Don’t Let “Internet Fear” Stop You from Giving to Chile

There have always been reasons for not giving to charitable causes; the urban myth of the panhandler who earned enough from it that he drove a Mercedes; the more realistic story of the charity that spends most of its funding on overheads and now, unfortunately, the exploitative stories of willful use of search terms like ‘Chile’, ‘donate’ and ‘earthquake’ to spread viruses.

But of course none of these are good reasons not to give. The Mercedes story is a myth. There are a great many websites such as Charity Navigator that provide all the insights needed to help choose a good charity.

But what about the internet security problems that have recently arisen with people searching for Haiti and Chile? How do we make sure they are a reason for not giving?

I have a few suggestions. Most importantly, don’t respond directly to links in emails soliciting donations. Instead, go to the internet and search for the website of the organization or another organization you know, or go through your company’s selected donor (for example BT works through DEC in the UK and the American Red Cross in the USA).

But to give you even more insight into the aspects of security and giving, I spoke with a colleague, Sushila Nair, from our security practice and asked for some additional hints on how to void the common pitfalls on the internet.

Kevin: How can I ensure that my personal or corporate virus software protect me against these threats?

Sushila: It is extremely important that you keep your antivirus up to date. Your antivirus should be set to look for new updates every hour or so to minimize the time you are unprotected.

To ensure that you are detecting newer threats, it is very important that you run Windows update to ensure your system has all the latest patches on it. If you don’t update Windows regularly you are leaving yourself open to many exploits that your antivirus may not have updated yet.

However it is also important to know that your antivirus won’t protect you against all malware. It is advisable that you use layered defense and install anti-spyware and a personal firewall.

Take sensible precautions by going to well known and respected web sites. Click on links with care, after all if it is not a reputable, well recognized site would you really be interested in what they have to say?

Kevin: What do I do if one of those windows comes up that looks like operating anti-virus software, warning me that my computer has a virus problem? I know I shouldn’t accept it, but I am nervous about touching anything on the screen at all – should I do a hard shutdown of my computer?

Sushila: There has been a lot of fake anti virus software out there. It claims to have detected some malware and then tried to install itself. It will then inundate you with requests for money and claims that you have been infected. What ever you do don’t let it install the software on your computer. Stop the program by using Windows task manager or if necessary restart your computer. If the software does a partial install then restore your system restore point.

Kevin: How can I protect myself from having my credit card number stolen?

Sushila: Any site where you are using your credit card number should be treated with care. Ensure that the site is using Secure Socket Layers (SSL). You can verify this by noting the padlock comes up, typically at the bottom of your screen when you are using it. Many banks are offering the capability to use Virtual Account Numbers. The idea here is that you generate a virtual credit card number which you use just for that transaction and so if anyone steals the number it is worthless.

Kevin: Does it really matter what browser I use? Is Internet Explorer less secure than Firefox?

Sushila: Malware developers like to get the biggest bang for their buck and they always try and exploit the most common platforms. There are more people using Internet Explorer and Windows so using Chrome or Firefox moves you out of the main stream and may decrease your risk

For the more internet savvy, a more technical treatment of the issues on our Secure Thinking blog

Employees Should Be Part of Any Green Solution

A report published by the National Environmental Education Foundation (NEEF) last week highlights the business benefits of environmental and sustainability education for employees. According to the study, these business benefits include improving operational efficiency, strengthening customer and community relations, innovation, supply chain management, and attracting and retraining employees.

I would agree with the assessment of these business benefits, and emphasize that the value of sustainability education and engagement of employees is as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. Engagement in environmental programs increases awareness of and sensitivity to key sustainability issues.

Often, employees take that heightened sensitivity back into the workplace and apply it in their day jobs, as well as at home and in their communities. For example, the McDonald's project cited in the study shows how restaurants and their employees worked with customers to reduce 3 million pounds of CO2; BT and Hewlett-Packard have created programs to support employees who want to install solar installation in their homes.

While the report highlights several very tangible business benefits of employee engagement in sustainability initiatives it neglects one key intangible benefit: trust. Authenticity is the key here. I maintain that trust is driven by authenticity and distrust by lack of authenticity.

We judge whether a person is authentic by the consistency with which they apply their values. The public judges companies in the same way. If we declare a corporate responsibility value through our environmental investments we are expected to apply that value consistently. Therefore it is important that environmental values are applied consistently throughout the company and incorporated into the work of all employees -- not just Corporate Social Responsibility professionals.

