- Technological changem, which tends to be self-reinforcing, has widespread effects throughout business and society. Some of these effects are beneficial and some are not. Technological growth is fueled by economic expansion, worker prductivity, and research and development investment.
- E-commerce or online beisness, has changed how businesses offer, sell and account for their goods and services in the global marketplace and their interactions with their stakeholders. Individuals are investing and buying goods and services online at an astonishing rate.
- Technology superpowers have built an infrastructure for the information society, enabling people and businesses arounf the world to communicate and conduc business with each other, spawning the system of e-commerce.
- Technology has exponentially increased our ability to communicate with others around the world through electronic mail, blogs and vlogs. Accompanying these innovations are significant threats to our privacy and safety.
- Tehcnological innovations in m-commerce, education and medical information enhance the lives of people thoughout the world.
- Differences in age, income and ethnicity or nationality appear to be associated with a digital divide. Recently, collaborative initiatives by businesses, governments and nonprofit organizations addressing Internet access around the world appear to have somewhat narrowed this digital divide.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Sustainable Development in Global Business
Business Can Help Build Tomorrow’s Low-carbon Economy Today - STATEMENT TO THE G20 LEADERS
London, 31 March 2009 - Leaders of the G20 governments meet in London this week. Their common aspiration is to set the world on a pathway of sustainable and widespread economic growth.
While the discussions will be complex, one thing is crystal clear: we must revive growth in the world economy. A low-growth recovery is unacceptable.
This is why governments of the major economies are gearing up to spend about US$ 3 trillion among them to stimulate growth. However, here is the conundrum: a recovery strategy based on high-carbon energy sources will not create the sustainable economic growth that the world needs – it will ultimately choke itself on rising hydrocarbon prices and a hostile physical environment created by climate change. There is no “business as usual” to which we can return.
To ensure our future prosperity, we need a high-growth and low-carbon world economy.
This may sound aspirational. Yet, many business leaders around the world are increasingly convinced of the long-term growth potential of the low-carbon economy. The scale of new jobs, technologies, practices, services and products required to shift to a low-carbon economy is vast. Last year, in an initiative led by the World Economic Forum, over 100 chief executives from all sectors and regions of the world prepared a detailed set of climate policy recommendations for G8 leaders, including a series of practical proposals to stimulate low-carbon growth opportunities.
A more recent series of UN reports commissioned by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) supports these CEO recommendations. The UNEP work suggests that many millions of new jobs can be generated now and over the coming years via a Global Green New Deal, setting the stage for a low-carbon, resource-efficient economy for the 21st century. It is estimated that up to 20 million jobs worldwide can be created in renewable energy alone by 2030, twice the level of job creation that would be achieved with a fossil-fuel based energy.
This means that low-carbon economic prosperity is not just an industrialized country issue; it is very much an agenda for sustainable international development, especially in emerging markets. Analysis suggests that building a low-carbon global economy will require the creation of significant, long-term financial flows into developing countries, of at least an additional US$ 100 billion a year, as well as ongoing help to develop, demonstrate and deploy the latest technologies. When combined with the jobs, energy poverty reduction and broader growth potential that this flow of finance and technology will stimulate, low-carbon growth offers developing countries a historic opportunity to jump onto a new, more sustainable growth path.
To deliver this new economy, a set of practical policies and incentives is urgently required to help remove the obstacles to more low-carbon finance and technology. This will enable green recovery packages to have maximum impact both in the short-term and into the future. Tariffs, subsidies and other protectionist devices that act as barriers to low-carbon growth must be removed. An open global economy is critical if we are to make the swift and fundamental transition we need. A concrete first step would be for leaders at the G20 London Summit to signal support for the development of a set of specific recommendations on these issues. This would also show a clear intent among governments of the major economies for an ambitious – and practical – outcome from the wider UN-led negotiations on a new international climate agreement, due to be completed in Copenhagen in December this year.
But this is not a task for governments alone. As the key delivery agent of low-carbon investment, innovation, products and services, business needs to have a voice at the table. The business viewpoint of the practical policies that will be the most effective accelerators of this change process is vital. We welcome the doors that have been opened by governments to the UNFCCC negotiations for direct business engagement in response to the Bali Action Plan. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development has been working with leading, global CEOs to support negotiators in this process by recommending specific policy mechanisms that might contribute to a cost-effective and environmentally sound future climate framework. But this business government dialogue needs to be deepened.
