a miscellaneous array of recent news
McDonald's is changing its drinks menu to include more bottled drinks, which will allow more variety and more portability. The upside of this for health advocates is that new format can offer more healthy drinks such as juice, and customers may take unfinished amounts with them rather than chugging down a liter of sugary soda. Apparently this new drinks strategy would be a large departure from the restuarant chain's 51-year partnership with Coke. (Financial Times, 6/19/06, p. 18)
One large headline proclaims that a "European poll highlights French gloom on politics" (FT 6/19) - but a different table is more eye-catching: apparently citizens of the U.K., France and Spain consider the U.S. to be a greater "threat to global safety" than Iran, China, North Korea, Russia or Iraq. It would be nice if George Bush read the newspapers; then he might come across polls like this and act differently - or at the very least talk more diplomatically. But I digress. After all, this is a CSR column. This is a good opportunity to mention, however, an interesting business coalition called "Business for Public Diplomacy" which is trying to engage the private sector in changing our American image, not least becaue anti-Americanism hurts sales of American products. This is a remarkably big-picture area for CSR, and I hope they can make it work well. Certainly there are potential pitfalls but that could be the subject of another post.
Last Sunday's New York Times had a great article on green consumption, in particular detailing the many ways that individuals can "offset" the carbon emissions that their lifestyles create. Essentially, you can buy a certification attesting that you've contributed enough money to carbon-offsetting activities (planting trees, cleaner energy technologies, etc) to cancel out your negative impacts. We've come a long way, it seems, in accepting this sort of economics as moral. In my undergrad days, I wrote my senior thesis about tradeable SO2 permits and the U.S. Acid Rain program; back then many environmentalists saw "pollution permits" as morally wrong. I actually think they are a great idea, but am unsure how many people understand that if they are really "worth" a certain amount of carbon offset, they will become more and more expensive as they become more commonly purchased. The first ton of carbon is so cheaper to offset than the last.
Wal-Mart is closing some stores in Germany. It's not a big news story, but maybe it's an early signal that the world is no longer embracing the Wal-Mart way of life? (FT 6/19)
The Financial Times section on "Financial Training" (6/19/06) contains a cover story about the irresponsible amount of debt that young people are accumulating. Now I've seen articles on student loan burdens, and I've seen articles on irresponsible debt, but so far I haven't seen anyone connect the dots and say, "Hey, wait a minute. You can no longer get a good job without a college education. But tuition prices are skyrocketing. It seems our society is essentially requiring young people to take on an unsustainable debt. Maybe we should do this differently?" I'm sure society will solve this right after I've sacrificed just long enough to actually pay off my own debts, maybe 20 years from now. This reminds me of a long-standing wish that there were CSR grants and fellowships. The field seems to be too new, but perhaps better research could be done if those of us with "irresponsible" levels of debt could still engage in CSR research both in the U.S. and overseas?
I also saw a full-page tri-color ad for the FTSE4Good Index, which is encouraging. (FT 6/19)
Finally, Net Impact came out with "rankings" of the top responsible firms, presumably so that its predominately-MBA membership can favor these companies when choosing their career paths. It's a great idea, and I generally applaud efforts to bring complex CSR information to a simple, quick, usable form. Not everyone can be a CSR expert, but for the idea to work we need almost everyone to act according to CSR principles - in their consumption, investment, careers, etc. The list is not as useful as I had hoped though; it's just a compilation of five other lists, organized alphabetically and including scores from each of the 5 lists next to each company. Someone asked me a couple of days ago how companies get selected for these lists, and I jokingly said they do it by getting on other lists. I guess maybe I was only half-joking.
Whew! So much news, so little time. This blog is still evolving, as a product and also as a part of my routine - perhaps next time I can be more focused and more current. But for today, I'm just happy not to be packing the same torn-out newspaper articles back into my backpack again.
One large headline proclaims that a "European poll highlights French gloom on politics" (FT 6/19) - but a different table is more eye-catching: apparently citizens of the U.K., France and Spain consider the U.S. to be a greater "threat to global safety" than Iran, China, North Korea, Russia or Iraq. It would be nice if George Bush read the newspapers; then he might come across polls like this and act differently - or at the very least talk more diplomatically. But I digress. After all, this is a CSR column. This is a good opportunity to mention, however, an interesting business coalition called "Business for Public Diplomacy" which is trying to engage the private sector in changing our American image, not least becaue anti-Americanism hurts sales of American products. This is a remarkably big-picture area for CSR, and I hope they can make it work well. Certainly there are potential pitfalls but that could be the subject of another post.
Last Sunday's New York Times had a great article on green consumption, in particular detailing the many ways that individuals can "offset" the carbon emissions that their lifestyles create. Essentially, you can buy a certification attesting that you've contributed enough money to carbon-offsetting activities (planting trees, cleaner energy technologies, etc) to cancel out your negative impacts. We've come a long way, it seems, in accepting this sort of economics as moral. In my undergrad days, I wrote my senior thesis about tradeable SO2 permits and the U.S. Acid Rain program; back then many environmentalists saw "pollution permits" as morally wrong. I actually think they are a great idea, but am unsure how many people understand that if they are really "worth" a certain amount of carbon offset, they will become more and more expensive as they become more commonly purchased. The first ton of carbon is so cheaper to offset than the last.
Wal-Mart is closing some stores in Germany. It's not a big news story, but maybe it's an early signal that the world is no longer embracing the Wal-Mart way of life? (FT 6/19)
The Financial Times section on "Financial Training" (6/19/06) contains a cover story about the irresponsible amount of debt that young people are accumulating. Now I've seen articles on student loan burdens, and I've seen articles on irresponsible debt, but so far I haven't seen anyone connect the dots and say, "Hey, wait a minute. You can no longer get a good job without a college education. But tuition prices are skyrocketing. It seems our society is essentially requiring young people to take on an unsustainable debt. Maybe we should do this differently?" I'm sure society will solve this right after I've sacrificed just long enough to actually pay off my own debts, maybe 20 years from now. This reminds me of a long-standing wish that there were CSR grants and fellowships. The field seems to be too new, but perhaps better research could be done if those of us with "irresponsible" levels of debt could still engage in CSR research both in the U.S. and overseas?
I also saw a full-page tri-color ad for the FTSE4Good Index, which is encouraging. (FT 6/19)
Finally, Net Impact came out with "rankings" of the top responsible firms, presumably so that its predominately-MBA membership can favor these companies when choosing their career paths. It's a great idea, and I generally applaud efforts to bring complex CSR information to a simple, quick, usable form. Not everyone can be a CSR expert, but for the idea to work we need almost everyone to act according to CSR principles - in their consumption, investment, careers, etc. The list is not as useful as I had hoped though; it's just a compilation of five other lists, organized alphabetically and including scores from each of the 5 lists next to each company. Someone asked me a couple of days ago how companies get selected for these lists, and I jokingly said they do it by getting on other lists. I guess maybe I was only half-joking.
Whew! So much news, so little time. This blog is still evolving, as a product and also as a part of my routine - perhaps next time I can be more focused and more current. But for today, I'm just happy not to be packing the same torn-out newspaper articles back into my backpack again.
posted by Melissa Paschall at 6/27/2006 04:17:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home