What would you think of an IT company building a solar installation on top of an inefficiently run data center? Unfortunately, this is a plausible scenario in the absence of the involvement and coordinated efforts of employees throughout the company.

However, when employees are engaged, they can help align practices throughout the company, resulting in outcomes like Baxter's "lean" energy program for its 63 key manufacturing facilities. At BT we have tackled core operations by widening the operating temperature range of our network data centers to significantly reduce HVAC usage.

This report provides good news in a down economy. Companies should be encouraged by examples of the linkages between sustainability education and engagement of employees and clear business benefits. However, we still have work to do.

A recent study from Brighter Planet finds that 86 percent of firms fail to engage employees on sustainability. And, true skeptics are likely to question the scarcity of quantifiable measures of impact of engagement of employees in sustainability initiatives. I agree with NEEF that next steps include gathering data further linking employee engagement to environmental outcomes.

This post was originally published on March 4, 2010 on GreenBiz.com at http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2010/03/04/employees-should-be-part-any-green-solution

PR News CSR Awards: Highlights on Authenticity, Corporate Community Investment and Social Networking

Here is the first part of my keynote at the PR News CSR Awards last week addressing how corporate responsibility can contribute towards rebuilding trust in business. My key point is that authenticity is key to trust. We judge whether a person is authentic by the consistency with which they apply their values. I imagine people judge corporations in the same way.

So if we express our values through our community investment, then to substantiate our authenticity, we need to be consistent in applying those values to our core business; our products, our employees, our customers and our public voice as expressed in our brands, advertising and lobbying. My challenge to the CR practitioner, myself included, is to increase the proportion of time spent in the core business. I would welcome your comments.

In the second part of my comments, I explained that I see a key role for corporate community investment, not so much as an end in itself but as a means to increasing sensitivity and awareness amongst our employees that they can take back and incorporate into their jobs. Volunteering is especially important from this perspective. But beware, community investment can undermine authenticity if we do not follow through and apply the same values in our core business.

I also address the key role I see for social networking to bridge that perceived distance between the company and the stakeholders. Frank and engaging exchanges with corporate executives, as demonstrated by Bill Marriott of Marriott and by Tom Glocer of Thomson Reuters, and with our employees, can be one of the best ways to demonstrate authenticity and to bridge the perceived distance between the stakeholder and the corporation.

Who decides what is acceptable?

A few days ago an employee within Citi cut off the internet business account of a customer, Fabulis. The Citi employee determined Fabulis breached Citi rules for what internet business accounts Citi is prepared to support.

In fact it was a mistake. The employee made what seems to be a serious misjudgment that the Fabulis website contained pornography. The site didn’t contain pornography and didn’t breach Citi’s standards (although perhaps the content did breach the individual’s personal standards regarding sexual orientation) and the account has been reinstated.

Lots of interesting issues, but from a corporate responsibility perspective I am most fascinated by the question of whose values should be applied and how, by a corporation operating across regions, countries and cultures.

Citi’s clarification of the situation for Internet Business Accounts includes the statement “we will continue to reserve the right to decline or suspend an account if we find illegal or discriminatory content, or if the site involves gambling or pornography.” Citi is clearly defining a set of standards, beyond legal, that they will require their customers to adhere to.

I have written a couple of posts suggesting that we should include sustainability criteria in selecting our target customers. This approach from Citi takes things a step further by refusing to do business with customers that are carrying out activities that do not meet certain standards, although they are legal.

I believe that a fundamental characteristic of corporate responsibility is ‘beyond compliance’. On a related note, as I once wrote in a blog, I believe that ‘legal doesn’t equal sustainable’.

But in practice, and employee error aside, when you start refusing to do business, the challenge is twofold. First, whose standards define what constitutes discriminatory content, pornography and gambling? Are Sports Illustrated’s ‘paint-on’ swim suits considered to be porn? Are state lotteries gambling? Are ethnic, gender or sexually oriented websites discriminatory?

And secondly who actually reviews the material and decides?

I welcome companies trying to apply their CR values broadly, but I am going to have to give a bit more thought to how it plays out in practice and where I draw the line.

And the winners are...

Congratulations to all the winners and finalists from yesterday’s PR News CSR awards. For readers of this blog, Frank Mantero, Director of Corporate Citizenship Programs at GE and a guest blogger for CSRPerspective last year, won Executive of the Year – Public Relations. Congratulations Frank!

I was honored to give the keynote at the event yesterday. The main theme of my address was that to gain trust, we have to establish authenticity. Authenticity will be established by the consistent application of our values. So we have to take the values declared in our corporate responsibility and in particular in our community investment activities and apply them in our core business. (I will be posting a video of the keynote shortly.)