This is why business leaders and experts in finance, economics and climate change from around the world have responded so rapidly to the invitation from Prime Minister Gordon Brown earlier this year at the World Economic Forum in Davos to form a business-expert Task Force on Low Carbon Prosperity to report to the London Summit. Building on business engagement to date, over 75 specialists from international companies and expert organizations around the world, convened by the World Economic Forum, are ready to work with officials from the G20 on these matters. Key conversations they wish to have will include:
• How can market mechanisms best be developed to create a price for carbon that takes its true cost into account?
• How can governments and businesses work together to offer consumers real choice and effective standards in low-carbon products, technologies and services?
• How can energy efficiency measures best be scaled up globally? What does a smarter, lean-energy economy look like, and what technologies and policies do we need to invest in to get there?
• And crucially in today's world, how can we get investment flowing into the technologies that will deliver jobs and cleaner, more secure energy, especially in developing countries?
This is important and practical work. It must begin now. As stimulus packages are designed and implemented over the next several months, we need to identify the specific projects and ideas that will both create jobs in the short run and catalyze the longer-term shift to a low-carbon global economy. Businesses and organizations such as ours are committed to this process. That is why we are part of this unique initiative. We look forward to working with others in the Task Force to deliver a truly “game-changing” set of proposals to world leaders at the United Nations in September.
We wish the G20 leaders a successful London Summit, and look forward to engaging with them in this unprecedented public-private process.
Samuel A. DiPiazza, Chief Executive Officer, PricewaterhouseCoopers International, PricewaterhouseCoopers , USA ; Chairman of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development
London, 31 March 2009 - Leaders of the G20 governments meet in London this week. Their common aspiration is to set the world on a pathway of sustainable and widespread economic growth.
While the discussions will be complex, one thing is crystal clear: we must revive growth in the world economy. A low-growth recovery is unacceptable.
This is why governments of the major economies are gearing up to spend about US$ 3 trillion among them to stimulate growth. However, here is the conundrum: a recovery strategy based on high-carbon energy sources will not create the sustainable economic growth that the world needs – it will ultimately choke itself on rising hydrocarbon prices and a hostile physical environment created by climate change. There is no “business as usual” to which we can return.
To ensure our future prosperity, we need a high-growth and low-carbon world economy.
This may sound aspirational. Yet, many business leaders around the world are increasingly convinced of the long-term growth potential of the low-carbon economy. The scale of new jobs, technologies, practices, services and products required to shift to a low-carbon economy is vast. Last year, in an initiative led by the World Economic Forum, over 100 chief executives from all sectors and regions of the world prepared a detailed set of climate policy recommendations for G8 leaders, including a series of practical proposals to stimulate low-carbon growth opportunities.
A more recent series of UN reports commissioned by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) supports these CEO recommendations. The UNEP work suggests that many millions of new jobs can be generated now and over the coming years via a Global Green New Deal, setting the stage for a low-carbon, resource-efficient economy for the 21st century. It is estimated that up to 20 million jobs worldwide can be created in renewable energy alone by 2030, twice the level of job creation that would be achieved with a fossil-fuel based energy.
This means that low-carbon economic prosperity is not just an industrialized country issue; it is very much an agenda for sustainable international development, especially in emerging markets. Analysis suggests that building a low-carbon global economy will require the creation of significant, long-term financial flows into developing countries, of at least an additional US$ 100 billion a year, as well as ongoing help to develop, demonstrate and deploy the latest technologies. When combined with the jobs, energy poverty reduction and broader growth potential that this flow of finance and technology will stimulate, low-carbon growth offers developing countries a historic opportunity to jump onto a new, more sustainable growth path.
