1

Communicating Responsibility: Capstone research prepared for

NYU M.S. in PR & CC

by

Elizabeth Ghormley, New York University and Toni Muzi Falconi (Advisor)

May 2010

2

Table of Contents

Chapter 1:: Abstract & Introduction……………………………………………..3

Chapter 2:: Fertile Ground: Theoretical Foundation…………………..…6

Chapter 3:: Definitions……………………………………………………………….23

Chapter 4:: Case Studies…………………………………………………………….24

Timberland………………………………………………………………………24

Brown-Forman…………………………………………………………………32

Hess Oil Company…………………………………………………………….39

*****

MS&LWorldwide………………………………………………………….…..43

WalMart…………………………………………………………………………..44

Chapter 5:: Conclusions……………………………………………………………..46

Discussion of Trends…………………………………………………………46

Going forward………………………………………………………………….49

Works Cited……………………………………………………………………………….51

3

Abstract

This paper is a two-tiered exploration of Corporate Responsibility and

Communication. It begins with an exploration of the history, theory, and other

drivers of Corporate Responsibility, and is matched with qualitative research with

representatives from companies heralded for their CR practice to answer the

questions: ―what drives an organizations‘ CR communication? How does the

organization‘s communication support or conflict with its efforts to be sustainable

and meet stakeholder expectations?‖ Ends with commentary on trends in the data,

in the industry, recommendations for further research, and thoughts on the future

of CR.

Chapter 1 Introduction

Corporate Responsibility (CR), Sustainability, Corporate Citizenship and Corporate

Social Responsibility (CSR) are ubiquitous in the leading business press right now. The Harvard

Business Review, The Economist and the McKinsey Quarterly are just some of the leading outlets

to recently produce major research, significant reporting, and profiles of leading experts on these

issues. They are tapped into a larger trend: in the wake of the most recent economic crisis,

companies around the world are being called to operate more responsibly and CR is now a focal

point for business. What it means, who it targets, and how it is done is still nebulous to many,

though.

As the world builds forward from the recent economic crisis and corporations recognize

their responsibilities beyond stock price, the ―who,‖ ―what,‖ ―why,‖ and ―how‖ of CR is being

navigated on many fronts. Governments have legislated reporting on environmental indicators

like carbon. Some nation-states are considering legislation and regulation corporate reporting on

Responsibility and Sustainability issues. Corporate governance boards are shifting their

understanding of fiduciary duty. Supply-chains are being re-understood through a lens that

considers the commitment to sustainability of each contributor along the chain. Products are

4

being designed from inception as sustainable and responsible. Consumers and employees are

being understood via their ability to champion or be lured by corporations‘ efforts on

sustainability and/or responsibility. KPMG found that nearly 80% of the world‘s largest

enterprises report on sustainability (The Economist, 2010, 16). And corporations of all kinds and

sizes are doing this: small-to-medium sized companies (SME‘s), private companies, government,

non-profits, educational institutions, and others, are also starting to report using GRI, UNGC,

and other standards.

At the heart of corporate responsibility is an effort to address a myriad of issues, in a way

that protects a business or organization‘s license to operate. The execution of CR by different

organizations fills a large spectrum of commitment, strategy, and authenticity. Leaders

recognize their impacts and goals and balance them against each other to strategize, and possibly

even protect, the company by being more responsible. Many companies do not understand or

recognize their impacts as deeply though. In those cases, the critical eye properly recognizes

―green-washing‖ including throwing money at charities or creating taglines to seem more

responsible, but not addressing practices and impact on the environment, society, or cultures.

With so many corporations claiming their commitment to CR, so many consultants

claiming expertise in CR, so many stakeholder groups being considered, addressed, and engaged

in CR, and so many different understandings of what that means, finding clarity in the

cacophony is a challenge. To understand how a body takes responsibility, however, is a first step

to clarifying this. Relationships and communication are an intrinsic element in CR. I have

sought to answer the questions: What drives organizations‘ CR communication? How does an

organization‘s communication support or conflict with its efforts to be sustainable and meet

stakeholder expectations? I argue that effective communication and stakeholder engagement is

5

integral to corporate responsibility — not icing, but an inherently driving factor — and will

demonstrate with examples.

The paper will include:

A look at history to understand the roots, the complications, and drivers of CR

Exploration of underlying economic, governance, stakeholder, and

communication theories that inform CR practice

Mapping of key issues emerging in the CR practice

Primary research focused on leaders in CR from a variety of industries, who have

been awarded for their CR execution and communication1:

o Timberland

o Brown-Forman

o Hess Oil Company

o MS&L Worldwide

o WalMart

A discussion of the definitions of key terms and their use in practice

The challenges, patterns, and successes found in their practices

A comparison of these to the theory

Notes on trends going on now and for the future in CR and reporting

And, finally, suggestions for further research and final insights I have gleaned

from this research.

1 A note on awards as a measure of leadership: I do not believe that awards for “best practice” are

necessarily the best measure of leadership, innovation, or success. Often, awards winners are chosen from a small group of companies that have been self-selected or do not represent a full spectrum of those who could qualify. There are other issues with award systems, as well. With hundreds of different companies awarded for issues related to CSR, CR, etc. every year, the pool of award-winners, however is quite large. The effort here was to focus on companies that are being innovative or are heralded on some level as leaders, and include this point in the analysis of what they are doing and why. Also, there was an undeniable issue of access to people who were willing and able to be interviewed for this paper, and that accessibility of course influenced who was profiled.

6

Chapter 2 Fertile Soil: Theoretical Background

Asking if a corporation‘s responsibility to society is purely profit-based or if it includes

more social goals has been contentious for centuries. The body of knowledge on economics,

capitalism, and corporations is infused with this conversation. Adam Smith, forefather of

modern capitalism supported more social responsibility in his seminal works (Smith, 1759). In

response to the push for a more socially minded corporate world in the 1970s, a student of Mr.

Smith‘s school of economic thought and renowned economist himself, Milton Friedman

dismissed the value of CR, writing in the New York Times, ―‗business‘ as a whole cannot be said

to have responsibilities‖ (Friedman, 1970). Friedman said famously, ―there is one and only one

social responsibility of business — to use its resources to engage in activities designed to

increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game‖ (Friedman, 1962).

This perspective is firmly rooted in the debate on corporate governance: how should the

governance board be designed and driven? The two dominant theories in this area are the

stakeholder model and the shareholder, or Agency, model. Friedman and his work as a rational

economist from the University of Chicago neo-liberal school of thought is founded in the dogma

that profit is the only responsibility of a company and thus the shareholders – or owners – of a

corporation are the primary stakeholders of the organization. This model sprouted an

understanding of a governing board‘s fiduciary duty to be centered on making profit, only. Core

elements of this model include the ideas that ―Maximizing value for shareholders is the right

social goal for corporations because it is equivalent to maximizing the overall wealth being

created by a corporation‖ and, ―Financial markets do a good job of assessing the true value of

financial securities such as common stock. Hence stock price performance is the best measure of

value being created for shareholders‖ (Blair, 2002).

7

The alternate view, or the Stakeholder theory perspective, argues that ―…the primary

responsibility of the executive is to create as much value for stakeholders as possible, and that no

stakeholder is viable in isolation of the other stakeholders‖ (Freeman, 2008). Contemporary

business literature defines stakeholders as ―those groups without whose support the organization

would cease to exist‖ (Stanford Research Institute, 1963, via Freeman & Reed, 1983). Freeman

says now that joint interests of the stakeholder group and the organization often forge

stakeholder relationships. He says, ―it depends on how value is created or destroyed‖ (Freeman,

2010). Donaldson and Preston offer categories into which stakeholders can be grouped: (a)

organizational (e.g. employees, customers, shareholders, suppliers); (b) community (e.g. local

residents, special interest groups); (c) regulatory (e.g. municipalities, regulatory systems); (d)

media stakeholders (Maignan, 2004). Others through a larger net including all groups who have a

stake in the corporation – including, but not limited to employees, government, local

communities, business partners, customers, public interest and non-profit organizations, unions,

trade associations, and investors of all kinds (Freeman & Donaldson, 1983). The role of the

board in this kind of organization is

not to be a monitor but, rather, a mediating hierarch—someone who balances the

often competing claims and interests of the groups that contribute to the team

production process, makes decisions on the allocation of team surpluses, and is

legally ultimately in control of a corporation’s assets and key strategic decisions

(Blair & Stout, 2001). Drawing from team production theory and organization

theory, we offer three prioritization criteria for this mediating process: the team

specificity of each stakeholder’s investment, the need to satisfy outcomes, and

the power of each stakeholder (Lan & Heracleous, 2010).

Understanding historical context for the theory can shine light on the issues raised and

theories presented. For example, looking only at the time period between 1960 and 1990, ebbs

and flows on the practical level undulate between a more stakeholder-based understanding of a

corporation in the United States, as compared with more shareholder-focused governance.

8

Milton Friedman‘s piece in the New York Times was written at the end of the 1960s: a decade

filled with social upheaval from the Civil Rights, Women‘s Rights, Environmental, and other

movements (Freeman & Reed, 1983). These movements included rioting and protesting in the

streets that made the issues tangible and put pressure on companies and business in the United

States to re-conceive of themselves not just as businesses who wanted to make profit but

―corporate citizens‖ who had responsibilities to participate in improving the country.

