Daniel Baylis2013-05-23T16:38:16-04:00Daniel Baylishttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=daniel-baylisCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Daniel BaylisGood old fashioned elbow grease.Which Is the Best Airline in Canada?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19746552012-10-18T12:18:22-04:002012-12-18T05:12:02-05:00Daniel Baylishttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-baylis/fisticuffs over their contradictory alliances. True story.
But, incidentally, I'm not talking about hockey here folks.
I'm talking about the airline carriers across our fair northern nation. Each citizen of Canada (with the means to fly) has a preferred carrier, and they're not shy to tell you about it. In Canada, there are three airlines occupying the bulk of the domestic market: Air Canada, WestJet and Porter.
Each carrier has its unique history, and vision of where it would like to go in the future. Air Canada is the nation's largest airline by the numbers, and holds the lengthiest lineage. Although it was privatized in 1988, the airline is still considered Canada's flag carrier (a special designation granted by the state for preferential rights or privileges).
Founded in 1996, WestJet is Canada's second largest airline. The low-cost public carrier is a rarity in the industry as it is non-unionized, instead employees are given ownership and voting rights. It has received numerous awards for customer service and corporate culture. To round out the list, the quickly expanding Porter Airlines is nipping at the heels of its larger corporate brothers, with 19 current destinations in eastern Canada (and little doubt that the airline is considering expansion in the west). Each of the airlines has proved itself as a viable brand in one form or another.
When it comes to hockey, we've got playoffs to determine who's the best in the league. But when it comes to airlines, it's not so cut-and-dried. So how do we know which airline is better? How do we pick one from the other? Is it just about flight paths and ticket prices? Or should these companies be held to a higher set of standards and values? The answer shouldn't be about which has cozier seats, better in-flight movies, or tastier $10 bags of chips. In fact, it's not even about who's best anymore.
It's about who is doing the most good.
The airline carriers in Canada are missing a major opportunity here: to put social and environmental cause at the core of their businesses plans, and subsequently win the hearts of the nation. Yet none of the major airlines in Canada have claimed the title of "The airline for the people and planet."
Here's a quick rundown of attempts by the top three airlines to be good corporate citizens:
TEXT CONTINUES BELOW BLOG
Air Canada has its own foundation "to help connect sick children to the medical care they need, alleviate child poverty, and make the wishes of ill kids come true." The airline is also involved in disaster relief. During the six weeks following the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, for example, Air Canada delivered 183,650 kilograms of relief supplies. In terms of environmental initiatives, Air Canada is part of the Carbon Disclosure Project. And according to the airline's website, it aims for a 25% reduction of emissions by 2020.
Report card notes: Not bad, Air Canada. But not awesome. And why the heck don't any of us know about the good things you are trying to do? I bet nine out of 10 Canadians don't know that the Air Canada Foundation even exists.
Westjet is also actively involved in children's charities, as well as having an elaborate commitment to the environmental. The WestJet Cares For Kids program was launched in 2007 to support six national charities that address children's health and wellness issues. On its website, the airline states explicitly, "We are committed to making our planet a better place to live." It has spent over $2 billion on a fleet of Boeing Next-Generation 737-series aircraft. As a result, it supposedly features one of the youngest and most fuel-efficient fleets in North America. As an airline, its goal is to achieve a 45 per cent improvement in fuel efficiency by 2020.
Report card notes: Respect to you, Westjet. But still room for improvement, keep going. Your "Cares For Kids" program could use some attention.
Porter has no official communication of a brand commitment to social betterment or environmental sustainability on its website. However, I did reach out to the media team who responded with a statement regarding social commitment in three categories: Operations, Aircraft and Industry. Porter's unique positioning on Toronto Island reduces the emissions of long commutes to distant, suburban terminals. Plus they donate hundreds of thousands of dollars in travel support to worthy causes each year.
Report card notes: You're cute. But you have a lot of work to do, Porter.
[A side-note to note to all the carriers: Pushing the needle in terms of social and environmental good has to go beyond fuel-efficient planes. "Green planes" are wonderful, but are also bought to simply save money on fuel.]