To deliver this new economy, a set of practical policies and incentives is urgently required to help remove the obstacles to more low-carbon finance and technology. This will enable green recovery packages to have maximum impact both in the short-term and into the future. Tariffs, subsidies and other protectionist devices that act as barriers to low-carbon growth must be removed. An open global economy is critical if we are to make the swift and fundamental transition we need. A concrete first step would be for leaders at the G20 London Summit to signal support for the development of a set of specific recommendations on these issues. This would also show a clear intent among governments of the major economies for an ambitious – and practical – outcome from the wider UN-led negotiations on a new international climate agreement, due to be completed in Copenhagen in December this year.
But this is not a task for governments alone. As the key delivery agent of low-carbon investment, innovation, products and services, business needs to have a voice at the table. The business viewpoint of the practical policies that will be the most effective accelerators of this change process is vital. We welcome the doors that have been opened by governments to the UNFCCC negotiations for direct business engagement in response to the Bali Action Plan. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development has been working with leading, global CEOs to support negotiators in this process by recommending specific policy mechanisms that might contribute to a cost-effective and environmentally sound future climate framework. But this business government dialogue needs to be deepened.
This is why business leaders and experts in finance, economics and climate change from around the world have responded so rapidly to the invitation from Prime Minister Gordon Brown earlier this year at the World Economic Forum in Davos to form a business-expert Task Force on Low Carbon Prosperity to report to the London Summit. Building on business engagement to date, over 75 specialists from international companies and expert organizations around the world, convened by the World Economic Forum, are ready to work with officials from the G20 on these matters. Key conversations they wish to have will include:
• How can market mechanisms best be developed to create a price for carbon that takes its true cost into account?
• How can governments and businesses work together to offer consumers real choice and effective standards in low-carbon products, technologies and services?
• How can energy efficiency measures best be scaled up globally? What does a smarter, lean-energy economy look like, and what technologies and policies do we need to invest in to get there?
• And crucially in today's world, how can we get investment flowing into the technologies that will deliver jobs and cleaner, more secure energy, especially in developing countries?
This is important and practical work. It must begin now. As stimulus packages are designed and implemented over the next several months, we need to identify the specific projects and ideas that will both create jobs in the short run and catalyze the longer-term shift to a low-carbon global economy. Businesses and organizations such as ours are committed to this process. That is why we are part of this unique initiative. We look forward to working with others in the Task Force to deliver a truly “game-changing” set of proposals to world leaders at the United Nations in September.
We wish the G20 leaders a successful London Summit, and look forward to engaging with them in this unprecedented public-private process.
Samuel A. DiPiazza, Chief Executive Officer, PricewaterhouseCoopers International, PricewaterhouseCoopers , USA ; Chairman of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development
Globalization
Global Business Expansion
Why Companies Should Pursue an International Strategy
© Jennifer Shook
Oct 12, 2008
In a borderless world, companies need to compete on a global level in order to succeed.
In today's world of financial uncertainty, it is important for businesses to have a clear idea of what stability involves for their company. One concept that more and more businesses are exploring is one of taking their business to a global level. Using an international strategy is not for every company, but with the availability of the Internet it is becoming easier to take your business to that next level. Here are just a few reasons why going global may be the right choice for your business.
Diversification
Ever heard the phrase "don't put all of your eggs in one basket"? Going global allows companies to get some of their eggs into a different basket. Different markets offer different customers and a different customer base. The needs and demands of countries outside your own are most likely the same but at different times. In January of 2008, the New York Times commented that General Electric is doing well in developing countries by selling air fleets and aiding their infrastructure development. By the time the market cools overseas, GE predicts that the United States will be ready to buy again.
Resources and Lower Costs
Another incentive driving businesses overseas is the availability of resources at lower costs than might be found domestically. For example, India has been known to offer information technology services and support for companies at a much lower rate than can be found in the United States. A benefit of globalization is increased competition, and both small and large businesses should take advantage of the lower cost of materials that can be found overseas.
Economies of Scale
Helen Deresky's book International Management comments that businesses often choose to go global in order to benefit from economies of scale. Often companies can recognize profits large enough to cover their research and development costs, as well as the cost of keeping up with current technology, only by taking their business to a larger level. Even if these costs are not a factor in the decision, a larger market offers a larger opportunity for profit.
Country Incentives
Often countries offer incentives to entice foreign businesses. Countries seeking new technology, capital, and domestic growth do whatever they can to get companies to "invest" in them. Tax exemptions, loans, the use of property, and subsidies are just a few of the incentives offered. Companies may chose to benefit from these even if going global was not a priority for them at the time.