Professor Robert Tomasko of American University cites examples including the

―National Alliance of Businessmen‖ and then-President Johnson‘s work bringing business

leaders together in summits to get their commitment to addressing issues of unemployment and

work opportunities for non-whites, and also comments that there was huge social pressure in the

business governing elite at that time to try to make things better (Tomasko, 2010). Friedman‘s

response to the business activity was a voice against this expansive view of responsibility that

came on the cusp of economic hardship in the United States throughout the 1970s, and validated

cutting CR programs, reinforced a lean focus on profit, and brought regulation that changed the

landscape. In the 1980s in the United States, hostile takeovers pushed business managers and

boards to focus on short-term financial results, necessarily focusing on shareholder perception

and disconnecting from other stakeholder views (Blair, 2002).

This type of dynamism around CR is not unique to this time period. The stock market

crash in the United States in 1929 also pushed for stakeholder interests beyond stock ownership

to be considered by Boards and managers (Duarte, 2009). And most recently, we see

corporations turning in the wake of the 2008-2009 economic crisis to a more expansive

understanding of what their responsibility is. Recently, Bonime-Blanc and Mark Brzezinkski

wrote on the same Op-Ed page of the New York Times where Friedman made his famous

9

declaration 29 years prior, ―we are currently witnessing a transformation of global corporations

from a more or less opaque shareholder-centric model to a more transparence multi-stakeholder

model (Bonime-Blanc & Brzezinksi, 2009). They continue, ―as to global companies, increased

government pressure and stakeholder demands for accountability (from employees, investors,

customers, non-governmental organizations, and others) are creating a similarly catalytic turning

point that is beginning to yield a more transparent business model‖ (Bonime-Blanc & Brzezinksi,

2009).

Indeed, the Economist recent survey of business leaders presents a growing acceptance of

the stakeholder model, citing findings that ―many firms are stepping up efforts to identify

existing and emerging stakeholder issues…using issues management and analysis matrix to filter

and refine groups‖ and that ―…innovative firms see issues management and stakeholder

engagement as an opportunity for competitive advantage rather than an obligation‖ (The

Economist, 2010).

This shift back towards the stakeholder model builds upon the long-standing model, but

also is expanding the legal and practical definitions. On April 14, 2010, ―Maryland Governor

Martin O'Malley signed into law the nation's first legislation creating Benefit Corporations, a

new class of corporations required to create benefit for society as well as shareholders. Unlike

traditional corporations, Benefit Corporations must by law create a material positive impact on

society; consider how decisions affect employees, community and the environment; and publicly

report their social and environmental performance using established third-party standards‖ 2

officially creating the first legally-binding stakeholder incorporation model. At this point, the

legal incorporation is possible in seven states and is gaining traction in others, as well.

2 http://www.csrwire.com/press/press_release/29332-Maryland-First-State-in-Union-to-Pass-Benefit-

Corporation-Legislation

10

Benefit Corporations, or ―B-Corps‖3 most likely will not represent the majority of for-

profit corporations. However, the legislation both represents the current effort to push for

accountability and responsibility to issues beyond profit by companies, and resonates with the

stakeholder ideals being more widely adopted. Post and Preston argue what that ―responsibility‖

looks like: ―mobilizing resources for productive uses in order to create wealth and other benefits

(and not to intentionally destroy wealth, increase risk, or cause harm) for its multiple

constituents, or stakeholders‖ (Post & Preston, 2002). Similarly, Maignan argues ―a business

acts in a socially responsible manner when its decisions and actions account for, and balance,

diverse stakeholder interests‖ (Maignan, 2004) and ―…organizations act in a socially responsible

manner when they align their behaviors with the norms and demands embraced by their main

stakeholders‖ (Maignan, 2004).

The Role of Relationships.

With the onus on corporations shifting from responsibility to solely producing profit, and

thus serve shareholders, to a broader responsibility to a variety of stakeholders, the concept of

CR overlaps with the need to communicate with a wider pool. Post and Preston‘ assert

―…corporate citizenship policies depend fundamentally on an understanding of voluntary and

involuntary stakeholder relationships, with special concern for any negative impacts the firm

may have on the involuntary community stakeholders‖ (Post & Preston, 2002). Of course, the

process of building relationships and acting in response to them is not one that happens

unconsciously. Vos is clear that ―the system of stakeholders … involves an element of choice‖

and ―the implication of a stakeholder perspective is a normative one [wherein] managers should

acknowledge the validity of diverse stakeholder interest and should attempt to respond‖ (Vos,

3 http://www.bcorporation.net/

11

2003). Corporations‘ strategies to address different stakeholder groups cannot be determined

without communication between the two.

So, communication theory helps to realize how CR is defined, is strategized, and is

successfully achieved, or not.

Freeman argued in 2008 ―to understand business is to know how [stakeholder]

relationships work‖ (Freeman, 2008). Wheeler and Davies call on governance boards to engage

with and recognize relationships and ―social capital‖ — defined as ―the goodwill available to

individuals or groups… derived from a network of relationships possessed by an individual or

social unit‖— ―across the firm and with key stakeholders‖ (Wheeler & Davies, 2004). This

recognition of relationships between stakeholders and corporations brings the theoretical

conversation of stakeholders to a practical level where communication theory and public relators

are essential.

James Grunig‘s decades of research on communication, relationships between groups of

people, or publics, and given organizations informs the concept of CR in many ways. Grunig

defines Public Relations as ―the management of communication between an organization and all

of its publics — employees, members, the community, investors, donors, government

representatives and regulators, as well as customers and the media.‖ He continues, ―the central

focus of public relations is making the organization and its management more responsible to the

publics it affects. …Public relations is the practice of public responsibility‖ (Grunig, 1992).

Research shows that practically, communicators and PR people are increasingly working

for business leaders who recognize the stakeholder reality:

―Our leaders are seeking influence and even decision-making power in a

growing array of interests and activities, because our companies‘ fortunes depend

more and more upon the success of partners, suppliers, clients, national economies,

the global economy, university curricula and the health of our communities‖ (Arthur

12

Page Society, 2007).

Reading from a PR perspective, it is difficult to deny the repetitive claim in Corporate

Responsibility literature that sustainability or corporate responsibility are ―not just PR‖ (UNGC).

This misnomer equates PR green-washing and other superficial approaches to CR. This

misunderstanding cripples the body-of-knowledge, as it cuts out theoretical models and ideas

that help build relationships that define the boundaries of responsibility for each organization,

give voice and balance to the conversations. In fact, Public Relations, the strategic practice of

managing relationships with publics or stakeholders, informs Corporate Responsibility in this

increasingly stakeholder-driven business world. Using the PR lens to understand best ways to

engage stakeholders and build relationships is vital to understanding CR, and should also be

considered in conjunction with the historic perspectives, research that has been driven by other

communication-related departments like marketing, and those who have written specifically

about sustainability (Werbach, 2009). The tone of the research that hopes to stake claim to

corporate responsibility and push other disciplines from the conversation does not serve the

practice nearly as well as overlapping the lenses and looking through the myriad of perspectives

will.

Public Relations research has explored the nature of relationships between organizations

and publics from many perspectives. Given the need to communicate with stakeholders, how to

do it is a necessary question. Grunig‘s Excellence theory set forth four models of public

relations, as outlined below:

13

Model Description

One-Way Asymmetrical Press Agent/Publicity

Goal: favorable publicity for the organization.

One-Way Symmetrical Public Information Model

Organization makes information available to the public.

Two-Way Asymmetrical Organization researches publics to help communicate with them to achieve organizational goals.

Two-Way Symmetrical Organization researches publics to help achieve the objectives of both groups.

Figure 1 -- (Grunig in Doorley & Garcia, 2007).

While Grunig highlights a place for each of these communication formats in different

settings, his research shows that the two-way symmetrical model produces better long term

relationships with publics, generally is conducted more ethically, and produces effects that

balance the interest of organizations and the publics in society (Grunig, 1992).

To effectively exist, organizations must engage stakeholders and understand their

relationship to them. Says Duarte, ―organisations cannot achieve legitimacy from simple

acclamation in the sense of published opinions. Organisational (and decisional) legitimacy comes

from the ―opinion of the public‖, this time interpreted as a collective opinion achieved by a

group with a certain degree of consensus, which results from a debate of differing views. This

opinion becomes a form of social will, not necessarily dependant on publicity or mass media.

Those with whom we communicate are conceived as a special form of human association

capable to produce an autonomous and free collective will and with a wide range of interests

which go beyond its relationship with ―my‖ organisation. In this approach, decisions of course

imply bi-directional and simultaneous exchanges based on equality and dialogue.‖ (Duarte,

2007)

The Arthur Page Society echoes this in two of their three recommendations for practice in

14

an authentic enterprise. They say, ―We must not only develop channels for messaging but also

networks of relationships‖ and, ―we must shift from changing perceptions to changing realities.

In a world of radical transparency, 21st century communications functions must lead in shaping

behaviour – inside and out – to make the company‘s values a reality‖ (Arthur Page Society,

2007).

Falconi argues that public relators―… not only support organizations in modifying the

external scenario by influencing stakeholders (and this is the most commonly understood and the

more operative role) but also – and possible more importantly – support organizations in

modifying themselves by correctly interpreting stakeholder expectations (and this is the least

commonly understood and more strategic role).‖ In his 21st century model for effective PR and

effective corporations he sees PR as a ―bridge rather than buffer relationships with influential

publics‖ – or stakeholders (Falconi, 2010).

