all concerned. The manner in which each different company implements the changes will be dependant on what aspects of the company could be considered as having produced negative effects.

Corporate Social responsibility can often be confused with corporate charity, but it is a very different thing. Corporate charity can involve the donation of money and the provision of opportunities to members of the community and stakeholders. This is very different to the considerations that a company must abide by to ensure that their actions fall with the acceptable corporate social responsibility guidelines that have been established. These can include guidelines that relate to the environmental impact that a particular action can have or they can relate to the impact that an action can have on the local community. The guidelines are intended to ensure that any negative effects that an action could possibly have are eliminated or reduced as far as possible.

The concept of corporate social responsibility is intended to provide each business with a far greater ability to create sustainable development. This can help to provide ongoing benefits for the business and its stakeholders, regardless of the size of the business. The business can become more competitive once it begins to create and follow guidelines to enforce the concept of corporate social responsibility within the company and its surrounding community. The greater the sustainability of a business’s developments, the more successful it can become. The attraction of corporate social responsibility for many businesses is that it can help to increase sustainability without creating negative effects.

The type of business that implements changes to come in line with accepted corporate social responsibility guidelines will also determine what sort of changes will need to be made. The size of the investment that will be required to ensure that the business conforms to acceptable guidelines will also be affected by the type of business it is. The resources that are expended for this purpose do need to be viewed as an investment rather than an unnecessary expense since the positive results can more than repay the investment.

The term corporate social responsibility may seem to be one of the current buzz words in business, but the concept is one that has been formulated by many people over many years. The concept is one that is seen as being important for the continued well-being of the vast majority of companies and essential for the community that surrounds them. The importance that is placed on business actions conforming to acceptable corporate social responsibility standards can ensure that these guidelines are treated with the respect that they merit.

The Conference People offer a Free Venue Finder Service. This tool provides Venues to match your specific event needs. The Venue finder will search through facilities in the UK and the rest of the World. Once the Venue finding service is complete, The Conference People’s buying power can reduce your costs.

Article Source

Up until approximately 6 months ago, I was of the impression that being conscious of the environment was strictly for the benefit of the environment itself, and that I would derive nothing from it; the ultimate beneficiary of any recycling/waste reduction would be future generations, and the greater effect of my efforts would occur long after I was gone.

Thanks to Dr. Anthony Watanabe and my work as the web developer for the Toronto Regional Green Building Festival website, I have come to the realization that there are reasons beyond the ecological benefits mentioned above.

In speaking with Anthony, I noticed that he uses the word “sustainability” and the phrase “sustainable growth” quite frequently when describing his business. He even went so far as to conceive the Sustainable Business Resource Centre (SBRC), a network of for-profit and not-for-profit businesses whose collective mission is to grow while maintaining a sense of social responsibility and ensuring that they use the minimal amount of environmental resources

It was in speaking to the owners of the other members at the SBRC launch party that I discovered the direct financial benefits of sustainable growth:

* Lower energy/utility bills. By using energy-efficient appliances and renewable sources of energy (e.g. solar), consumption of energy resources decreases and, in turn, utility costs decrease.
* Increased productivity. A cleaner office environment will keep employees happier and consequentially more productive.
* Government rebates and incentives. Depending on where you live, there may be municipal, provincial/state-wide, or federal incentives designed to reward environmental responsibility.
* For example, Natural Resources Canada offers an ongoing series of rebates and incentives for both homeowners and businesses. Another site worth checking out if you’re interested in rebates and incentives is http://incentivesandrebates.ca. Lower costs on goods, both in the short and long term. Reduced use of goods and recycling provide an increased supply of goods as well as a decreased demand for said goods. Simple economic theory teaches us that this increased supply and/or decreased demand leads to lower costs for goods.