Critics would argue that it would be foolish to take such a moral positioning of environmental piousness, especially in an industry known for pollution. Yet it's not foolish -- it's entirely possible to be sustainable. Take one of Canada's regional carriers as an example. Through a partnership with Offsetters (a Canadian provider of carbon-management solutions), Harbor Air has been a Carbon Neutral Company for nearly five years, and has bragging rights as the first airline in North America to attain such environmental excellence. This very achievement negates the claim that air travel automatically equates environmental disaster. If I were an executive at any of Canada's big three airlines, I'd be taking some frantic notes.
The winner of the race to win the title of "The Best Airline Carrier in Canada" will successfully be able to facilitate and communicate a vital shift. And the shift will look like this:
From: "We bring people together."
To: "We bring people together, and make the world better."
It's a minor modification in brand mission that could have major implications across the industry. Yet, which of Canada's big three airlines will be brave enough to step up and position themselves in this light? Time will tell. But it will take bravery. It's a scary positioning because it requires a real commitment. But guess what? Real commitment is what the future is demanding.
The first major airline in Canada to actually make a commitment to betterment will inarguably be the best airline in Canada. They will be awarded the Stanley Cup of air carriers.
Now, which one of you has got the gumption to make it happen?]]>Apple, Have a Heart -- It's Time to Give Backtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18787282012-09-13T16:39:53-04:002012-11-13T05:12:01-05:00Daniel Baylishttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-baylis/
Wait -- what are we rejoicing again?
When we stop to think about how deeply Apple has penetrated our lives, one can't help but be mesmerized. In a culture where we really don't necessarily want to be caught sporting the same products as everyone else -- designer blue jeans, new cars, fresh haircuts -- there seems to be an overwhelming monopoly in our communication devices. Whether individually we like it or not, the iPhone reigns triumphant.
And Apple doesn't simply own the mobile telephone market; they also dominate the corporate world. According to recent financial reports, Apple, with a net value of more than $622-billion, has become the most expensive public company of all time. In colloquial terms, Apple is filthy rich. The story of the brand is certainly one of complexity and intricacy, and has included periods of instability and downright product embarrassment. Yet at this moment, more so than at any point in their history, Apple is at the top of the world.
Is that what we're rejoicing?
Indeed, Apple has successfully wedged themselves into the palms (and wallets) of millions of people. But where do they exist in the hearts of the consumers of technology? Apart from the crazy gaggle of people who are willing to line up for their new gizmos, who really "loves" Apple? And what does Apple, as a brand, actually stand for? Commitment to social change? Pledge to environmental sustainability? Commitment to labour ethics at levels of their production line? Yes, Apple is rich. And being rich is cool. But money can't buy you love.
Apple desperately needs some love in its brand trust and identity. Steve Jobs got rid of the love -- also known as philanthropic service -- in 1997, arguing that doing good equals being good. And apart from a meager Employee Matching program instated last year and a bit of product discount to educational institutions, we have yet to see any real commitment to any type of cause or philanthropic engagement. This refusal to be involved in greater social and ecological environments echoes the detached sentiments of American economist Milton Friedman, "The social responsibility of Business is to increase its profits." In other words, businesses should just make a crap load of money and shut up. But Friedman was a product of 1970s corporate America. And this is 2012.
Times have changed.
Apple supporters will defend the brand. They'll state that the bulk of its contributions to society may reside in the quality and innovation of the products. Apple is simply making the world better through great design. Yet whenever I am presented with this jargon on "innovative contribution" to society, all I hear is the teacher's voice from Charlie Brown. Whaa-whaa-whaa.
I don't want to hear any more excuses -- it's time to place cause at the core of business.
Other leading tech-centred brands are turning profits and making tangible commitments to the greater world. For instance, Google not only has started an entire philanthropic foundation, but has also taken a stance on marriage equity. General Electric has a created an entire institute (ecomagination) to build innovative solutions to today's environmental challenges.
Apple's contemporaries seem to simply care more. But do you know who else cares? Consumers. According to a recent study, 86 per cent of consumers want companies to place at least equal emphasis on their social interests as on their business interests. Love (and brand loyalty) is earned through caring.
There are two hypotheses around Apple's reticent approach to addressing social issues: 1) They actually are making silent donations and are far too humble to boast about public philanthropy, or 2) They do not see a tangible business advantage in addressing real social issues (N.B. pretty electronic devices don't count). I have a hunch that hypothesis number two is the winner. And it's a shame. Because the competitors are nipping at their heals, and only so many law suits will be able to keep them at bay. Having a bit more heart would win Apple much more public favour.