Joao Duarte argues that a third party could be included in the conversations currently held

between organizations and their publics. He poses this third party potential as civil society and

suggests, ―...one central part of PR‘s responsibility is to help organizations involve third-party

interest in decision-making processes… [which] incorporates diversity in the sense that no longer

does is suffice to adjust or accommodate interests of two parties … but it is required that

decisions conform to patterns and values that represent the common good‖ (Duarte, 2007).

In all, the deeper understanding of Public Relations and the communication between

organizations and their publics is a driver in understanding how organizations deal with

Corporate Responsibility. Many researchers and writers have called Corporate Responsibility a

marketing or strategy issue. It is clear from the exploration of how communication occurs

between an organization and its stakeholders, or publics, that the strategy is dependent on the

15

relationships and awareness of those stakeholders. The marketing element – driven towards

external publics – is inherently part of the normative public relations practice as described above.

Marketers note that ―…marketers can contribute to the successful management of CSR by

expanding their focus beyond consumers to include other stakeholders and by bundling together

various social responsibility initiatives‖ (Maignan, 2004) Indeed, this overlap happening in

organizations, as we will see later in this paper, where organizations have new roles focused on

communication and collaboration with those driving strategy and responsibility programs.

What do these communicators do? This is also part of the in-depth exploration later in

this paper of different company‘s approaches to the concept of Corporate Responsibility and

Communication. As before-mentioned, though, 80% of 250 leading enterprises around the globe

are now creating Sustainability Reports of some kind, this figure that is up 30% from measures

just three years ago (Economist, 2010). Reporting, which started for many companies an annual

way to demonstrate efforts on a variety of social, environmental, and cultural issues to key

stakeholders has evolved. Guidelines, initiatives, and advisory models including the Global

Reporting Initiative (GRI), the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC), and the King Reports

(King I, King II, and King III) from South Africa, respectively, are all global leaders in

addressing the issues of how and what is reported when. With organizations of all size and

sophistication, located around the globe, reporting in multiple languages and to a universe of

stakeholders, setting standards is difficult.

GRI provides a set of guidelines and suggestions for reporting, including a list of

―indicators‖ — or issues that a company could be expected to be responsible for and report their

performance on vs. the possibility for it. KPMG‘s research as of June 2009 showed that 77% of

the companies issuing sustainability reports used GRI standards (Ethical Corporation, 2009).

16

GRI-tracked reports match their presentation of information against the indicators and then are

graded on their level of transparency and delivery of information, as well as their actual

performance. The extensive list of indicators is not intended for everyone to report on fully,

however. GRI is very much defined as a ―voluntary tool‖ to aid with reporting. It is a tool for

demonstrating issues of importance to stakeholder groups that the company many not yet have

identified as part of its active publics audience, but could, and even should. Issues that are

intrinsic to the business — for example water for a beverage company and human rights for a

manufacturing company — are considered material and recommended as the cornerstone issues

of reporting — and practice — for those companies. The most recent form of the GRI, the ―G3

Guidelines‖ addresses the concept of materiality directly and includes recommendations for

content, quality, and boundary for the report.4

The debate around GRI fills a wide spectrum. On the one end, there is desire to create a

reporting standard that is required on some level by all companies as to aid the process of

comparing them to see who is ―most responsible.‖ This desire, however, is met with many,

many qualifiers. In Denmark, companies are currently all required to report, or explain why they

are not reporting. This attempt at transparency resonates with what Mervyn King, GRI leader

and writer of the King Reports considers ―essential.‖ He says, ―you cannot legislate honesty or

competency‖ and that a law that required reporting would simply drive ―mindless compliance.‖

He believes the best way to address the topic is in mirror of the Danish model, pushing for

reporting and communication, not with legal force, but as an opportunity for quality, governance

over an abundant or ―quantity-focused‖ governance approach, that reports superfluously but does

nothing. ―Over-reporting is green-washing,‖ he says (King, 2010).

4 http://www.globalreporting.org/Home

17

On the other side of the argument are those that feel GRI misses the point of

stakeholders, as it has grading systems and other comparative models that have not been

perfected to adjust for size, sophistication, etc. and drive companies to report, report, report as

much as possible to meet as many indicators as possible, and hope for a good ―grade.‖ This side

of the argument aligns with what GRI states as their goal: providing a framework for

communication to aid the process of both providing and receiving information. Critics like

Mallen Baker point out that ―most companies are writing reports for multiple stakeholder groups,

and no one is reading them.‖ He says, communication should start by asking stakeholders – a

company‘s specific stakeholders -- what they want to know and then report directly to them

about that (Ethical Corporation, 2010). GRI says they do just that, and empower both sides by

providing indicators that could or could not be relevant to seek and or provide above and beyond

on a global standard, but Baker says this is not what happens (Ethical Corporation, 2010).

The UNGC is ―a strategic policy initiative for businesses that are committed to aligning

their operations and strategies with ten universally accepted principles in the areas of human

rights, labour, [sic] environment and anti-corruption‖ (UNGC). Companies participate in the

UNGC by reporting annually on their work vis-à-vis those indicators. The UNGC has over

7,700 participants from all sectors from hundreds of nations around the entire globe, including

close to 5,300 for-profit corporations (UNGC). The UNGC hosts and joins conversations on the

issues related to reporting and responsibility, but does not act as a regulator. Critics say this lack

of teeth makes the UNGC an easy way for companies to look good without having to deliver on

any deep level of responsibility, or in some cases, any level of responsibility at all.5

The King Report on Corporate Governance is a code that must be followed by all

companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. The most recent version of the report,

5 http://globalcompactcritics.blogspot.com/

18

the King III, calls for increased governance measure, provides recommendations for how to

engage stakeholders and communicate with them, pushes for accountability to be assigned and

owned by specific members of the governance team, and seeks reporting on all issues, or an

explanation why the reporting is not done. It is comprehensive and complex, but still clear, and

recommends the use of the GRI recommendations as a guide for reporting (King, 2010). Mervyn

King argues, ―Stakeholders are the ultimate compliance officers. They will quickly tell you if

the corporation is not acting in line with their interests by either fleeing or supporting the

company once information comes to light‖ (King, 2010). Because of this, he believes the

mandated reporting with the voluntary option built in to explain why a company is not reporting

is essential, but that it also must be coupled with a law that ―when corporations fail, provides

someone for you to apportion blame to so that governance bodies do not push the responsibility

away‖ (King, 2010) to keep reporting and information available to the stakeholders who need it,

but keep punishment for irresponsibility off of those who find it and fixed upon those who were

and are in fact responsible.

With all these different standards, companies and organizations still report and

communicate in a wide variety of ways. While most reports began as books, similar to

traditional annual financial reports, the internet has provided interactive and customizable

options that make one set of data interpretable in many different ways (Elaine Cohen, 2009).

The internet not only serves to reach known stakeholders with data and information, but it fosters

the possibility of two-way symmetrical communication and the development of new

stakeholders, active publics from latent publics, and other relationships (Grunig, 2009).

Integrated reporting — that publishes required financial reporting with all sustainability

information for a company — is the way of the future, according to Eccles and Krzus. By

19

combining the two sets of information, organizations demonstrate the intrinsic business strategy

elements of all sustainability issues, force any stubborn latent publics to face this interwoven

nature of financial information and responsibility indicators, and creates a process that forces a

company to ―locate any gaps in embedding sustainability into the company‘s strategy and

operations and be motivated to correct the situation.‖ They also note that public and

governmental interest in issues like climate and carbon are forcing more and more of this

information to be reported publicly, driving transparency standards up, and companies who fully

embraces this ahead of the requirements being legislated will be served (Eccles & Krzus, 2010).

Stakeholders are dynamic groups, simultaneously and continuously assembling and

disassembling themselves (Falconi, class notes 2009). Grunig defines stakeholders as ―broad

categories of people who might be affected by management decisions or who might affect those

decisions – such as employees or community residents‖ and ―active publics‖ as those who

―typically make issues of the consequences of organizational decisions‖ (Grunig, 2009). Other

groups he identifies include those ―who are not members of active publics, … passive or non-

publics — even though [an] organization might want them to be publics‖ (Grunig, 2009).

20

What is it that makes a stakeholder and that pushes an organization to react to one, to

partner with one, to engage, to communicate? The stakeholder concept doesn‘t explain what

moves groups to action. Let‘s start with the question of how and when corporations engaged

Figure 2. Chart from Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College.

their responsibility. Different theories approach the question from different angles. The Center

for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College has presented a model of the five stages of

Corporate Citizenship measured by the organization‘s behavior versus a list of issues. This

model moves progressively towards full disclosure, innovation, and full business strategy

integration. The pinnacle or ultimate point of responsibility includes transparency. Many argue

that this needs to be included at step one.

21

The chart raises the question: what does corporate responsibility look like for the

corporation that does not

integrate the issues deeply into

their strategy. For example, what

is the value of community

volunteering, giving to charity,

cause marketing and other ―lower

hanging fruit‖ ways of

participating in social,

environmental, or cultural issues.

Kevin Martinez, who has run

Corporate Responsibility various

responsibility functions – at

companies including Starbucks,

Home Depot, and KPMG notes

―it is important to do both,

especially depending on the kind

Figure 3. Chart from Harvard Business School Publishing.

of company that you are.‖ He cites Home Depot‘s volunteer work building playgrounds as a

very important part of the business taking action in an area that pertained to their business, even

if it wasn‘t fundamentally strategic (Martinez, 2010). Then, is the chart above measuring grades

of commitment to a responsibility, or is it a tool for organizations to understand their potential

and act as they see fit? I agree with Maignan and Ferrell on this point when they say, ―we argue

22

that organizations act in a socially responsible manner when they align their behaviors with the

norms and demands embraced by their main stakeholders.‖ (Maignan, 2004)

Harvard Business School has a different model to understand how corporations start to

understand their role as Responsible, based on ―organizational learning‖ (see: Figure 3). This

chart suggests that the end goal of acceptance and civil participation in responsible activity is the

goal and that all other stages are simply steps along the process.