Ways To Go Green and Save Money

Some of these ways may seem obvious, but bear repeating in order to ensure that as many of us as possible are contributing to our own sustainable growth:

* Purchase energy-efficient products for use in the office. Look for consumption ratings on products that make use of hydro and gas. Another positive sign that a product is energy efficient is the Energy Star logo.
* Don’t print/photocopy unless absolutely necessary. I’ve seen many people print non-necessary documents, web pages, and even personal pictures on the office printer and distribute them to friends and colleagues.
* A good rule of thumb when it pertains to paperwork is, “if you don’t need a permanent record of it, don’t print it.” Turn off all electrical devices and adjust the thermostat to match the outside conditions when no one is in the office. If you don’t want to adjust your thermostat manually, consider investing in an electronic programmable thermostat. These thermostats can be programmed within 10-15 minutes of installation and very rarely need to be adjusted.
* Choose environmentally responsible companies for your commercial needs. Companies such as Diamond + Schmitt Architects Inc. that show a commitment toward sustainable growth will help ensure that your needs are met while making minimal use of natural resources.
* Transmit mass-consumption documents electronically where and when possible. Besides being far less expensive to do so than to mail out said documents, paper use is also minimized.
* Consider features for your fax line such as Call Screen and Privacy Guard. Companies such as Primus offer features for any phone line that will allow the owner of the line to filter out and eliminate needless and unnecessary calls. In the case of a fax line, activating filtering features will allow you to block known mass fax senders from tying up your fax line, shortening the lifespan of your fax, and wasting ink and paper an on unsolicited commercial faxing. These features are typically minimal in cost (usually no more than $5.00 per feature per month) and can be considered a wise investment on the basis of avoiding unsolicited commercial materials alone.

These are just a few examples. If you examine your own business environment, you will likely find many other ways to contribute in a positive manner to both the environment and your company’s bottom line.

Adam Senour is the owner of ADAM Web Design, a leading web design and development company in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Article Source

Tags: responsibility, social, corporate, responsibilities, ethic

First, I’m hardly old enough to be in the “crochety” class. And secondly, I’ve been feeling this way for about 30 years.

My complaint? Delivering the goods. Or the lack thereof.

Growing up, one of the things stressed in my family had to do with keeping your word. When you said you would do something, promised to make good on something, you did it. Or made every good effort to do so. Mostly, you delivered the goods. You showed up on time. Made the return phone call. Produced what you’d promised. Kept your word.

Occasionally, circumstances simply worked totally against you and it turned out that what you’d promised wasn’t possible. Still, you did all you could to bring about the pledged result.

And if you didn’t?

FEELING BADLY AND YOUR PERSONAL
INTEGRITY

You felt badly, really badly. Not keeping your word was a very serious thing. Not because others thought so, but because it was the essence of your own personal integrity.

And what is integrity? It means “wholeness,” something complete in itself. And having it and living by it means that you become trusted by others. They can count on you. They know you’ll deliver the goods.

So when you truly were not able to do so, despite every effort you made to keep your word, you were personally wounded. It wasn’t so much that you’d let others down; you’d let yourself down. You felt badly, sometimes for a long while in serious cases. You didn’t just forget it and prate on about your self esteem or how tough things were. You knew you’d screwed up.

DIFFERENT FISH

And today?

Today is a very different kettle of fish, I’m sad to say. Nowadays, delivering the goods all too often deals with written contracts and getting away with only what is written down…if that. It seems to be about cutting corners, avoiding any commitment, personal or otherwise, finding ways to deliver less than what was promised, fooling the other guy. And laughing when you get away with it.

NOT GIVING A DAMN

Does any of this sound familiar? Met too many folks like this lately? Been screwed in some deals? Didn’t get what you paid for? Discovered there had been some surprises in the small print?

CHANGE IS COMING

Probably won’t make you feel a whole lot better, but the times they are ‘achangin. We’re beginning to see the return of that older version of ethics and integrity.

Why?

The internet.

“How come?” you might ask.

Because of both distance and anonymity. What we’re seeing in the way of business on the internet today is an unbelievably tiny increment of what is to come. Eventually, Trillions (yep, with a big “T”) of business will be done this way. Already you’re dealing with people whom you’ve never – and will never – see, with whom you don’t actually speak, in many instances. They may be in other cities, other territories and, often, in other countries. Those who will prosper will be those who deliver the goods, keep their word, make good on their promises. The others will quickly lose their lustre. The internet is quick to let you know when a phony is running around, when quality is poor, when the “deal” isn’t being kept.

Sometimes. Apparently, some good relationships are being created, marriages taking place, perhaps families being raised. Too soon to tell how this may work.

The civilized world is held together with concepts. These are expressed by words and deeds. As one writer, living in a small town in France, said, “Most of life is governed, not by laws written by legislatures, but by invisible rules of order. They are written down nowhere, but respected almost universally.”

