Thursday, 30 April 2015

Kperisi Shea Butter Women receive support from evanhealy



Women in Kperisi in the Wa Municipality of the Upper West Region of Ghana have received support from evanhealy and its development partner WACA. The two companies are supporting the women get Fair Trade and Organic Certification for their Shea Butter products.

The initiative is to help provide livelihood support to the women in the form of capacity training in Shea Butter picking, processing, marketing, soap making among others to help improve their standards of living and the quality and marketability of their Shea Butter.
The women numbering about 35 have been assured of an already market in the United States and Canada. In this light, evanhealy and its development partner are working assiduously to ensure that quality Shea Butter is produced for the international market.

Prof. Wayne Dunn, President of WACA in an interaction with the women in Kperisi assured them of his company’s readiness to support them improve their lives by providing them with a constant ready market in the US and Canada and by helping to get their products certified. He said the certification process is quite tedious and expensive but that the two development partners would do all they can to help them.

According to him, the best way to empower people particularly women is to help build their capacity by training them to acquire sustainable livelihoods. He said it was unacceptable for various organizations, whether local or international to continuously write proposals to donor partners for funding in the name of helping poor people in Northern Ghana but which many a time end up in the pockets of individuals. He said the two partners in the near future would extend their support to other women in the region and this he believes will go a long way to help alleviate poverty in many homes.

Evan Healy, founder of evanhealy said, ‘We are pleased to continue our direct support to the women and families that make this wonderful Shea Butter’.
A resource person who is also the Managing Director of Meridian Agricultural Services (MAS), Mr. Aaron Attefa Ampofo took the women through various training models. He appealed to them to send their children to school and not engage them in the collection of shea nuts or other duties that would affect their learning adversely.

Evanhealy is an artisan brand of certified organic skin care. The company was founded in 1999 by Evan Healy and David Gordon and is based in San Diego, California in the United States of America. The brand is sold in 600 natural foods stores in USA and Canada. The company works with family farms, women’s cooperatives and tribal villages as part of their ‘Faces of the Earth’ initiative to bring the plant knowledge of indigenous people to the western world.

Francis Xavier Tuokuu is a Writer, Blogger and Consultant on Corporate Social Responsibility. He is the Executive Director of Centre for Responsible Business-Ghana (centreforresponsiblebusiness.blogspot.com). You can reach him via fxtuokuu@yahoo.com or +233 506425707

Thursday, 23 April 2015

Does CSR only apply to sizable corporates?

By N. Craig Smith, INSEAD Chaired Professor of Ethics and Social Responsibility

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is largely associated with big companies.  They are more high profile and thus attract more media attention and they are particularly concerned to protect and enhance their reputations with the broader public as well as key stakeholders.  They are also often better-resourced and more able to invest in CSR.  However, CSR is important for small and medium-sized enterprises as well (SMEs are organizations of up to 1,000 employees).  Size matters, not so much in whether an SME should engage in CSR but in relation to why and how?  To appreciate the relevance of CSR to SMEs, we need first to examine the meaning of CSR and why companies give attention to it; we can then turn to what CSR means to SMEs given their characteristics and how they differ from large corporates.

There are many definitions of CSR.  Fundamentally, however, CSR refers to the obligations of the firm to society or, more specifically, the firm’s stakeholders—those affected by corporate policies and practices.  The EU’s widely-disseminated definition stresses that CSR is voluntary, goes beyond what the law requires, and is an integral part of the business: it is “a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with stakeholders on a voluntary basis.  It is about enterprises deciding to go beyond the minimum legal requirements and obligations stemming from collective agreements in order to address societal needs.”  This is a recent definition, but it is not a new idea.

Not a New Idea

The idea that business has societal obligations was evident at least as early as the nineteenth century. Visionary business leaders in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution built factory towns in the U.K. and in the United States, such as Port Sunlight near Liverpool (founded by William Lever in 1888 and named after the brand of soap made there) and Pullman on the outskirts of Chicago (founded by railroad car manufacturer George Pullman, also in the 1880s).  These towns provided workers and their families with housing and other amenities when many parts of the newly industrialised cities were slums.  The motivations of these benevolent capitalists were mostly intrinsic, but enlightened self-interest was also often a factor.  Industrial unrest was common in the big cities; the founders of factory towns hoped to reduce labour problems by looking after their workers.