No matter what position your company is in, expanding your business to an international level is a wise choice. There are many benefits that a company can reap if they are willing to pursue a global strategy. As globalization becomes the norm in today's society, companies should follow suit if they want to take their success to the next level.
Read more: Global Business Expansion: Why Companies Should Pursue an International Strategy - http://globalization.suite101.com/article.cfm/going_global#ixzz0C81YAhQt
Why Companies Should Pursue an International Strategy
© Jennifer Shook
Oct 12, 2008
In a borderless world, companies need to compete on a global level in order to succeed.
In today's world of financial uncertainty, it is important for businesses to have a clear idea of what stability involves for their company. One concept that more and more businesses are exploring is one of taking their business to a global level. Using an international strategy is not for every company, but with the availability of the Internet it is becoming easier to take your business to that next level. Here are just a few reasons why going global may be the right choice for your business.
Diversification
Ever heard the phrase "don't put all of your eggs in one basket"? Going global allows companies to get some of their eggs into a different basket. Different markets offer different customers and a different customer base. The needs and demands of countries outside your own are most likely the same but at different times. In January of 2008, the New York Times commented that General Electric is doing well in developing countries by selling air fleets and aiding their infrastructure development. By the time the market cools overseas, GE predicts that the United States will be ready to buy again.
Resources and Lower Costs
Another incentive driving businesses overseas is the availability of resources at lower costs than might be found domestically. For example, India has been known to offer information technology services and support for companies at a much lower rate than can be found in the United States. A benefit of globalization is increased competition, and both small and large businesses should take advantage of the lower cost of materials that can be found overseas.
Economies of Scale
Helen Deresky's book International Management comments that businesses often choose to go global in order to benefit from economies of scale. Often companies can recognize profits large enough to cover their research and development costs, as well as the cost of keeping up with current technology, only by taking their business to a larger level. Even if these costs are not a factor in the decision, a larger market offers a larger opportunity for profit.
Country Incentives
Often countries offer incentives to entice foreign businesses. Countries seeking new technology, capital, and domestic growth do whatever they can to get companies to "invest" in them. Tax exemptions, loans, the use of property, and subsidies are just a few of the incentives offered. Companies may chose to benefit from these even if going global was not a priority for them at the time.
No matter what position your company is in, expanding your business to an international level is a wise choice. There are many benefits that a company can reap if they are willing to pursue a global strategy. As globalization becomes the norm in today's society, companies should follow suit if they want to take their success to the next level.
Read more: Global Business Expansion: Why Companies Should Pursue an International Strategy - http://globalization.suite101.com/article.cfm/going_global#ixzz0C81YAhQt
Corporate Ethics
100 Most Influential People in Business Ethics 2008
December 31, 2008
Another busy year in the world of business ethics went by and left us with plenty to talk about. Nearly every week saw headlines of an individual (or business) who pushed the envelope in legal compliance, business ethics, sustainability or social responsibility. Most of the time, these headlines were for negative actions.
But not all was bad in 2008. Many individuals stood out for their positive achievements in the business ethics world as well. For that, we created this year’s list of the 100 Most Influential People in Business Ethics.
In order to develop the list, we reached out to a number of professors from notable business schools around the world to assemble an advisory board (for the names of the members of the advisory board see below). With the help of the advisory board, as well as a group of Ethisphere editors, writers and fact checkers, we were able to develop a list of 100 individuals from all around the world that greatly influenced the business ethics realm over the past year. All advisory panel members boldly gave up their right to be on this list (they all deserve to be) in order to help nominate others.
What is important to note about this list is that it rewards individuals who were influential this year, rather than over the course of their career. While many people on the list have a lifetime of positive achievements, these individuals made the list for their actions in 2008.
On the following pages you’ll find 2008’s 100 Most Influential People in Business Ethics. While you may not agree with the actions, political leanings or personality of some individuals on the list, there is no dispute that each one of them influenced business behavior over the course of the year.