Neither of these seems possible, despite the practical need for organizations to start their

recognition process somewhere, when the organization is understood as fully dependent on its

stakeholders. Resource-dependency theory ―states that an organization must attend to the

demands of those in its environment that provide resources necessary and important for its

continued survival‖ and since organizations‘ stakeholders were previously defined as ―those

groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist‖ (Stanford Research

Institute, 1963, via Freeman & Reed, 1983). Thus, due to the dependency of the organization on

the stakeholder, the demands of the stakeholder are dictates for the organization. An

organization cannot, though, respond to all demands of all stakeholders simultaneously or at the

depth the stakeholder seeks. The governance board must be the fulcrum over which the

organizations and stakeholders balance. The prioritization of publics creates a natural and

practical need for communication.

Freeman highlights what this communication should include. He says,

―stakeholder theory has gone off the rails by focusing too much on what to do when

stakeholder interests conflict. … The key insight of stakeholder theory is that there are many

stakeholders and they conflict. … Where there is conflict there is an opportunity to use

innovation and imagination to create more value for both parties, rather than picking one interest

over another‖ (Freeman, 2010).

23

Chapter 3 Definitions

I have chosen to wait to define Corporate Responsibility and sustainability until the end

of this theoretical section of this paper because the definition requires an understanding of the

relationships between an organization and its stakeholders is necessary to define what Corporate

Responsibility and even Sustainability are. While Corporate Responsibility, CSR, etc. are

thought of commonly as addressing impact on issues of social (including human rights),

environmental, cultural, governance (including anti-corruption), etc., the reality is that the

responsibilities are to the existence of the organization wherein it is conceived as a body to serve

and be supported by stakeholders. Thus, definitions like ―A concept whereby companies

integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction

with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis‖ (Dobers, 2009) do not accurately fit Corporate

Responsibility.

Sustainability, defined as ―meeting the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs‖ shares more of the meaning, though

including perhaps the future as a stakeholder. Unfortunately, it seems these definitions are the

most common. Managers understanding Corporate Responsibility to be superficial acts of

―greening‖ rather than deeper issues cripple those who do understand and have the vision to

change strategy. Corporations are turning more and more to consultants to understand what

programs and plans can help them address their corporate responsibility, but consultants who do

not understand these deeper issues will further cripple both the practice by doing with the

misnomer CR — or CSR or Sustainability — and will not deliver top-tier consulting because

they will not understand the fundamental issue.

24

Chapter 4 Case Studies6

My primary research on this topic has centered around five companies — Timberland,

Brown-Forman, Hess Oil Company, WalMart, and MS&L— and these questions:

What drives organizations’ CR communication? How does the organization’s

communication support or conflict with its efforts to be sustainable and meet stakeholder

expectations?

Below I demonstrate my findings from reviewing public documents and interviewing leaders of

Corporate Responsibility, CSR, Communications, and Sustainability – depending on their chosen

or appointed title -- at these companies. These companies were chosen because I had access to

them and they are considered by many sources to be leaders, especially for their company sizes.

Timberland, Brown-Forman, and Hess Oil Company were researched in great depth. A

pharmaceutical company and WalMart were not as available for extensive interviews, but were

researched for their perspectives on the issues, as well. Finally, MS&L Worldwide brings the

perspective of a company that deals with CR internally, but also advises on the topic as external

consultants. In the final section, information about other players in CSR includes indices and

other tools will be briefly explored.

Timberland7

History & Structure & Philosophy

Timberland is an apparel company with close to 6,000 employees and a long-standing

commitment to CR. ―Our mission is to equip people to make their difference in the world,‖

explains Beth Holzman, head of CSR — Corporate Social Responsibility — at Timberland. The

company defines their commitment to ―CSR‖ as being deeply embedded in their business

6 Case studies are based on my analysis of public documents and cited interviews.

7 Interview: Beth Holzman, April 15, 2010. Phone interview. Jeff Swartz Stakeholder Call April 8,

2010.

25

strategy and view of the company. ―We probably err on the most transparent side of the

spectrum,‖ says Holzman, but she explains, that is part of the culture and the company‘s

understanding of what drives the best CSR and most authentic practice. ―Our approach to

building and sustaining strong communities includes civic engagement, environmental

stewardship and global human rights.‖ Says Jeff Swartz, CEO of the company, ―Moral mission

is imperative.‖

In 2007, the company recalibrated their CSR efforts, establishing four pillars – energy,

products, workplaces, and service – which speak to the company‘s core material impact. At that

point, the company began quarterly reporting through a variety of channels, including biannual

reporting on GRI indicators and quarterly abbreviated reports demonstrating impacts on a list of

metrics. The company believes that ―engaging with stakeholders every quarter fosters

transparency and accountability and creates actionable insights‖ and that ―only by building a real

network of real engagement through time will we be able to address the kind of

multidimensional solutions that are needed for the kind of challenges we are framing.‖

The overhaul lasted into 2008, when EarthKeepers.com was launched and other

transparency and accountability initiatives were unveiled. EarthKeepers is an interactive website

designed with the fundamental belief that Timberland is one player in the larger movement to

address issues all businesses should be worried about. The site hosts conversation spaces, where

the company has posted one question for each of the pillars — questions they do not have the

answers to — to seek stakeholder input. The site also hosts archives of Timberland‘s impact

reporting, stakeholder engagement calls between Swartz, leaders at Timberland, other industry

voices, and any stakeholders who care to join and ask questions. There is information about the

tree-planting initiatives that Timberland runs, profiles of ―EarthKeeper heroes‖ from outside of

26

Timberland, and many other tools for visitors to engage with other stakeholders, learn about

Timberland, follow dynamic conversations on key issues, and more.

The CSR team runs CSR as a subsection of the overall marketing department that also

oversees Public Relations, Corporate Communication, Sales, and a new department called

―Values-Marketing.‖ While the CSR team focuses on developing the strategy that covers target

setting and impact reporting, communication, reporting, and engagement over the four pillars,

they integrate their work across the larger group of departments. Corporate Communication

collaborates with CSR to develop ―CSR-branding‖ strategies. The Values Marketing team also

collaborates significantly with CSR, as they serve as a ―direct bridge between marketing and the

CSR team‖ focusing on how to translate information on impacts and other activity that has

traditionally been communicated on a GRI-level of sophistication to the broader consumer

audience.8

According to Beth Holzman, the current and recent economic hardship has not had much

effect on the CSR strategy overall, or the communication of it. Throughout Timberland, she

notes ―communication has changed to recognize and even greater need for credibility and

authenticity to get trust‖ from stakeholders across the board, and notes that now there is an

increased awareness and engagement with stakeholders in this current climate on issues like the

environment and social change. She adds, though, that Timberland very clearly understands that

all communication and all CSR must be done credibly and must start by ―walking the talk.‖

8 Since this was written, I watched a presentation by the head of this department at a conference. I was

struck by her tone and her approach to the information about CSR at Timberland. The authenticity of interest and use of inclusive language that reflected a deep understanding of the issues was nowhere at the level I had seen with Swartz or Holzman.

27

Definitions

Timberland emphasizes its commitment to being accountable, having authentic CSR, and being

responsible repeatedly and in various communications. Because these words mean so many

different things to so many organizations, I asked Beth Holzman to please define what these

terms mean to Timberland. ―Accountability,‖ she says, ―is something you own. It‘s about what

you are doing and what is worth doing. You are held accountable for the things you can control,

and following through on your promises for them make you authentic and credible.‖

―Responsibility,‖ in contrast, ―is what you‘re charged with implementing‖ and involves taking a

look at the bigger picture to ask, ―where can we be an agent for change?‖ When I asked her why

Timberland uses the term CSR to describe her practice and all the work described above she said

frankly, ―it was the catchall phrase five to seven years ago‖ and has carried with it the

association with green awareness and internal conversations about the issues. She notes, ―Maybe

it would be preferable to call it Corporate Responsibility because it includes social,

environmental, and more, and that would more accurate and comprehensive.‖

Stakeholder Engagement & Communication

Timberland identifies their stakeholders as anyone that can impact the company or that

the company can impact. That includes NGOs, civil society, peer companies, investors,

employees, consumers, etc. Different stakeholders are communicated to differently, though

primarily in public. Reporting and engagement are the two dominant ways that Timberland

communicates with the different stakeholder groups. They ―engage in a spectrum of reporting‖

that includes quarterly reports to ―tell stories and look at progress along the line in a more

digestible and shorter format‖ and biannual reports with updates along the way.

28

Biannual reporting is more dense and impact focused – though quarterly reports also post

updates on environmental and other impact-related indicators such as 2.5% emissions reduction

in the first quarter of 2010. These reports are based on GRI indicators and are dense. Says

Holzman, ―there is a place for that density across the stakeholder conversation, but we believe

we must fundamentally be walking the talk, and figure out how to talk about what our walk is, to

demonstrate our authentic ability to engage these issues.‖

Why does Timberland communicate about their CSR? Their goal is to ―create value and

manage risk‖ for the company. Holzman explains, engagement helps the company measure and

understand its impacts and also plan more effectively to build a collective understanding of

responsibility on larger issues like climate and social issues, but also intimately plan for

Timberland‘s approach to those issues. Holzman explains, and it can be heard many times over

on Jeff Swartz‘ stakeholder engagement calls that Timberland believes that business has a role to

play in impacting and improving climate change and social issues.