Apple has become the richest kid on the block. That's fine. You guys are rich and you are pretty. And there will remain a gaggle of folks who continue to worship at the altar of Apple. But to what exactly are they worshiping?
Apple, where's your soul?]]>Est-ce que Starbucks peut sauver les États-Unis?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16928792012-07-22T10:13:24-04:002012-09-21T05:12:13-04:00Daniel Baylishttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-baylis/l'indice de chômage américain se situait à 8,1 pourcent et est désormais à son paroxysme comparativement aux 50 dernières années. Les temps sont durs chez nos voisins du Sud.
C'est ici que Starbucks entre en scène. Le géant du café est reconnu comme étant le leader mondial des lattes, le roi de la caféine. Ils sont la chaîne de détaillants de café la plus populaire au monde et les consommateurs ne semblent pas se lasser de la fameuse « Expérience Starbucks » - marque déposée. Cependant, la compagnie de café a décidé d'ajouter une nouveauté peu orthodoxe à son menu. Désormais, non seulement offre-t-elle ses célèbres Frappuccinos Orange Mocha, voici maintenant qu'elle offre - roulement de tambour - du financement pour la création d'emploi chez les petites entreprises.
Dans le marché américain, Starbucks se positionne maintenant comme un leader dans la lutte contre le chômage. L'entreprise a mis en œuvre un projet monstre intitulé la campagne « Indivisible » qui vise à amasser des fonds via les ventes de café et de bracelets afin d'attribuer des bourses aux petites entreprises de communautés américaines en difficulté. L'idée est d'injecter l'argent dans le secteur à la base de l'économie (les PME locales) pour permettre aux communautés de se redresser par elles-mêmes.
Le géant du café prend apparemment cette initiative très au sérieux puisqu'il utilise une partie très importante de son budget annuel de publicité afin de supporter cette cause. La compagnie a fait paraître des pleines pages dans le New York Times et le Wall Street Journal mentionnant en lettres majuscules : CE PAYS A BESOIN DE JOBS. C'est un positionnement très audacieux, peu importe le type d'entreprise.
Derrière ce mouvement vers l'emploi se trouve celui que le magazine Fortune a consacré « Homme d'Affaires de l'année » en 2011 : Howard Schultz, visionnaire et Chef de la Direction chez Starbucks. Schultz, dont la valeur nette se situe aux alentours d'1,5 milliard de dollars US, s'est donné comme mission d'utiliser le pouvoir incommensurable de Starbucks et de l'employer à créer un impact positif sur la vie de ses concitoyens. Plus tôt ce mois-ci, il a soumis une lettre ouverte sur le site officiel de Starbucks. Il s'agissait d'un appel à l'action en ces temps d'incertitude, où une décision électorale sculptera inévitablement l'avenir à court terme de la nation américaine :
« Les Américains doivent gagner ces élections plus que n'importe quel parti. C'est le temps de s'unir en tant qu'Américains. C'est le temps pour nous, qu'importe nos différences, de joindre nos efforts et de réussir en tant que nation - Indivisible. »
J'applaudis la campagne « Indivisible » de Starbucks pour son intention de remédier à un problème social.
Ils explorent le futur des affaires, un futur où toutes les compagnies couronnées de succès auront une cause sociale ou environnementale au cœur de leur architecture de marque. C'est définitivement un pas dans la bonne direction. Mais le plus important est de continuer d'avancer dans cette direction. Un simple pas est insuffisant.
Starbucks a du pain sur la planche. En date d'aujourd'hui, le mouvement a créé 3,800 emplois, selon le site "Create Jobs for USA". C'est un exploit en soi, considérant que c'est suffisant pour garder une petite ville américaine à flots en cette période d'ennuis économiques. Toutefois, depuis 2008, près de 25 000 emplois ont été abolis chez ce même Starbucks. Ce qui amène inévitablement à se demander si c'est une véritable solution ou simplement une stratégie de marketing bien polie qui engendre l'adoration du public tout en encourageant le « slacktivisme » du consommateur? Mais avant de chasser le bébé avec l'eau du bain, gardons en tête qu'au lieu de simplement ouvrir des postes de caissiers ou d'autres chaînes, ce qui aurait profité l'entreprise directement, Starbucks a décidé de voir plus grand et de distribuer son argent à d'autres entreprises, non la sienne. N'est-ce pas là la définition de la philanthropie?