If your words and deeds don’t deliver the goods, you will eventually be shunned. No matter the wealth or station in life you attain, you’ll be known by whether you deliver the goods.

Mr. Eric Barnes is President & General Manager of Capital Funds Group Ltd., a Canadian based consulting firm specializing in Putting Companies and Money Together. They also work with non-US companies to take them public rapidly and inexpensively, then getting them funded. Visit our website

“Everything is transparent these days” says Larry Hochman and he is also known to be one of the best advocates on corporate ethics and responsibility.

And yes, everything we do as companies and corporations is transparent to our consumers nowadays, since via the new media they can compare and discuss and figure out what we are all about! And that is why it is important to have our corporate blogs and forums and podcasts to be able to participate in the dialog consumers are having about us online, because with or without us – this discussion is happening anyway!

And what is also becoming very important is our proof to our consumers that we deserve for them to be loyal to us. To give them more and more reasons to be happy to be associated with us and our brands – reasons off-line and on-line.

And here is one – just as an example, but a brilliant one on how social media and networking, the “consumer unions” as Larry Hochman calls them, are starting to lead the dialogue with corporations. I came across this yesterday and if you decide to invest the time, do watch it and here is why:

• First of all because it is from TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) and TED is knows for inviting some of the most brilliant minds to present at their events.
• Second because about 10 of those 18 minutes of your time might be one of these rare moments when we stop and remember how beautiful life actually is.
• Thirdly because it is YouTube and one more way to enter where a lot of our consumers dwell.
• And then at the end …. you will see how consumers are starting to demand corporate responsibility and all for a very good reason.

YouTube

Makes you think – does not it: What are the good causes your company would like to be associated with?

Would like to show your consumers where your stand on corporate responsibility and why they should be proud to be loyal to you.

Christina Vlahova is the founder of “Intellecta Srl” – Strategic marketing consultancy. She is also a “CSA Celebrity Speakers” associate, working with conference organizers from around the world in providing the best key note speakers and experts for their events.

To get an expert advice for the best speakers for your conference or event visit this website

Article source

More than 25 years ago, Tylenol changed the “crisis management” business forever by taking decisive action to compromise profitability based on something that was not its fault.

In the fall of 1982, seven people in Chicago died after taking Extra Strength Tylenol capsules laced with potassium cyanide. A 12-year old girl was reportedly the first to die. Panic ensued. Police cars roved the streets in and around the Chicago area blasting warnings from PA systems. When it was determined that the poisoned bottles had come from different factories, the possibility that Johnson & Johnson (Tylenol’s ultimate parent) was somehow to blame was decisively ruled out. Officials came to believe that one or multiple criminals had instead removed bottles from stores, tampered with the contents and then surreptitiously returned the bottles to store shelves.

And yet, responsibility never entered into the decision-making process underway at J&J: only public safety did. The company stopped all Tylenol production and promotion. It issued a national recall not after the episode was over, but while it was still very much underway. The bottles returned to J&J as a result of the recall had a retail value of more than $100 million. I shouldn’t say that J&J stopped all Tylenol promotion: it paid for and issued new national advertising instructing individuals to avoid taking any products that contained Tylenol, and offering to reimburse anyone who sent in an existing bottle of Tylenol capsules.

Once both the crisis and J&J’s action plan were in full force, Tylenol’s market share dropped like a rock from 35% to 8%. To be expected. What was not expected was that share rebounded in less than one year: a return widely credited to J&J’s immediate and decisive action to sacrifice its own well being for the health of – really – the entire country. Since then, J&J’s response is widely considered to be the gold standard in crisis management. Act now. Ask later.

I cannot overemphasize how I feel today about J&J’s behavior that long-ago autumn when I was still a kid. It made an impression that has lasted my entire career: one that influences how I measure companies and my own conduct as a business executive to this very day.

So when I see a company disregard such a lesson for no other reason than financial gain, I am not just nonplussed – I’m disgusted.