The EarthKeeper portal is the primary arena for conversation and interaction for

Timberland and its CSR stakeholders. Holzman notes about the internet and the changes it has

brought for engagement that, ―The web has changed everything because there is no more

‗control‘ of brand or conversation about it; the web forces a conversation that we hope to engage

and respond to appropriately.‖

Stakeholder conference calls are also used, and then archived on the EarthKeeper site.

Between the online and phone tactics, the company hopes to engage a wide breadth of

constituencies. And it seems they do. Though it is not visible who is on any given call, it is clear

that stakeholders including other companies, media, consumers, and non-profits are there as they

ask questions or speak with Jeff Swartz. Online, it is more public who participates, and a

29

combination of activists of many kinds seem to be the predominant group engaging there, though

profiles are posted for a wider range of folks. Timberland asserts repeatedly that they are ―very

much seeking ideas from all these conversations‖ on issues ranging from human rights to carbon.

Jeff Swartz refers to stakeholder as ―other sources of wisdom‖ and describes his interaction with

them as ―valuable engagement.‖

Of course, stakeholder engagement is not always pleasant for a company with a very

transparent record, like Timberland. A viral campaign launched by Greenpeace following the

release of 6 years research on Amazonian deforestation and its connection to apparel and shoe

companies supply chains put severe pressure on Timberland to address and change their leather

sourcing policies in Brazil in 2009. Online searches on the issue now demonstrate Timberland‘s

quick reaction to the campaign, signing on with Greenpeace to address the issue and partnering

with peer companies to address that and similar issues as an industry. Offline, though, the

conversation and situation seem to have been less cordial; Jeff Swartz often references the letters

he received from Greenpeace that read ―Die Corporate Scum.‖ Says Holzman of activist

engagement, ―Activists are challenging to engage but we don‘t have a choice and we learn a lot

from working with them.‖ She adds that they are part of the process of refining the issues,

understanding how to walk the talk, and that, ― Activism and partnerships allow for deeper

conversations and contrast to ‗greenwashing‘.‖

One of Timberland‘s challenges in their very open online approach to stakeholder

engagement, including activist engagement, has played out through their ―Voices of Challenge‖

element of the EarthKeeper site. There, Timberland has posed questions pertaining to each of

their pillars to the public. These are questions ―that we don‘t have the answers to,‖ says

Holzman. The conversation or online comment thread that has followed from some of the

30

questions — specifically the ―Workplaces‖ themed question — has led to an aggressive set of

labor activist attacks on Timberland and a sort of dialog between the company and these select

folks over specific issues. These kinds of challenges demonstrate the reality that no matter how

ubiquitous or infinite the possibilities of engaging all English-speaking people with internet

access may be; the conversation can still be limited and get caught within a few nodes.

Holzman also notes that not all engagement happens in the public eye. She mentions the

extensive partnering Timberland has done across the apparel industry, but also the fact that in

certain settings, to move contentious issues forward, the conversation is better held in person, or

more intimately the on public showcase.

Other challenges Timberland faces regarding CSR are focused on two specific

stakeholder groups: consumers and employees. The most recent stakeholder engagement call on

April 8, Swartz highlighted the challenge posed by consumers, who are not already issues-

activated and his deep interest in over-coming this challenge. Said Swartz on that call, ―we have

an obligation to include consumers in engaged citizenry‖ and to push more mainstream

consumers to think about carbon. Given that the research shows that ―consumers couldn‘t care

less‖ and that ―no consumer reads GRI reports,‖ Swartz believes there must be another way to

push the issue. He says, we realize now the ―need to integrate climate change almost invisibly

into the marketplace.‖

The EarthKeeper line of shoes was the first way they have tried to do this. The shoes,

which are made wholly from recycled and ethically sourced materials, also offer consumers

design and performance excellence, because, Swartz says, ―that is what consumers demand. You

cannot sell an ugly or underperforming product to consumer simply because it is good for the

environment… If you say carbon to consumers, they want to run out of the store.‖ Plans stand to

31

expand EarthKeeper standards to other shoe lines— and the communication with consumers

through signage and labeling that Timberland already uses — to grow the line and include more

and more of Timberland‘s products. This use of the product line to force the conversation is an

example of a company using the product to push the issue into the marketplace and forge a

conversation with consumers, who may not have asked for it.

Employees are the other challenge for Timberland right now regarding CSR and

communication. Beth Holzman says, ―We could be doing a better job of leveraging employees,

both as consumer citizens and brand advocates.‖ Issues standing in the way have included the

fact that resources have been primarily allocated to focus on conversations with external

stakeholder groups about the CSR program, achievements, and challenges. A varied level of

interest and education is also a challenge when looking at a very diverse group of employees

across the $1.4 million dollar company. Holzman candidly and repeatedly acknowledges this

challenge, though, and says the company is in a position to try to be more creative and engage

employees going forward.

Materiality & Conclusions

On stakeholder engagements call and on public panels, I have heard both Swartz and

Holzman say something to the effect of: ―We are a boot company. A hiking boot company. The

environment is important to us.‖ The company has defined the material issues it is accountable

for through its pillars, set targets to measure it‘s accomplishments, and metrics to determine its

impacts. Timberland has also creates a huge number of deliberate channels for communication

and constantly and dynamically engages transparently. They receive awards for reporting

innovatively and effectively. Even when criticized by hostile stakeholders as has happened

32

through Voices of Challenge, the communication resonates with their commitments. Though

clearly driven from internal motivation, the company reacts.

As they make an effort to push the CSR conversation to consumers and employees —

new stakeholder groups who are not demanding the conversation, it will be interesting to see

what models of communication work. Currently, a two-way symmetrical model works for the

organization, but if the external party is an active public but not around the issues brought to the

table by the corporation – will it work?

Brown-Forman9

History & Structure & Philosophy

Brown-Forman, the parent company of alcohol brands like Jack Daniels®, Chambord®,

Southern Comfort®, and Sonoma-Cutrer® Wines, defines its CR mission as ―Corporate

Responsibility at Brown-Forman means putting our values into action throughout our business

and in our relationships with suppliers, distributors, customers, employees, consumers, and our

shareholders. We must listen to feedback on issues of shared concern and importance. We are

determined to promote social and environmental responsibility, transparency, and dialogue.‖

They say their purpose is to ―to enrich the experience of life, in our own way, by responsibly

building beverage alcohol brands that thrive and endure for generations‖ through five strategic

initiatives that focus on bringing trust, integrity, respect, teamwork, and excellence to their

interactions with exceptional people – as employees, responsibility in ―all we do,‖ superb

resource allocation, making sales, and consumer franchises.10

9 Interview: Rob Kaplan, April 20, 2010. Phone interview.

10 http://www.brown-forman.com/responsibility/priorities/mission.aspx

33

This corporate strategic language is translated into action by the CR department is made

of up three people: the Director of Corporate Responsibility, a manager of communication to

stakeholders, including reports, internal communications, research, and a brand communications

manager who translates Brown-Forman‘s CR concepts to brands, ultimately to communicate

with consumers through them. The department reports to the department of Corporate Affairs,

who also manage Government Affairs, Philanthropy, Internal and External Communications –

including PR and Employee Engagement. That office reports to the Vice Chairman of Strategy

and Human Resources.

Rob Kaplan, Senior Corporate Responsibility Analyst at Brown-Forman says the

department feels confident that the top of the company supports it. The strategic model of the

company, known as ―the Brown Forman arrow‖ articulates ―being responsible in everything

Figure 4, Chart from Brown-Forman11

we do‖ as a key piece of the company‘s vision of its success.

11

http://www.brown-forman.com/responsibility/priorities/mission.aspx

34

At Brown-Forman, definitions regarding responsibility are cut and dry. ―We rarely use

Corporate Citizenship, unless we are talking about our citizenship in the local Louisville

community, including local philanthropy,‖ explains Kaplan. When defining their ―responsibility,

the company includes environmental issues, alcohol responsibility, and community – including

philanthropy in Louisville and relationships with the global employee base, as the key elements.

They also consider these the most material issues to Brown-Forman.

Why these issues? First, Brown-Forman is a publicly traded company, the founding

family, though, still holds the majority share. ―The Brown family has a long-standing

commitment to environmental issues‖ explains Kaplan, ―and obviously, any corporation impacts

the environment.‖ The company also spends a significant amount of time talking a lot about

―what a responsible alcohol company should look like,‖ says Kaplan. They are founders of

industry groups focused on responsible drinking and continue to be involved in industry groups

like Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS) and International Center on Alcohol

Policies (ICAP).12

Says Kaplan, the standard has been to be involved in industry-level dialog

about responsibility, but now Brown-Forman is looking to exceed that standard.‖

Stakeholder Engagement & Communication

Brown-Forman officially defines its stakeholders around a wheel that includes

communities where they have facilities, employees – both current and future, the Brown-Forman

Family and other investors, the media, customers – who in the case of Brown-Forman, operating

in the three-tier alcohol distribution system, focuses on the retailers and distributors who deal

with their brands, other companies, legislators or regulators, civil society, and an outer layer that

12

http://www.ourthinkingaboutdrinking.com/marketing-access-issues.aspx?id=258

35

exists beyond these specific spokes of the wheel, defined as ―consumers that flow through all

groups, but are not a direct stakeholder group.‖

To communicate with and engage stakeholders, they operate under the ―first rule of

communication,‖ according to Kaplan: ―customizing to the audience.‖ He explains that someone

in the company deals directly with each of the stakeholder groups and is involved in designing

the communication for the specific group. While the CR department drives messaging on

―green‖ and alcohol responsibility message consistency, Kaplan explains that the communication

and messages are not overly controlled, but than an effort is made to keep them consistent.