Peu importe la motivation derrière cette initiative car ce qui en ressort est que les grandes compagnies ont un immense pouvoir et ont les outils pour lutter contre les grandes disparités sociales de notre époque. Et si, pour les cinquante prochaines années, la lutte contre le chômage était l'une des causes que Starbucks défendait fermement? Si tous les accros du café savaient, sans l'ombre d'un doute, que chaque achat de lattes qu'ils font contribue à remettre une nation sur pied? Ce serait la plus grande victoire corporative à laquelle une marque puisse aspirer.
Mais d'ici là, la question se pose : Est-ce que Starbucks peut sauver les États-Unis?]]>Will Starbucks Save America?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16828782012-07-18T17:55:36-04:002012-09-17T05:12:07-04:00Daniel Baylishttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-baylis/American unemployment rate was 8.1 percent, and it's currently on the highest arc of the past 50 years. Times are tough in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Enter Starbucks. The coffee giant is known worldwide as the leader of lattes, the king of caffeine. They are the most popular coffee retail chain in the world, and customers don't seem to be growing tired of the patented 'Starbucks experience' any time soon. But the coffee company has decided to contribute something new on their menu board. Not only are they offering up their classic Orange Mocha Frappuccinos, now they are pushing -- wait for it -- jobs.
In the American market, Starbucks is currently positioning itself as a leader in the fight against unemployment. They have launched a massive project called the 'Indivisible' campaign where they are raising money through coffee and wristband sales to provide grants for small businesses in underserved American communities. The idea is to insert money at a grassroots level, to let the people rebuild.
And Starbucks is apparently quite serious about its new endeavor, using significant corporate advertising dollars to support their cause. The company has ran full-page ads in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, stating in capital letters: THIS COUNTRY NEEDS JOBS. It's a bold positioning statement for any business.
At the helm of this employment movement is business tycoon and Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, a man that Fortune Magazine named 'Business Leader of the Year' for 2011. Schultz, whose net worth is approximately $1.5 billion USD, is making it his personal mission to use Starbuck's mammoth scale for doing good. Earlier this month he issued an open letter to America on the Starbucks website. It was a call to action in a time of uncertainty, and a year where an electoral decision will undoubtedly shape the course of the near future:
"America needs to win the election more than either party does. It is time now to join together as Americans. It is time, whatever our differences, for us to strive and succeed as one nation -- indivisible."
I applaud the Starbucks Indivisible campaign for its intention to address a social issue. They are exploring the future of business, one where all successful companies will have a social or environmental cause at the core of their brand architecture. This is a step in the right direction. But the most important thing is to keep moving in that direction. A single step is not enough.
Starbucks has work to do. According to the Create Jobs for USA website, to date the movement has created 3,800 jobs. That's enough to keep a small American city afloat in a time of economic woes -- not something to scoff at. Earlier this year, The Seattle Times reported that Starbucks currently employed 149,000 people, yet the height of its employment figure was 176,000 in 2008. I'm not a math wizard, but it seems that we might still be short a couple of jobs. Which makes me wonder if this is a real solution? Or is it simply a slick marketing strategy to grab public adoration while encouraging consumer slactivism?
Big business has immense power in the ability to address the greatest social disparities of our time. What if, for the next fifty years, the battle against unemployment was the one issue that Starbucks steadfastly stood for? What if all of us coffee addicts knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that with each latte purchased, we weren't just lining the pockets of a business tycoon, but were also helping to heal a nation? That would be the biggest brand victory for any multinational corporation.
Until then, the question remains: will Starbucks save America?]]>Miser sur les valeurs et non la valeur!tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16772642012-07-16T14:32:27-04:002012-09-15T05:12:02-04:00Daniel Baylishttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-baylis/
Le concept d'une entreprise intégrant une cause au cœur de son modèle d'affaires n'est pas très compliqué (et déjà existant). S'approprier une cause revient à adopter une série de valeurs et d'actions qui seront intégrées directement au cœur de l'ADN d'une marque. C'est aussi un positionnement concurrentiel.