SFCA Inc. purchased the assets of Simplicity Inc., a baby bassinet manufacturer, earlier this year after Simplicity went out of business. SFCA is an affiliate of the private equity firm, Blackstreet Capital. Two weeks ago, fifteen retailers – including Target, Wal-Mart, Toys R Us, Amazon and Kmart – halted the sale of certain Simplicity bassinets that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission said could be hazardous to babies after two baby girls died (from strangulation in their bassinets). The Wall Street Journal reported that Toys R Us were selling eight of the 66 models affected by the warning; the chain pulled the products anyway. And all the retailers affected agreed to permit consumers to return the bassinets for a refund or store credit, regardless of how long ago the product had been purchased. These retailers heeded the lessons learned from the shining example set by Johnson & Johnson. Act now.

SFCA, on the other hand, is doing nothing, holding fast to its claim that it bears no legal responsibility for the hazardous bassinets. The USCPC couldn’t even issue a product recall, because SFCA would not cooperate. Rick Locker, a lawyer representing SFCA has declared the company unwilling to recall “a product that it did not make and sell.” The blog Daddy Types reports that – while SFCA may have hired Locker to assist with this matter – Locker is also paid as counsel for the Juvenile Product Manufacturers Association: the lobbying organization that helps protect the makers of children’s products.

Ironically, the JPMA’s website is currently heralding September as “Baby Safety Month.” In July, the association tooted its own horn for “reaffirm[ing] its commitment of safety.” The communications contact on the July press release isn’t someone at a real PR or crisis management firm: it’s a woman at Association Headquarters, Inc., an organization whose lone means of support is selling services to organizations such as… JPMA. You can’t make this stuff up.

Henceforth, SFCA has taken a “Who, me?” approach to its products killing children. The company claims that it might go out of business if it took all the offending bassinets back. I find this particularly ironic and outdated in our Web 2.o world. If SFCA came out on the Web and announced a recall (even though they were not legally responsible), the company’s future would be far more secure. The company would be a hero. Parents would rave and remember the company when they went shopping the next time. They would tell one another, at a time in history when spreading the word is easier than ever. Their marketing folks would get college and business school cases written.

Isn’t this exactly what Tylenol did and exactly what happened as a result (in a decidedly Web 0.0 world)? But then again, it’s not hard to imagine those meetings in 1982 where well-meaning lawyers warned that a recall could take down the company and J&J’s top management said, So be it. We’re not going to stand by and let people die. Short-sighted greed and bad lawyering are in full control at SFCA. The drawbridge is up. SFCA is not legally required to take back the affected bassinets, there are no mandatory standards for safety in the category and the USCPSC cannot bring legal charges against SFCA.

No matter. There is a higher standard for working and living on this planet that J&J set and by which all corporations should live. As an aside, I’ll say once again that it’s just good business: (a) the positive halo effect for J&J post-crisis was and still is phenomenal, and (b) not doing the right thing will get you in the end. You can expect boycotts and bad press at minimum: perhaps a crazed parent manufacturing a terrible happening to take you down if you’re really unlucky. Permanently disastrous online search results. But aside from it being good business, it’s about acting human, like someone whose own child or grandchild was killed by your product.

There is no exception – and if there is, I haven’t heard about it and SFCA most definitely does not qualify. This is capitalism run right into the ground, taking humanity and business ethics down with it.

Article Source

Stephanie Fierman – EzineArticles Expert Author

Tags: responsibility, ethics, corporate, company, business

In modern corporations responsibility for actions become easily diffused so that “the individual often becomes disconnected from the consequences of his or her actions and doesn’t feel personally responsible for them” (Trevino and Nelson, 2005, p. 181). There are many reasons why responsibility is easily diffused in modern organizations including the fact that management may tell individuals it is not their responsibility and that they will take care of it, because it is often “shared with others in decision-making groups, obscured by the organizational hierarchy, or diluted by psychological distance to potential victims” who will suffer the consequences of the actions (p. 181).

Many organizations have faced downsizing in recent years. Many of these examples can be used as an example of how responsibility for negative actions can be dispersed within an organization. For many years, I was a manager of an international training team for a large pharmaceutical company. Because of budget constraints it was decided that my team would have to be downsized. While our team was based in Europe and the Middle East, the world wide headquarters of the organization was based in New York City. It was determined that the decision of who would be cut from the team would be made with input from myself, the senior leaders of the training group, HR and senior managers of the region. I was the only individual who knew these individuals on a personal basis. All the others only knew them from a distance as they were each based in New York City.