The winners are broken down into the following nine core categories:
Government and Regulatory
Did the individual impact government rules or enforcement trends? Business Leadership
Did the individual substantially transform a specific business’ operational practices consistent with profitable ethical leadership, forcing competitors to follow suit or fall behind? Non-Government Organization (NGO) Did the individual impact a company’s (or industry’s) practices through external, non-regulatory leadership either through positive collaboration or negative publicity for a positive end?
Design and Sustainability
Did the individual substantially contribute to or lead a product or service redesign, which resulted in less natural resource use, or increased consumer acceptance of sustainability without diminishing the quality of the original product or service? Media and Whistleblowers
Did the individual raise awareness on a critical issue or expose corruption? Thought Leadership
Did the individual conceive of new approaches or otherwise materially contribute to the field of business ethics theory in a way that could be easily applied by corporate leaders?
Corporate Culture
Did the individual show success to transforming the ethical culture and behavior of a corporation or institution, particularly if such corporation or institution previously had a less than ethical culture and values system? Investment and Research
Did the individual impact corporate behavior through influencing investor decisions and the deployment of investment capital due to research or institutional fund management practices? Legal and Governance
Did the individual impact any legal cases which set the precedents in corporate compliance, or influence trends or structure in effective corporate governance for public and/or private companies?
Now, without further ado, we present to you 2008’s 100 Most Influential in Business Ethics:
________________________________________
The List:
1. Liu Qi
2. Neelie Kroes
3. Heinrich Kieber
4. Kim Yong-chul
5. Mark F. Mendelsohn
6. Lee Scott
7. Shan Ramburuth
8. Bobby Jindal
9. Myron Steele
10. Philip Collins
11. David Steiner
12. Angel Gurría
13. Ronald Luri
14. Barack Obama
15. Christoph Frei
16. Jeff Immelt
17. Nguyen Van Hai & Nguyen Viet Chen
18. David L. Stub
19. David Parker
20. Thomas Friedman
21. Davor Harasic
22. Anne M. Mulcahy
23. Dawn Primarolo
24. Ben W. Heineman, Jr.
25. Nicolas Sarkozy
26. Dong Zhengqing
27. Leslie Gaines-Ross
28. R. Alexander Acosta
29. Cui Fan
30. Masamitsu Sakurai
31. Paul Krugman
32. Alexandra Wrage
33. Michael Hershman
34. Jed Rakoff
35. Dr. Anwar Nasution
36. Michael Johnston
37. Jim Senegal
38. Mike Barry
39. Marc Gunther
40. Neville Isdell
41. Eric Schmidt
42. Danny Wegman
43. Larry Thompson
44. H. Dean Steinke
45. James Jurwa
46. Sven Holmes
47. Lucas Benitez
48. Anonymous Chinese apartment owner
49. Earl E. Devaney
50. Nancy Boswell
51. Haruka Nishimatsu
52. Henry Waxman
53. Sudhanshu Pokhriyal
54. Virginia D. Klein
55. James A. Mitchell
56. Tim Costello
57. Jim Koch
58. Jim Tyree
59. Ken Livingstone
60. Kathleen M Hamann
61. Victor Marrero
62. Ben Popken
63. Howard Schultz
64. Klaus Töpfer
65. Harry Halloran
66. Le Hien Duc
67. Peter Kinder
68. Bernard Listiza
69. Joseph Keefe
70. Magnus Berglund
71. Manny A. Alas
72. Max Bazerman
73. Bob Langert
74. Patrick Fitzgerald
75. Thomas Boone Pickens
76. Dave Welch
77. Edward J. Zore
78. R. Edward Freeman
79. Mr. Frédéric Wehrlé
80. Greg Valerio
81. Chris MacDonald
82. James Goodnight
83. Brenda C. Barnes
84. Simon Ho
85. Gavin Newsom
86. Nobutaka Machimura
87. Anders Dalhvig
88. Odell Guyton
89. David Crawford
90. Patricia Werhane
91. Paul Newman
92. Barbara Krumsiek
93. Amy Domini
94. Richard McClellan
95. Rob Cameron
96. Harry Woolf
97. Tensie Whelan
98. Jack Grynberg
99. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
100. Kim Hun-sung and Park Jin-shik
________________________________________
December 31, 2008
Another busy year in the world of business ethics went by and left us with plenty to talk about. Nearly every week saw headlines of an individual (or business) who pushed the envelope in legal compliance, business ethics, sustainability or social responsibility. Most of the time, these headlines were for negative actions.