Cependant, avant de vous donner des exemples concrets de partenariats réussis entre capitalisme et cause, il est primordial de comprendre ce qu'est une vraie association avec une cause. Mais surtout, ce qu'elle n'est pas! Intégrer une cause n'est PAS du « marketing de cause ». Ces efforts biaisés qui ont débuté dans les années 70 ne sont que des actions temporaires dans l'optique de s'accaparer l'opinion publique de façon positive en jumelant une corporation avec une organisation à but non lucratif. Certes, le «marketing de cause» a su aider à financer les importants travaux de nombreux organismes non gouvernementaux (ONG), mais ces actions sont trop ponctuelles pour être considérées comme durables. De plus, intégrer une cause n'est pas de la RSE (responsabilité sociale des entreprises). Quand une cause est réellement intégrée au cœur d'une entreprise, l'idée d'y dédier un « département RSE » est simplement ridicule. La cause choisie doit être tissée serrée et collée au cœur de l'entreprise.
Warby Parker est un exemple parfait d'une compagnie intégrant une cause à son modèle d'affaires. L'entreprise new-yorkaise de lunettes adhère au modèle « achetez une paire, donnez une paire ». Cette approche a facilité l'accès à des produits de vision à des milliers d'individus défavorisés. Mais ils vont plus loin que de simplement parachuter des lunettes pour hipsters dans les régions rurales de l'Inde. Constatant que la charité pouvait mener à une culture de dépendance, l'entreprise décida de supporter des ONG ayant un impact concret, tel que VisionSpring qui forme des femmes provenant de ménages à faibles revenus à vendre des lunettes abordables dans leurs communautés. L'intention n'est pas simplement d'aider, mais de bâtir des économies locales. En passant, ils sont aussi l'une des seules compagnies de lunettes ayant une empreinte de carbone complètement neutre dans le monde.
Neil Blumenthal, co-fondateur de Warby Parker, explique: « Il ne s'agit plus de simplement augmenter les profits, il s'agit de trouver des solutions concrètes pour résoudre des problèmes ». Cette double implication de profit et cause est le futur des entreprises couronnées de succès.
Dans la catégorie des produits domestiques et d'hygiène personnelle, Seventh Generation se démarque grâce à sa vision. Fondée en 1988, l'entreprise du Vermont est en train d'établir le standard des produits nettoyants respectueux à tous égards. Depuis six ans, Seventh Generation est membre de la «Whole Planet Foundation», dont la mission est d'alléger la pauvreté par des microcrédits dans les communautés en développement. L'entreprise prospère depuis près de vingt-cinq ans, et ce, en étant une «bonne entreprise».
Il y a des milliers d'entreprises à travers l'Amérique du Nord qui ont une politique axée sur «le bien-faire» inhérente à l'ADN de leur marque. La plupart de ces entreprises ont été approuvées par B Lab, une tierce partie certifiant les organisations se conformant à un seuil de responsabilité sociale. La procédure pour être qualifié de «B Corporation» est similaire au processus qu'emploie Fair Trade USA pour catégoriser le café produit équitablement ou encore l'USGBC dans la certification d'installations LEED.
Pour être éligible, une entreprise doit rencontrer de rigoureux standards de performance environnementale et sociale, ainsi qu'une variété de barèmes prônant une responsabilisation accrue. L'une des raisons pour laquelle je me sens interpellé à vanter le B Lab et ses «B Corporations» est qu'ils ont réussi à synthétiser le futur du commerce dans leur «Déclaration d'Interdépendance»: «Nous présageons un nouveau secteur de l'économie qui catalyse le pouvoir des entreprises privées à créer un bénéfice public.»
Allez demander a quiconque ayant un brin de conscience et vous verrez que le commun des mortels souhaite un monde plus propre et plus équitable. Suite à la montée des médias sociaux, le consommateur est de plus en plus informé et conscient des implications de ses achats. Nous n'achetons plus que pour la valeur, nous achetons selon NOS valeurs. Il s'agit d'un changement culturel majeur.
Je vois le jour où les Coca-Cola, Nike et Apple de ce monde iront au-delà des fondations corporatives traditionnelles, des départements isolés de RSE et pencheront vers une intégration profonde d'une cause à leurs actions. Un jour où Nike passera de "just doing it" à "being it". Parce qu'une chose est certaine, les entreprises phares de demain seront celles qui répondront aux plus importantes demandes du consommateur d'aujourd'hui; en réajustant leurs actions afin de capitaliser sur cette transition vers les «bonnes actions».
Vous avez bien lu: capitaliser.