Enlightened self-interest is also a factor when a company such as Swire Beverages Ltd., a Coca-Cola bottler in China, invests in water conservation measures in its bottling plants.  Swire Beverages strives hard to reduce its water use ratio, the ratio of the volume of water consumed in the plant (including water used in cleaning) to the volume of beverage produced.  Swire reports a ratio of 1.75:1, a reduction of 39 percent since 2004, in its 2010/11 sustainability report.  This represents billions of litres of water saved in a country where there is a growing water crisis.  Consistent with the EU definition of CSR, Swire is acting voluntarily beyond what the law requires and on an issue that is at the core of its business.  While addressing its social and environmental obligations, Swire is also mitigating a business risk, both with regard to the availability of a key resource necessary for the production of its product and in terms of its reputation and license to operate.  No doubt Swire’s water conservation strategy is informed by the controversy faced by a Coca-Cola bottler in the Indian state of Kerala, which was closed down for allegedly abusing water resources and contributing to a water shortage.

These examples highlight why companies give attention to CSR.  They [their managers] may well be intrinsically motivated—wishing to do the right thing—but the rise to prominence of CSR of late is driven primarily by a strengthening of the “business case”.  The CSR business case comes in many different forms.  In essence, however, it rests on the recognition that attention to corporate social and environmental responsibilities is generally in the long-term economic interests of the firm.  Managers have a responsibility to consider those affected by company actions; equally, however, those stakeholders are often able to exert pressure on a company if it does not—even to the extent of shutting down the business, as Coca-Cola found in Kerala.  This is particularly true for large companies subject to intense media scrutiny.

CSR is not Philanthropy

There are still today plenty of companies who have yet to move beyond the idea of CSR as philanthropy—in some cases, at their peril, as the Coca-Cola case illustrates.  When companies implement “strategic CSR” they can find there are many benefits, including strengthened corporate and brand reputations and enhanced trust with key stakeholders (customers, employees, regulatory agencies, suppliers, and investors), improved risk management, increased revenues from innovation to identify new business opportunities, and reduced costs from efficiency improvements. 

What does this mean for SMEs?  Very simply, at its roots, the same motivations for attention to CSR apply.  There can be intrinsic motivations and more instrumental, “business case”, motivations.  However, there are some important differences in motivations and in CSR practices, reflective of the characteristics of SMEs.

Firstly, SMEs are generally managed by their owners, who are also often their founders.  This can lead to profound differences in commitment to corporate purpose.  Few successful entrepreneurs start businesses solely with the intent of making money.  This was true of William Lever when he founded the business that became Unilever—selling soap saved lives.  Today’s founders of start-ups also often have some societal need in mind.  This close involvement of owners and founders in SMEs means that commitment to purpose is much easier to engender than in a large, publicly-held corporation.  Indeed, they may not call it CSR (and William Lever didn’t when he built Port Sunlight), but SMEs for this reason can be more socially responsible than their much larger counterparts.

Secondly, with SMEs, it is more personal.  Personal relationships are often key to their success.  Internally, employees are likely to all know each other and be well-known to management.  While it is not unknown for large companies to refer to employees as “family”, this term is more evident and arguably more authentic when used in the SME context.  This may well mean that their employees are treated better than those in larger companies.

Personal relationships also figure externally, with SMEs often deeply involved in their local communities.  They may contribute substantially in terms of providing employment and they may also rely heavily on business relationships with customers and suppliers and others based in the local community.  Again, for this reason, SMEs can prove to be more socially responsible than big corporates.  In one extreme and ultimately ill-fated example, Aaron Feuerstein, the CEO of Malden Mills in Massachusetts, continued paying the salaries of his workers while the factory was being rebuilt after a fire.  While ill-fated because the company ended up in bankruptcy, the story reveals a depth of commitment not only to employees but also to the local community.  More typically, given their embeddedness, SMEs can be expected to invest in the local community to a much greater extent proportionately than larger companies, with contributions ranging from protecting jobs, to skills development, to infrastructure improvement.

Thirdly, SMEs are likely to be less well-resourced than big companies.  One beneficial consequence might be that while they give attention to the substance of CSR, they are less likely to focus on the trappings, such as CSR communications.  More generally, however, it is likely to mean that less funds are available to invest in initiatives that might be socially or environmentally beneficial, especially if the economic pay-off is less obvious or longer term.  As important, there are fewer people to give time to CSR, especially where, in some cases, companies are operating hand-to-mouth.  Yet finding the people and the time may be critical.  For example, SMEs increasingly find that they are part of a value chain where a large company downstream (for example, a major brand or a retailer) is demanding attention by suppliers to sustainability metrics and performance.