A few people approached me with comments and in addition I facilitated a discussion immediately after the event to discuss the points I had raised. Chatham House rules applied.

I was interested in the focus of the comments;

No one challenged my main theme but neither did they jump forward to reinforce it. When asked specifically, there seemed to be support, but I had anticipated stronger reactions either for or against. I had thought some would tell me I was an idealist – no one has yet!

Commentators were more taken with my:

• use of movies to illustrate public perception of corporations;
• criticism of the terminology of ‘giving back’ as implying we are somehow taking away. A number of people approached me to express support for my raising that issue. I wrote about this last year too; and
• pitch for social media as a tool to bridge the gap between individuals in the company and external stakeholders.

Social media attracted more attention than anything else. I received a lot of support (from users of social media of course). But there was also significant and well founded skepticism about whether a corporate blog can be truly authentic (I think the obligation is on bloggers to demonstrate that this is possible). Also a comment that I do sometimes worry about myself, suggesting there is a self sustaining community of bloggers and tweeters all conversing voraciously with each other and then, there is everyone else.

Authenticity is the key to Rebuilding Trust

I am honored to be the keynote presenter today at the PR News 2009 CSR Awards at the National Press Club in DC. The awards program has been running since 2005 with an ever broadening range of awards categories. It is much broader than the PR News title might lead you to expect.

In my keynote I am addressing how we can rebuild trust in business. All the trust surveys aside, I find it most notable that three of this year’s Oscar best picture nominations, Avatar, District 9 and Up in the Air have large corporations as their main protagonists. Each of these corporations is portrayed as distant and as societally and environmentally oblivious. If this represents the public perception of corporations, and I think it does, we have a long way to go.

Authenticity is key to trust. We judge whether a person is authentic by the consistency with which they apply their values. I imagine people judge corporations in the same way.

So if we express our values through our community investment, then to substantiate our authenticity, we need to be consistent in applying those values to our core business; our products, our employees, our customers and our public voice as expressed in our brands, advertising and lobbying. My challenge is to the CR practitioner, myself included, is to increase the proportion of time spent in the core business.

I also see a key role for community investment, not just as an end in itself but as a means to increasing sensitivity and awareness amongst our employees that they can take back and incorporate into their jobs. Volunteering is especially important from this perspective. But beware, community investment can undermine authenticity if we do not follow through and apply the same values in our core business.

Lastly, I see a role for social networking to bridge that perceived distance between the company and the stakeholders. Frank and engaging exchanges with corporate executives, as demonstrated by Bill Marriott of Marriott and by Tom Glocer of Thomson Reuters, and with our employees, can be one of the best ways to demonstrate authenticity and to bridge the perceived distance between the stakeholder and the corporation.

Please let me know what you think of these ideas.

Some Thoughts on Climate Change

There have been some significant back-currents recently in the wave of progress on climate change; the outcome from Copenhagen that was short of many people’s expectations; some climate change scientists and some involved in the IPCC pursued poorly conceived public statements, exchanged particularly unscientific emails or exaggerated the strength of their findings; recently three significant members of USCAP have left that group. Skeptics have appropriately highlighted these issues.

To put things back in perspective, I enjoyed reading Frank Robert’s economic view on balance of risks in the New York Times on Sunday. Of course, we need to be careful not to be overly reliant on fear as the motivating factor. ‘Just in case’ is not a strong argument for action. The balance of risks has to be compelling.

The scientists have a dilemma. Not long ago I recall the scientific community was being criticized for not being forceful enough in its message. I recall comments that it was too mild in its language, too many caveats, too academic in its articulation of the outcomes. Now it seems we have our just desserts and much of the criticism has reversed. Of course balance is everything and perhaps one lesson is the importance of being true to ones core values.

I think many companies are at a bit of a loss as to how to respond to these back-currents and as a result have gone quiet on the topic or reverted to energy efficiency and energy security as the reasons for reducing energy usage. But for those who are convinced by the scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming this is not the time to do that. This is the time to stick to principles. Regaining the momentum later will be much harder than the effort to maintain it now.

I do think companies need to get better at articulating why we hold the positions we do. We owe it to our stakeholders to be able to do this and if we can define clearly what evidence underpins our positions, it easier to define if and how we should respond to a particular change.

More than ever, I don’t think we can ignore those who are skeptical. We need to engage them with the same respect and sense of inquiry and open debate that we do those who are supporters.