Quand le capitalisme assumera un rôle de leader dans la défense de causes, des changements majeurs au plan environnemental et social prendront place. Rendu là, personne n'a besoin d'une boule de cristal pour prédire que l'intégration d'une cause sera le destin des entreprises prospères de demain.
C'est comprendre que de faire de bonnes actions est bon pour les affaires.]]>The Future of Business is a Mix of Capitalism and Loving Thy Neighbourtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16540982012-07-06T15:31:54-04:002012-09-05T05:12:07-04:00Daniel Baylishttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-baylis/
It looks like this: In the coming years, the most successful businesses will have cause at their core.
"Woah. Stop the press," you are probably thinking, "What does that even mean?"
Cause at the core of business is not a complicated notion. In fact, it's already happening. Having "cause" is a set of guiding values and actions that are embedded into brand architecture. Cause is a way of engaging in the marketplace with the recognition that the surrounding social and ecological landscapes deeply affect business. Cause is standing up for something. Cause is the enemy of greed, but the brother of profit.
Before you dismiss this article as hippie propaganda, hear me out. In my last post, I argued that capitalism could save the world. And I stand firmly by that statement. But many readers were left with the question of how, exactly, capitalism would save the world. Fair enough.
But before I give you some concrete examples capitalism and cause as successful waltz partners, it's important to recognize what true "cause" is not. Placing cause at the core of business is notcause marketing. This gimmicky endeavor that started in 1970s was a quick-grab for positive public opinion by partnering a for-profit corporation with a non-profit organization. And although cause marketing has certainly helped finance the important work of numerous NGOs, it's too one-offish to be deemed truly sustainable. Cause is also not CSR (corporate social responsibility). When cause is truly at the core of business, the idea of ghettoizing "good" to some "CSR department" is just downright outlandish. True cause is deeply woven into the very core of business.
And when cause is at the core of business, two important things happen: Business grows, and the great social and ecological setting improves.
But let's look at some case studies.
Warby Parker is a perfect example of a business that has cause at the core. The NYC-based eyewear company has a "buy a pair, give a pair" model that has enabled thousands of individuals to access low-cost eye treatment and corrective lenses. But they go further than simply airdropping hipster reading-glasses into rural regions of India. In recognizing that "charity" can lead to a culture of dependence, they support NGOs (such as VisionSpring) that train low-income women to sell affordable glasses in their communities. The intention is not simply to aid, but to build local economies. Oh yeah, and they are one of the only carbon-neutral eyewear brands in the world.
Co-founder of Warby Parker, Neil Blumenthal, states that, "It's not just about increasing profits, it's about how we can be active problem solvers." And in this case, the company is making fashionable eyewear, but also addressing barriers to affordable glasses in a developing nation.
This double implication of profit and cause is the future of all successful businesses.
When it comes to household and personal care goods, Seventh Generation is a company that has built cause into its very framework. Founded in 1988, the Vermont-born business is setting the new standard of respectful cleaning products. For the past six years, Seventh Generation has been a member of Whole Planet Foundation, whose mission is poverty alleviation through microcredit in developing communities. Seventh Generation has been making money while doing good for nearly twenty-five years.
Companies with "cause at the core" are not as rare as you might think. There are thousands of enterprises across North America who have "doing good" woven into their business models. Many of these businesses have been certified by a third-party monitoring organization called B Lab. The certification procedure to qualify as a "B Corporation" is a similar process to the way Fair Trade USA certifies equitably produced coffee, or USGBC certifies LEED buildings.
To qualify, each business must meet rigorous standards of social and environmental performance, as well as meeting a variety of standards for higher accountability. One of the reasons I feel compelled to sing the praises of B Corporations is because they've succinctly summarized the future of commerce in their "Declaration of Interdependence": "We envision a new sector of the economy which harnesses the power of private enterprise to create public benefit."
The companies who have qualified as B Corporations are using the power of business to address social and environmental challenges. They have put cause at the core.
And to their declaration, I offer up a verbose response: "Praise!"
Ask anyone with a shred of a conscience, and they'll tell you that they want a cleaner and more equitable world. With the rise of social media, consumers are becoming increasingly more intelligent and aware of the implications of their purchases. We are shopping not only for value, but with values. That's a major culture shift.