The Case for CSR in SMEs

Some of the business case considerations for CSR may carry less weight with SMEs, at least in terms of their own operations.  For example, while reputation is important for any business, there are typically greater reputational risks for large companies.  Similarly, license to operate, in the broad sense of corporate legitimacy, is also more of a concern for a larger corporate than an SME.  Consider the recent Rana Plaza tragedy in Bangladesh, where over 1,100 workers died in the collapsed factory building.  What keeps the CEO of a large branded apparel company awake is the possibility of the brand being exposed as having sourced from a factory with unsafe labour conditions—with its labels found amongst the ruins of the factory (as happened to many major brands in this instance).  The reputational pressures are less for an SME.  However, pressures on the larger corporates will inevitably translate into pressures on their suppliers, including SMEs.

SMEs might also be less able to bring to scale the efficiency gains that can come from attention to CSR or exploit the business opportunities that might come through innovation in the form of new, more sustainable products.  However, these business case considerations for CSR remain present.  Indeed, new start-ups are being established right now exploiting green-tech opportunities.  In sum, while size matters, not least in what gets done, SMEs have many of the same reasons for engaging in CSR that large companies have, both in avoiding downside risk and in exploiting upside opportunities.  In many cases, they may also be more intrinsically, if not better motivated, to give CSR attention.

Thursday, 2 April 2015

Who? Me? Responsible for CSR?

By Prof. Wayne Dunn

Shared value requires shared responsibility: whose responsibility is corporate social responsibility? Watching some of the discussion on corporate social responsibility it sometimes seems like governments, communities, NGOs and everyone else expects to sit back and have somebody (aka business) deliver CSR to them on a silver platter. WRONG!! Corporate Social Responsibility is not something a company does to or for communities, governments or others.

To be successful and sustainable it takes a shared and collective responsibility with all stakeholders.How could it be any other way? Yet, far too often we see major stakeholders, governments, communities,NGOs and others, placing all the responsibility on companies, almost as if they expected them to play the role of Government (or SantaClaus).

Sometimes too, we see companies sitting back and trying to leave the responsibility to other stakeholders, including often other companies or industries. Neither approach will work very well.Those communities and organizations that are pro-active in organizing and planning CSR activities and sharing in the responsibility with companies, will find that they simply get more value at the end of the day. And, they will gain more capacity as well, and more ownership over their destiny.

Those companies that take the lead AND have projects where ALL stakeholders take appropriate responsibility will find that more value is created for stakeholders and shareholders. If CSR is about aligning interests so that more benefits can flow to more stakeholders (including shareholders) how does it make sense that all responsibility should be on the company or other partner to organize and do.Surely Shared Responsibility is where everyone should be trying to get to.

Let’s assume that through a collaborative consultation process amining company and local community identified that improvements in education and health were priorities.What is the role and responsibility of the community and local organizations? What is the role and responsibility of local government? What is the role and responsibility of the Sector Ministries (Education & Health)? What is the role and responsibility of the company? What is the role and responsibility of NGOs and other development actors with an interest in education and healthcare?

Think about what the roles and responsibilities should be. Then think about how the project would normally play out. This way works: In successful examples the various stakeholders will all play a proactive part in the overall project, exhibiting leadership, collaboration and initiative as required. The project is truly made up of partners, working together and through their collaboration and collective responsibility helping to achieve results that none of them could achieve on their own.

This way, not so much: In other cases one partner (often business, but not always) is looked at to lead and take the bulk of the responsibility. Other stakeholders sit back and expect benefits to come to them. Regardless of which partner, or partners are left with the bulk of the responsibility, the project won’t succeed nearly as well as if there was a collective sharing of responsibility.

Do your CSR projects sometimes end up looking like this? Ironically, in projects where the bulk of the responsibility is left to one or two partners, they are the ones that get blamed if things don’t work perfectly.Is it any wonder that some get frustrated and, if they keep going, end up frustrated and cynical. Who? Me? Responsible for CSR?

Ironically, in projects where the bulk of the responsibility is left to one or two partners, they are the ones that get blamed if things don’t work perfectly. Is it any wonder that some get frustrated and, if they keep going, end up frustrated and cynical. So, Whose Responsibility is Corporate Social Responsibility?

Look at any CSR projects that you are involved in. Is there a collective responsibility? If not, why not? And, what will you do to change that and facilitate collective responsibility.Blaming the partners who have been carrying the responsibility probably isn’t the most productive response. Training and encouraging all partners to accept a fair share of responsibility is a far better way to go.

CSR can be an effective mechanism for creating value for society and shareholders. But, it doesn't work well for anyone if responsibility and ‘ownership’ is not shared amongst all stakeholders.
Copyright © 2014 CENTRE FOR RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS-GHANA