Notably, he says that Brown-Forman ―is not getting a lot of either media or investment requests

for [CR-related] information.‖

Brown-Forman reports on a biannual schedule with online data updates in between. The

reports are third-party audited. To date, they have produced two full reports. The company

started full reporting upon GRI indicators when the current head of CR was brought to the

company. At the time, the Brown family focused much of their CR efforts on environmental

issues. As the CR department has matured, it has expanded to include the company‘s long-

standing commitment to responsible depiction of their product to evolve into proactive

engagement of the issue of responsible consumption of the product and other alcohol-related

issues, as ―they are our most natural match,‖ says Kaplan, and thus the most ―material issues‖ for

the company.

The company uses the internet as a tool in their reporting and engagement. Their

biannual report is customizable through internet selections, so readers can choose the issues most

relevant or important to them, and reduce the inundation of information that reports can

sometimes mean. They also have built feedback channels to glean responses to the reports

36

themselves, including using email and other surveys to engage certain groups. The most

interactive attempt to use the internet, though is a site that has proven to be a challenge to the

company.

Ourthinkingaboutdrinking.com is an engagement platform Brown-Forman designed to

articulate their position, goals, and issues around drinking. The public site addresses issues

including youth and alcohol, drinking and driving, alcohol and health, overconsumption, and

marketing and access. There are posted opinions, standards, and company positions. Emails are

posted to receive feedback, and a comment board that visitors can add to. Kaplan explains that

―getting people on there has been hard.‖ The company has ―started conversation to drive

‗consensus; definition of what responsibility on alcohol is going to mean‖ he explains, so even

internally it has presented a challenge. The site was conceived as a means to force Brown-

Forman into conversations with scientists, academics, regulators, etc. and find stakeholders to

whom the issues matter with an open-source approach. It has not yet taken off and the company

is strategizing to increase the online conversation and engagement. They will start with a face-

to-face summit to bring folks together and force the conversation, as right now ―we are trying to

have a conversation without another side to it,‖ says Kaplan.

The need to force the conversation comes from two difficult points. One, the issue of

alcohol responsibility brings challenges that aren‘t present with environmental issues because the

stakeholder groups, and specifically activist groups, that are the most active publics on the issues

are much more extreme than with ―green‖ interest groups, says Kaplan, and thus the

conversation becomes very specific to the one or two issues they champion in relationship to

alcohol, and not about the bigger conversation at the same time. Two, surveys and poll

information Brown-Forman has collected from their stakeholder groups all find that key

37

stakeholders perceive Brown-Forman doing well on responsibility issues. ―This makes it

difficult to figure out what we need to improve without forcing it upon ourselves,‖ says Kaplan.

Employee CR engagement is a very active and innovative space for the Brown Forman

CR department. Focused primarily on the alcohol responsibility issue, Brown-Forman aspires to

have ―every employee be an alcohol responsibility champion on both 1) being responsible and 2)

advocating responsibility as designated drivers and/or on the job promoting alcohol.‖ Kaplan

explains this is ‗difficult because employees can‘t be ‗responsible in everything‘ without an

understanding of the Brown-Forman perspective on the issues.‖ So, education has been the first

focus. The CR department invented the ―World‘s First Responsible Drinking Game‖ -- a trivia

game with scenarios and teams; use it to get employees to spend an hour talking about

responsibility. The game is being rolled out in phase one, being played literally in groups of

employees in different manufacturing and business offices in different regions. Because Brown-

Forman is a global company, though, it is being developed into an electronic experience that

every single employee will be required to play to expand the employee involvement and

flexibility of the program‘s use. Right now, the company is not really engaging program-

reflective conversation about this beyond surveys. However, the plan is for the next phase to

include more response and data collecting mechanisms. The goal of this initiative is to

―encourage and empower the employees to change their behavior and other‘s behavior.‖

Modeled after the WalMart PSP (personal sustainability plan), is called the PRP

(personal responsibility plan). Kaplan notes that there has been an active philosophical

discussion about the boundary between consumer and employee responsibility and the

responsibility of the company itself in driving that. He says, ―while people will of course make

38

their own decisions, we cannot ignore our influence over those decisions as an alcohol company

and still call ourselves responsible.‖

Materiality & Conclusions

Brown-Forman is actively trying to address and build their responsibility through two points.

They are building upon a legacy of marketing responsibly. The company has a long-standing

commitment and self-regulates internally above and beyond standard legal compliance

requirements for marketing for alcohol companies. For example, the company never produces

advertisements or other materials that link the consumption of their product to success –

monetary, status, sexual, etc. They also do not market their products in outlets that can reach

children. Kaplan notes, though, that this legacy has been stated in the negative, i.e. ―this is what

you cannot do.‖

The company is working to balance that legacy conceived through a negative idea of

what not to do with a more positive approach of marketing responsibility. This approach

addresses their hope for fundamental behavioral change. The idea: How do you market the idea

that consumers behave responsibly is a good idea? Kaplan says they have asked, ―is this forcing

the issue into the marketplace?‖. He says they have spent a lot of time thinking about and

understanding consumer insights. They have refrained from doing own research because there is

a large existing body that speaks to the issue already, but they have used it to inform and that

they are now working with partners like the AdCouncil to address and really shift both corporate

behavior and general behavior from the ―please drink responsibly.‖

Clearly, the company is innovating in their practice and trying to find ways to

communicate their strategic innovation, with end goal of improving behavior. They are trying to

employ two-way communication that is symmetrical, but are not finding publics to engage with

39

as they have hoped, and are thus restricted to engage narrowly focused publics. So, they are left

writing their own scripts to create space for the sough communication in the plans they use going

forward. Brown-Forman is an example of where fundamentally engaging beyond the issues

raised by publics may speak immediately to issues of responsibility most intrinsic to the

company‘s business. It will be interesting to watch this conversation evolve, or become directed

communication driven by the company. Unlike Timberland, the company is not publicly seen as

skirting an issue by activists, but as Kaplan says, the process is halted by the lack of external

impetus.

Hess Corporation13

History & Structure & Philosophy

At Hess, a family-run and publicly held oil company, Sustainability Reporting and

conceptualizing have been part of the company for years. The company website hosts archived

reports dating back to 2000. Says Paula Luff, Director of Corporate Social Responsibility for the

company, ―CR includes the broader citizenship in the way that we interact with stakeholders.

Sustainability is really integrated with the way we operate and we see it as a competitive

advantage. We‘re not big so we feel that if we can make an economic impact and social impact

in a country, that is a competitive advantage as a company of our size.‖

Why do they call their practice ―Sustainability‖? Says Luff, ―we just did it. It captures

what we are doing as a group more effectively than CSR. CSR means that you did something

wrong so you are assuming the responsibility. It‘s narrow, weak, reactive. Sustainability is a

broader concept and a more proactive descriptor that takes the long view of what you‘re doing.‖

13

Interview: Paula Luff on April 22, 2010. Phone Interview.

40

The company drives sustainability focused on three general categories: energy and carbon,

environment, and social issues, through both business strategy and philanthropy.

The company reports based on GRI standards annually and has all their reports audited

and verified by third parties. Beyond audits, the majority of the work is done by Luff, in-house.

Right now, she runs the entire department by herself, though she has strong collaboration

relationships with both the corporate communication department and significant support from

CEO John Hess. Soon, she says, the department will grow.

Stakeholder Engagement

The company is very involved in industry groups including International Petroleum

Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA), the Retail Energy Supply

Association, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, the Corporate Council on

Africa, and others. They contribute intellectual capital (best practice, guidelines, etc.) to social

responsibility, environmental, and other industry conversations. Luff herself works with BSR

around Human Rights issues and is very active on the UNGC Human Rights working group.

The relationships are helpful for providing feedback and review of their strategies, refining

language and raising interesting points. She describes the relationships as ―extremely helpful

third party engagement.‖

When building programs in communities where they operate, including education

programs, the company focuses on building something that will have lasting value for the

community past the time bracket where Hess is there. In cases where there are third parties who

know the political, social, or other climate well and know details of how to build the kind of

program sought, Hess may partner with them, though they will remain very active and engaged

41

in the strategy and execution. Part of being authentic and credible in recognizing where the

specialties of an oil company are exceeded by other groups, like with AED in Equatorial Guinea,

where they built a program.