In the future, I see a day when the Coca-Colas, the Nikes and the Apples of the world will think beyond the traditional corporate foundations, the ghettoized CSR departments and the star-studded annual gala to truly embedding cause at the core of everything they do and who they are. A day when Nike will go from "just doing it" to also "being it." Because one thing is for sure, the brightest organizations of the future will respond to today's most important consumer demands by readjusting their values and actions to capitalize on the sea change towards doing good.
That's right, "capitalize." Because when cause is at the core of capitalism, major environmental and social shifts will begin to take place. And nobody needs a crystal ball to predict what the future of business success will look like: "cause at the core."
It's doing good, because it's good for business.]]>Le capitalisme peut sauver le mondetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16270242012-06-26T09:05:41-04:002012-08-26T05:12:05-04:00Daniel Baylishttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-baylis/
Je ne me sentais pas interpellé à contredire cette affirmation, elle sonnait relativement vraie. Mais elle est aussi un peu fade, limitée. C'est comme si on s'exclamait: « Lady Gaga écrit des chansons grossières !»
Ma réaction serait un retentissant « Duh ».
Certes, le capitalisme est souvent la proie de critiques acerbes, mais si je vous disais qu'il a le pouvoir de sauver le monde? Oui : Sauver le monde. Rien de moins.
Je m'explique.
Puisque je partage le même dédain pour l'avidité corporative que les protestants du mouvement Occupy, je les ai observés, avec intérêt et stupéfaction, s'unir et affronter « le 1% ». La quantité de gens s'organisant entre eux aux quatre coins de la planète était plus qu'impressionnante. Les troupes se rassemblaient. Ceci devait signifier le commencement de la fin pour notre système économique débalancé, non?
Près d'un an après le déclenchement du mouvement Occupy, c'est le statu quo. La routine, quoi.
Cependant, les gens sont encore polarisés. Dans le coin Gauche on retrouve les anarchistes furieux et amers, vouant sueur et sang à dérailler le système. Dans le coin Droit, les dinosaures à cravates se nourrissant de profits, trimballant leurs reluisantes mallettes en cuir et mordillant leurs cigares bien fumants du coin de leurs bouches avares. En toute franchise, je suis perturbé par les deux extrêmes.
Puis il y a nous. Ceux au milieu. Ceux qui sont las des histoires d'égoïsme capitaliste et du je-m'en-foutisme environnemental. Ceux qui savent que de marcher sur Wall Street avec des pancartes effrontées nous mènera peut-être à faire les manchettes du télé journal de 18h, mais que brandir ces affiches peu convaincantes au seuil du siège social d'une multinationale n'engendrera que trop peu de changements systémiques. Mais quelque soit notre camp, nous savons qu'il est temps de cesser de traîner l'autre dans la boue, de cesser de le pointer du doigt.
C'est donc ici que je partage mon idée potentiellement impopulaire : La situation fâcheuse dans laquelle nous nous trouvons actuellement, autant sur le plan environnemental que social,n'est pas la faute du capitalisme. En effet - attachez bien votre tuque - elle pourrait bien être résolue PAR le capitalisme.
Il y a quelque chose que nous n'avons pas bien saisi! Le capitalisme est simplement un modèle économique qui n'a pas de valeur morale (bonne ou mauvaise) intrinsèquement liée à sa structure. Ça reviendrait à condamner l'Internet, sous prétexte qu'il est vil, parce qu'il contient des photos dérangeantes de porno sado-maso ou des vidéos de gens tuant des chats. Oui, certains de ses éléments sont troublants et remplis de faiblesses, d'autres manquent carrément de moralité. Mais l'abandonner pour autant serait ignare.
(Si vous tenez à trouver un bouc émissaire, je suggère plutôt l'avidité, le débalancement économique ou les partis politiques qui encouragent cette gloutonnerie corporative).
Nous avons un système économique qui emprunte des éléments au capitalisme et au socialisme. Il est boiteux, mais à plusieurs égards, il fonctionne. Il est impératif d'utiliser les systèmes sociaux, économiques et politiques que nous avons déjà mis en place afin de faciliter une transition vers une société plus équitable et un futur basé sur la durabilité environnementale. En fait, si nous désirons un impact global immédiat, il n'y a pas d'autres alternatives.
Ultimement, malgré ma réaction antipathique initiale, je suis en total accord avec la proclamation : « LE CAPITALISME NE MARCHE PAS! ».
Est-ce que cela signifie que nous devrions l'abandonner? Non. Nous devrions trouver des moyens non seulement de le faire fonctionner, mais aussi de le faire contribuer à l'absolution de ce monde.