As their immediate manager and because I lived in Europe and worked with them on a daily basis, I was asked to provide my recommendations of who should be let go based on performance and capabilities. I gave this decision a lot of thought knowing that I would have to justify the decision. I sent my recommendation to my manager in New York, based past performance reviews, feedback from the business partners who worked daily with the individuals, and the level of commitment and performance they had demonstrated. To my surprise, the final decision came back to let two of the individuals go that I had recommended to keep. In the end, the group making the decision also included information such as salary level, expense of keeping individuals in certain countries etc…

The recommendations I made went ignored. In addition, the team decided that each individual would be notified by email. In addition, the top performer of my team, a Turkish citizen living in Brussels would be repatriated to Turkey for several months and then let go. I soon discovered that because Turkey had no law that required a severance payment to be made, unlike the European Union, which required a large severance to be paid to each individual. When I protested about the decision criteria, each individual on the team claimed they made the decision as a team using guidance from other groups within the company. No one would take responsibility for the decision because the responsibility had been diffused to other team members and procedures made by other departments higher in the company. In addition, all the other decision makers where both physically and emotionally detached from the individuals affected by their decision, so they felt no emotional connection to them.

The only explanation that I was given was that this decision was made based on which what would be best for the largest amount of people. They were using consequentialist thinking to make their decision, claiming that the team could run more economically with the people who were to stay irregardless of the fact that two of the best people would be let go and the Turkish citizen would not be allowed a severance package like the European team members would receive. Because this decision was seen as unjust and severely damaging to the most capable of team members, me and several other team members soon left the company. Training suffered and they were unable to recruit other training professionals from within the company. While no one individual took ultimate responsibility the consequence to the department was devastating and long lasting References:

Trevino, L., and Nelson, K., (2005). Corporate social responsibility and managerial ethics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Since founding Magnify Leadership and Development, James has developed, facilitated and coached programs including; Change Leadership, Coaching, Communication Skills, Sustaining Learning, Interviewing Skills, Leadership, Territory Management for dozens of leading global organizations; including, Advantis Research and Consulting, IMS, CMOE, Pfizer, Sinclair, Disetronic Medical Systems, StratX, ASTD, Coventry Health Care, Wilson Learning, and many others. James is bilingual and can facilitate and coach in both English and Spanish.

Prior to founding Magnify Leadership and Development, James headed Pfizer’s Learning and Development for all of Europe, Canada, Africa and the Middle East where he was instrumental in the development of a global management curriculum and other training initiatives to enhance organizational effectiveness for over 30,00 employees.

Visit James website to learn how we can you with your leadership and communication development needs.

Article Source

Tags: Ethics, Responsibility, legal issues, social , business

“Everything is transparent these days” says Larry Hochman and he is also known to be one of the best advocates on corporate ethics and responsibility.

And yes, everything we do as companies and corporations is transparent to our consumers nowadays, since via the new media they can compare and discuss and figure out what we are all about! And that is why it is important to have our corporate blogs and forums and podcasts to be able to participate in the dialog consumers are having about us online, because with or without us – this discussion is happening anyway!

And what is also becoming very important is our proof to our consumers that we deserve for them to be loyal to us. To give them more and more reasons to be happy to be associated with us and our brands – reasons off-line and on-line.

And here is one – just as an example, but a brilliant one on how social media and networking, the “”consumer unions”" as Larry Hochman calls them, are starting to lead the dialogue with corporations. I came across this yesterday and if you decide to invest the time, do watch it and here is why:

- First of all because it is from TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) and TED is knows for inviting some of the most brilliant minds to present at their events.
- Second because about 10 of those 18 minutes of your time might be one of these rare moments when we stop and remember how beautiful life actually is.
- Thirdly because it is YouTube and one more way to enter where a lot of our consumers dwell.
- And then at the end …. you will see how consumers are starting to demand corporate responsibility and all for a very good reason.

YouTube

Makes you think – does not it: What are the good causes your company would like to be associated with?

Would like to show your consumers where your stand on corporate responsibility and why they should be proud to be loyal to you.

Christina Vlahova is the founder of “”Intellecta Srl”" – Strategic marketing consultancy. She is also a “”CSA Celebrity Speakers”" associate, working with conference organizers from around the world in providing the best key note speakers and experts for their events.

To get an expert advice for the best speakers for your conference or event visit this Source