The primary stakeholder audiences are host country governments, host communities, and

business stakeholders. Others include government, regulatory bodies, consumers, community

members where they practice, the opinion-leader elite – including votes and educated groups,

employees, non-governmental organizations, and others. Since the primary audiences are very

focused, the company does not do a lot of media around sustainability. Other key stakeholders

include consumers. The company does not interface on their more strategic business elements of

the sustainability strategy at the point-of-sale, but they do voice long-term philanthropic

commitments to March of Dimes and St. Jude Hospital. The conversation on sustainability and

energy Hess focuses towards their institutional marketing stakeholders. Regarding their

international philanthropy, Luff says they don‘t really look outside the company, but do engage

deeply with stakeholders in the country and say ―You tell us where we add value; you tell us

where things are possible.‖ She says, ―We focus on capacity building and sustainability of

programs to keep it going, which is a lot of work as compared to check writing.‖

Regarding reporting to stakeholders, the company is dedicated to being relatively

transparent, ―especially for an oil company.‖ Says Luff, ―We believe those transparencies are

the right way to go about it. We have nothing to hide. Senior management understands that

expectations have shifted and companies are expected to be transparent, not proprietary or

competitive disclosure, but transparent.‖

Though 13,000 employees are stakeholders, the focus on employees from the strategy

perspective emphasizes safety. The company has an excellent safety record, especially for an

42

extraction company. The Corporate Communication office runs the communications about these

issues, though they are reported in the annual sustainability report. Luff comments that even in

countries where Hess builds programs to serve the communities the employees are not

necessarily part of the conversation to construct those projects. Instead, they speak with civil

society leaders, government and key stakeholders in the country — leaders, civil society, etc. —

are the first entry point, What are your priorities where we might add value? Then technical

partner, understand feasibility, and then craft program. Stakeholder engagement even at

community level pretty intensive throughout. By the time a program launches, have had

community and employee support; not generally asked about

Materiality & Conclusions

Hess reports and communicates transparently and has deep commitment to building

strong and sustainable initiatives. With their strength holding fast, the role of communication

comes into a new light. If key stakeholders are engaged on specific issues and through specific

channels, with partnerships and advisory relationships on very particular industry or even human

rights-related concepts, the requirement for more ubiquitous communication comes into

question. The power dynamic appears imperial as set forth here.

*****

43

MS&LWorldwide14

The widening landscape of Corporate Responsibility consulting includes a myriad of

specialties. Traditional PR firms, though, are taking a leading role in many ways.

MS&LWorldwide was named the best PR firm for CR by CRO magazine15

and Scott Beaudoin,

leader of their practice, is widely regarded in the field for his leadership and vision. I spoke with

him and explored some of the MS&LWorldwide CR practice to better understand what drives it.

Beaudoin explains that many companies are awakening to the need to articulate and

incorporate CR into their business strategies, but do not know how to start the process. The role

of a company like MS&LWorldwide is to educate the company about CR, how they are already

practicing, and where the opportunities lie, because Beaudoin says, ―We understand how this is

part of how they communicate, act, and we help the companies identify what CR is to them and

where they fall in the greater business — and societal —landscape on these issues.‖ His

description of how and why MS&LWorldwide practices CR consulting mirrors the theoretical

arguments for why communication theory informs CR strategy and understanding.

Fundamentally understanding stakeholder relationships, how to create real ones, and how to

prioritize them is a specialty of a firm like MS&L, and this knowledge is a cornerstone of

building a CR strategy and articulating the CR practices of a company, explains Beaudoin.

The ―business case‖ — demonstrated financial value — of CR is inherently part of what

MS&L must do, as well, says Beaudoin. He parallels this process with the same issues face by

other PR consultants: ―unless you can show the businesses value there is friction‖ from the

companies, he says. So, they look at employee engagement and retention, stock success, and

14

Interview: Scott Beaudoin, April 23, 2010. Phone interview. 15

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/02/28/msl-tops-list-of-csr-pr-firms/

44

other indicators that lead directly to a monetary ROI. He also says that the MS&LWorldwide

proprietary ―Influencer Marketing‖ model that engages social activism is a key tool in

differentiating their practice. He says the model facilitates engaging the right influencers,

driving desired reputational and financial outcomes. This marketing style influence notably

underscores the impetus for CR as a marketplace advantage and a way to make more money,

rather than an altruistic one.

Notably, though the MS&L practice echoes strategic vision that serves organizations

along a spectrum between developing full business strategies to systemically incorporate CR and

taking smaller steps towards CR, MS&L itself is still in the process of internalizing their own

best practices. For example, this year they will produce their first sustainability report and

release information about their own CR practices. Beaudoin and his colleagues explain that

MS&L employees are engaged on the topic and that social and environmental awareness is in

their ―ethos and DNA.‖ Of course, this action has more impact than perhaps reporting on it does,

but the communication of these practices, and the chance for them to be audited and/or reviewed

by the public seem like an important step in truly driving internal credibility on the issues. I

have found that this is a trend for consultancies: understanding the issues and advising others on

them but not fully integrating them into their own practice.

WalMart16

Two stand-out sustainability initiatives at WalMart in the context of these other programs

are the initiatives to (1) require all laundry detergents to be sold in concentrate, eliminating

materials, transport costs, and shelf space required for them, and (2) the PSP – the Personal

16

Interview: Matt Kistler,

45

Sustainability Project which engaged employees to live more sustainable lifestyles and be more

sustainable – regarding their environmental impacts, their health, and more. These projects

demonstrate both the (1) implementation of sustainability by the company, forcing the consumer

to a new standard through product alteration, and (2) a successful employee engagement plan.

WalMart‘s decision to push these initiatives served to open them up to new markets, but

was not inherently driven by that opportunity. As the number one retailer in the United States,

the decision to change a supply chain has major effects on all points along that chain. The

company‘s decision to take this initiative is, necessarily on one level, a recognition of

responsibility and one on the level that Mervyn King cited when recognizing the central role of

the corporation in every element of society at this point (King, 2010).

The corporation‘s decision to drive sustainability into all elements of the business has

become almost a thing of legend in the conversation on CR. This makes people like Matt

Kistler, WalMart, Director of Sustainability, into celebrities. The depth and breadth of the

program though, and his repeated recognition that "Whenever authenticity is missing from a

campaign, it fails" offers hope that this program will… sustain. But, his more flippant answer to

why community and sustainability are part of every part of the corporate website offers room for

more cynicism. He says of the dedication of corporate website to sustainability and community-

related issues, ―Its not really that complicated; we just are doing it [sustainability] so we did it

[communication about it].‖

46

Chapter 5: Conclusions

Discussion of Trends

There are palpable trends in CR that I have seen in both broader industry conversations

on CR and the focused research for this paper. The entire concept of what a corporation is and

how it is legally driven is being addressed from different angles, many of which are drawing

directly from a new focus and emphasis on CR. Yale School of Management is pushing for

shifts in the construction of corporate boards to place more responsibility on the board members

and away from the CEO of any given company. Benefit Corporation incorporation options,

driven in the vein set forth by B-Corporation and other advocates for a legal standard for a

shifted fiduciary duty driven by the stakeholder model is being legislated in regions across the

United States. And, a dynamic debate between stakeholders who question the very essence of

corporatism vs. business is resonating through books like Life, Inc. by Douglas Rushkoff and the

writings of authors like Noreena Hertz in the CR conversation arena. Conferences, online

communities, and other tools are bringing together voices from inside corporations, their largest

critics, and results are happening. Boards are receiving new responsibilities, protections are put

into place for those who audit reports to not be held liable for their contents and facilitate

thorough review, carbon emissions are being cut, and more.

The dominion and influence over business decisions, though, is inherently rooted in the

actions and inactions organizations and companies are making. Looking at reporting and the

trends around it offers interesting perspectives on how to act responsibly versus how to

communicate about CR. Does reporting dull CR by focusing resources and energy away from

the strategizing, does it serve as marketing material that is not necessarily useful or does it

enhance practice by building credibility, highlighting holes and opportunity for improvement of

47

CR practice and business strategy as interdependent issues? Trends are pushing towards

reporting as a key element in driving strategy, demonstrating value to a wide collection of key

stakeholders, and pushing the sustainability and CR conversation into the mainstream as integral

to business practices. Efforts to mirror the Danish and South African reporting requirements are

underway in the United States and the European Union, and auditors and consultants that

develop tools to both produce reports and create comparable metrics are being established at a

speedy rate. These efforts are in part shadowed by the fact that key stakeholders including

investors and the media have not demonstrated interest in these issues as patently as non-profits

and the businesses themselves have.

The integration of reporting into business strategy is only one of the integration trends

emerging, however. Cradle-to-cradle products that have traced the elements in a product from

design to marketplace are on the rise. Nike is developing a shoe that is completely

biodegradable. Timberland‘s EatherKeeper line of shoes is being expanded. These companies,

however, are facing challenges in the tension between consumer interest and the CR vision for

the business.

One of the most palpable issues for businesses committed to CR right now hinges on

consumer and employee engagement regarding sustainability and responsibility. The research

above shows this issue at Brown-Forman and Timberland. The Body Shop has also expressed

this to be one of their main challenges. Creative approaches to educate, engage, and essentially

create an active posture for these two groups of stakeholders are being used. ―How do we

communicate about this more effectively with these groups‖ seems to be the fundamental

question. My findings, however, are concerning in that the tone seems to follow traditional

marketing lane-markers. That is to say, the desire to motivate a new relationship or engagement

48

with a stakeholder group – consumers or employees or any other – is parallel to the basic

marketing goal of simply getting a consumer to buy a product. Taking this parallel tone in

today‘s environment, amongst the online conversation and tools for criticism, highlights this

marketing perspective as over simplification. So, corporations are positioned to drive the

product development, the responsibility practice, etc. without the input of consumers as a driving

force, but rather from their own altruism or risk-averse interests to avoid legal and monetary

threats posed by external bodies? Theoretically.