Et je m'adresse directement à vous, Multinationales.
Le capitalisme a le potentiel de devenir la plus grande catapulte sociale que le monde n'aura jamais connue. Nous devons redéfinir notre façon de penser et celle de nos entreprises afin de comprendre que de poser de « bonnes » actions est réellement avantageux pour la durabilité et la profitabilité à long terme. Les marques à succès de demain ne jetteront pas uniquement leur dévolu sur leurs produits, prix et profits, mais réaliseront qu'autant d'attention doit être allouée sur l'utilité sociale, la défense d'une cause et leur attitude.
Une fois ce rééquilibrage accompli, alors là, le capitalisme sera non seulement responsable du renversement de cette récession économique prolongée, mais aussi de l'ascension des pays en développement et de la résurrection de la classe moyenne occidentale.
Cette bête noire que nous méconnaissons sous le nom de capitalisme, ironiquement, deviendra le « Sauveur Sociétal » que nous espérons depuis si longtemps.]]>Here's Why Capitalism Could Save the Worldtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16002452012-06-15T11:40:48-04:002012-08-15T05:12:05-04:00Daniel Baylishttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-baylis/
I didn't feel compelled to argue against the statement, per se. It seemed true enough. But it also seemed limited. Like announcing, "Lady Gaga writes smutty pop songs!"
My reaction was a resounding, "Duh."
Sure capitalism is steadily suffering from a major public image fail. But what if I told you that capitalism could save the world? Yes: Save the world.
Stay with me here.
Because I share the same disdain for corporate greed as the protesters of the Occupy Movement, I watched with interest and amazement as they gathered to fight "The Man." The sheer volume of people self-organizing themselves across all corners of the planet was impressive. The troops seemed to be gathering themselves. This would be the beginning of the end for our inequitable economic systems, right?
Almost a year after the occupy movement detonated, it seems like life has marched onwards. It's business as usual.
But people are still polarized. On one end of this "capitalism" debate are the crusty, irate anarchists who seem hell-bent on destroying the system. On the other end are the money-hungry corporate dinosaurs with patent leather briefcases and cigars burning in their scabby mouths. And quite frankly, I'm perturbed by both extremes.
Then there are the rest of us. Those in the middle. Those of us who are fatigued by tales of corporate greed and environmental shortsightedness. Those who know that marching on Wall Street with cheeky placards might land a spot on the 6 o'clock news, but that waving a flimsy sign at a giant corporate skyscraper ultimately provides little actual systemic change. The rest of us know that it's time to move past the mudslinging, time to move past the blame game.
So here's where I share a potentially unpopular idea: Our current environmental and social predicaments are not the fault of "capitalism." In fact - brace yourself - they can be resolved by capitalism.
We're missing the point here folks. Capitalism is simply a system of economic organization that doesn't have any inherent moral values (good or bad) built into it. It's like saying the Internet is bad because it's got creepy BDSM porn photos and videos of people killing kittens. Yes, certain elements of it are flawed and disturbing, if not thoroughly lacking in morality. But to abandon it is foolery.
(If you want to demonize something, I suggest greed or economic disproportion or political parties that encourage corporate gluttony.)
We've got an economic system that mixes elements of capitalism and socialism. It's flawed, but in many ways it's functioning. And it's imperative to use the social, economic and political systems we've built to help facilitate a shift towards a more equitable society and environmentally sustainable future. In fact, if we want immediate global impact, there is no other way.
Ultimately, despite my apathetic reaction, I strongly agree with the proclamation: "Capitalism isn't working."
But does that mean we should abandon capitalism? No. Instead we have to find ways to make it not only work, but help save the world.
And I'm looking directly at you big business.
Capitalism has the potential to be the greatest social catapult the world has ever seen. What we need to do is rewire ourselves and our companies to understand that doing "good" is actually good for long-term sustainable business. The successful brands of tomorrow will not only focus on product and price-point and profit, but will realize that as much attention needs to be placed on purpose, and cause, and attitude.
If this recalibrating is successfully accomplished, then capitalism will be responsible not only for the reversal of this protracted economic recession, but also for the rise of the developing world, and the resurrection of the western middle-class.
This foreboding beast of capitalism that we know today, ironically, will be the societal savior for which we've all been praying.]]>