Timberland, as one example, is pushing for standardized labeling to drive the

conversation, and reporting in one sense, at the point of sale. Without comparable standards for

labels, though, this is impossible. So, thus emerges the less new but very powerful industry

collaboration trend that companies like Timberland and Hess use to hold companies within a

given industry accountable to each other, share best practices, and also create differentiation

opportunities.

Necessarily, the trends in communication, whether they be at the point of sale, in

integrated reports, in employee engagement, or other points, rely on a lexicon that communicates

consistent meaning and allows for comparability. The lexicon for sustainability and CR

seemingly takes issue with the concept of PR. This emerges in both the theoretical texts and in

the leading new books on what CR and Sustainability strategy in business look like. This is an

oversight of what PR is — building relationships and managing them to serve an organization,

not greenwashing. I submit that the best way to address the shortcomings of different company‘s

superficial attempts at sustainability strategy should be criticized for those shortcomings, not for

―being PR.‖ The drive for credibility and authenticity that is driving the most ―advanced‖

49

sustainability and CR strategies is necessarily anchored in relationships, respect and

communication across them, and this is served by good PR.

Going Forward.

CR practice, value, and meaning are being explored through a myriad of research right now.

Having done this set of research, predominantly exploring business‘ perspectives on CR and how

to communicate it to meet and drive goals, two topics stand out as possible contributions for

those interested in doing further research on the topic. The first is in-depth research regarding

transparency, how that is conceived of and understood by organizations, and analyzing any rifts

between the projected valuation of transparency and the reality of practice. This research would

necessitate strong theoretical exploration and articulation of what transparency is. As this is a

core concept of conversations across sectors about accountability, improved practice, and

innovation, this would be both valuable and most likely exciting.

The second category of research would involve looking more closely at CR from

―stakeholder‖ perspectives. That is to say, instead of rooting research on CR through

organizations at the center of a stakeholder wheel, start from a category of stakeholders or a

spectrum of stakeholders and analyze trends, needs, and issues that are grounding CR practice

through their actions, assertions, and goals. This research would enhance the understanding of

what the stakeholder model is in the contemporary context and also be valuable to all players in

the CR sphere to solicit best practices for affecting change, finding resolution, and addressing

issues.

Going forward, also, it is worth noting key issues to pay attention to, and to finally underline,

again, the essence of why CR is important and what it may mean for a new and better reality.

50

Key issues include developing language and comparable metrics to aid expansive lists of

stakeholders: products, suppliers, investors, consumers, and employees leading that list.

Materiality in this context will need deeper defining – either in relation to other ―material‖ issues

that affect the stock price of a company or the value of that company by some other measure.

The algorithms for these measurements are being developed by many players, and the coming

year will undoubtedly shine light on which of those works and is best attuned to rounding out

both the tools for measurement and the conceptualization of what good business means.

Notably, the businesses interviewed for this paper all claim that the CR departments were

maintained through the hardest economic moments for their companies, and that they did not

undergo any more budget restraints than any other department. In the dire straits that many

companies faced, this reality is testament to the fact that CR is not going away.

CR communication highlights long-term trends and ideals focused on stakeholder

relationships, understanding them, engaging them, and managing them appropriately. Doing so

serves the business and the stakeholders. What is possible with this engagement is only limited

by the viewfinder we place around what is inherently part of business. By including

responsibility in it, by engaging for earnest relationships we have a chance at realizing what is at

the core of better business – humanity. As Freeman recently stated, in awe of the ability for the

conversation on stakeholders to drift from its core purpose: ―We need to build deeply human

relationships with stakeholders‖ (Freeman, 2010).

51

Works Cited.

Arthur Page Society. 2007. ―The Authentic Enterprise: An Arthur W. Page Society Report.‖

Blair, Margaret. 2002. ―Shareholder Value, Corporate Governance, and Corporate Performance:

A Post-Enron Reassessment of the Conventional Wisdom‖ in Corporate Governance and Capital

Flows in a Global Economy.

Bonime-Blanc, Andrea & Mark Brzezinski. 2009. ―Business and the Way of Democracy‖ in New

York Times, Op-Ed Section, December 26 2009.

Burton, Brian K. & Craig P. Dunn. 1996. ―Feminist Ethics as a Moral Grounding for Stakeholder

Theory‖ in Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 2, Pages 133-147.

Cohen, Elaine. 2010. ―The Infinite Possibilities of Online Sustainability Reporting‖ in Green

Economy Post.

Dobers, Peter, ed. 2009. ―Corporate Social Responsibility: Management and Methods‖ in

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Volume 16 Issue 4, Pages 192

– 205.

Du, Shuilli, et al. 2010. ―Maximizing Business Returns to Corporate Social Responsibility

(CSR): The Role of CSR Communication‖ in International Journal of Management Reviews, v

12, Is 1, Pages 8-19.

Duarte, João. 2007. In ―Involving Publics in Global Management of Corporate Communication:

Beyond Symmetry‖ at Lisbon‘s Superior School of Mass Communication and Media Arts.

Published in: Business Research Yearbook: Global Business Perspectives, Volume XIV 2007,

Marjorie G. Adams & Abbass Alkhafaji, editors, Publication of the International Academy of

Business Disciplines.

Eccles, Robert & Michael P. Krzus. 2010. One Report: Integrated Reporting for a Sustainable

Strategy. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.

The Economist. 2010. ―Managing for Sustainability‖.

Eisenhart, Kathleen, ed. 1989. ―Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review‖ in Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 1, pages 57-74.

Ethical Corporation Recordings, 2009.Audio recordings of all presentations and formal Q&A at

―The Global Corporate Responsibility Reporting Summit 2009‖ on June 11-12, 2009, Brussels.

Ewing, Anthony P. 2007. ―Corporate Responsibility.‖ In: Doorley, John and Helio Fred Garcia.

2007. Reputation Management: The Key to Successful Public Relations and Corporate

Communication. Taylor & Francis Group, New York, NY.

52

Ewing, Anthony P. 2009. The future of corporate human rights accountability. Published in the

Logos Institute Blog at http://logosinstitute.net/blog/2009/07/23/the-future-of-corporate-human-

rights-accountability/.

Falconi, Toni Muzi. 2009. ―Draft of Global Stakeholder Relationship Governance.‖

Falconi class notes. 2009. Taken in ―Global Relations and Intercultural Communication‖ in New

York University, Master of Science in Public Relations and Corporate Communication.

Friedman, Milton. 1962. Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Friedman, Milton. 1970. ―The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits.‖ New

York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970, New York, NY.

Freeman, R. Edward. 2008. ―Managing for Stakeholders‖ in Ethical Theory and Business.

Freeman, R. Edward & David L. Reed. 1995. ―Stockholders and Stakeholders: A new perspective

on Corporate Governance‖ in California Management Review.

Freeman, R. Edward. 2010. Email interview.

Garcia, Tonya. 2009. ―Consumer Awareness of CSR programs low, study finds.‖ PR Week, July

12, New York, NY.

Gill, Donna Louise, Sonia Jane Dickinson, & Arno Scharl. 2008. ―Communicating sustainability:

A web content analysis of North American, Asian and European firms.‖ Journal of

Communication Management, Vol. 12 Issue 3, pp. 243-262.

Grunig, James E. 1992. ―A General Theory of Public Relations: A theoretical framework for

practicing the profession.‖

Holmström, Susanne. 2005. ―Co-Evolution of Society and Organization: Reflexitivity,

Contingency, and Reflection‖ for Roskilde University, in Euprera Lisbon.

Hunt, T. and J. Grunig. 1984. Managing Media Relations. Harcourt Brace College Publishers,

Fort Worth, TX.

Hertz, Noreena. 2001. The Silent Takeover. The Free Press, New York, NY.

Institute of Directors of Southern Africa. 2009. ―King Report on Governance Principles (King

III).‖

King, Mervyn. 2010. Phone Interview.

Lan & Heracleous. 2010.

Marcoux, Alexei M. 2003. ―A Fiduciary Argument against Stakeholder Theory‖ in Business

53

Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 13. No. 1, pages 1-24.

Maignan, Isabelle & O. C. Ferrell. 2004. ―Corporate Social Responsibility and Marketing: An

Integrative Framework‖ in Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp, 3-19.

Morsing, Mette, &Majen Schultz. October, 2006. ―Corporate social responsibility

communication: stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies‖ Business Ethics: A

European Review, Vol. 15, No 4.

Noland, James & Robert Phillips. 2010. ―Stakeholder Engagement, Discourse Ethics and

Strategic Management‖ in International Journal of Management Reviews, v 12, Is 1, Pages 39-49.

Post, James, et al. 2002. Redefining the Corporation: Stakeholder Management and

Organizational Wealth, pp. 91.

Sillanpaa, Maria. 1998. ―The Body Shop Values Report — towards Integrated Stakeholder

Auditing‖ in Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17, pages 1443-56.

Smith, Adam. 1759. The Theory of Moral Sentiments, eds. D. D. Raphael and A. L. Macfie.

1982. Liberty Classics, Indianapolis, IA.

Tomasko, Robert. 2010. Phone Interview.

Ucok, Ozum. 2006. ―Transparency, communication, and mindfulness.‖ In Journal of

Management Development, Vol 25, Is 10, Pages 1024-1028.

Werbach, Adam. 2009. The Strategy for Sustainability. Harvard Business Press.

Wheeler, David & Rachel Davies. 2004. ―Gaining Goodwill: Developing Stakeholder

Approaches to Corporate Governance‖ in Journal of General Management, Vol. 30, No. 2, pages

51-74.