But not all was bad in 2008. Many individuals stood out for their positive achievements in the business ethics world as well. For that, we created this year’s list of the 100 Most Influential People in Business Ethics.
In order to develop the list, we reached out to a number of professors from notable business schools around the world to assemble an advisory board (for the names of the members of the advisory board see below). With the help of the advisory board, as well as a group of Ethisphere editors, writers and fact checkers, we were able to develop a list of 100 individuals from all around the world that greatly influenced the business ethics realm over the past year. All advisory panel members boldly gave up their right to be on this list (they all deserve to be) in order to help nominate others.
What is important to note about this list is that it rewards individuals who were influential this year, rather than over the course of their career. While many people on the list have a lifetime of positive achievements, these individuals made the list for their actions in 2008.
On the following pages you’ll find 2008’s 100 Most Influential People in Business Ethics. While you may not agree with the actions, political leanings or personality of some individuals on the list, there is no dispute that each one of them influenced business behavior over the course of the year.
The winners are broken down into the following nine core categories:
Government and Regulatory
Did the individual impact government rules or enforcement trends? Business Leadership
Did the individual substantially transform a specific business’ operational practices consistent with profitable ethical leadership, forcing competitors to follow suit or fall behind? Non-Government Organization (NGO) Did the individual impact a company’s (or industry’s) practices through external, non-regulatory leadership either through positive collaboration or negative publicity for a positive end?
Design and Sustainability
Did the individual substantially contribute to or lead a product or service redesign, which resulted in less natural resource use, or increased consumer acceptance of sustainability without diminishing the quality of the original product or service? Media and Whistleblowers
Did the individual raise awareness on a critical issue or expose corruption? Thought Leadership
Did the individual conceive of new approaches or otherwise materially contribute to the field of business ethics theory in a way that could be easily applied by corporate leaders?
Corporate Culture
Did the individual show success to transforming the ethical culture and behavior of a corporation or institution, particularly if such corporation or institution previously had a less than ethical culture and values system? Investment and Research
Did the individual impact corporate behavior through influencing investor decisions and the deployment of investment capital due to research or institutional fund management practices? Legal and Governance
Did the individual impact any legal cases which set the precedents in corporate compliance, or influence trends or structure in effective corporate governance for public and/or private companies?
Now, without further ado, we present to you 2008’s 100 Most Influential in Business Ethics:
________________________________________
The List:
1. Liu Qi
2. Neelie Kroes
3. Heinrich Kieber
4. Kim Yong-chul
5. Mark F. Mendelsohn
6. Lee Scott
7. Shan Ramburuth
8. Bobby Jindal
9. Myron Steele
10. Philip Collins
11. David Steiner
12. Angel Gurría
13. Ronald Luri
14. Barack Obama
15. Christoph Frei
16. Jeff Immelt
17. Nguyen Van Hai & Nguyen Viet Chen
18. David L. Stub
19. David Parker
20. Thomas Friedman
21. Davor Harasic
22. Anne M. Mulcahy
23. Dawn Primarolo
24. Ben W. Heineman, Jr.
25. Nicolas Sarkozy
26. Dong Zhengqing
27. Leslie Gaines-Ross
28. R. Alexander Acosta
29. Cui Fan
30. Masamitsu Sakurai
31. Paul Krugman
32. Alexandra Wrage
33. Michael Hershman
34. Jed Rakoff
35. Dr. Anwar Nasution
36. Michael Johnston
37. Jim Senegal
38. Mike Barry
39. Marc Gunther
40. Neville Isdell
41. Eric Schmidt
42. Danny Wegman
43. Larry Thompson
44. H. Dean Steinke
45. James Jurwa
46. Sven Holmes
47. Lucas Benitez
48. Anonymous Chinese apartment owner
49. Earl E. Devaney
50. Nancy Boswell
51. Haruka Nishimatsu
52. Henry Waxman
53. Sudhanshu Pokhriyal
54. Virginia D. Klein
55. James A. Mitchell
56. Tim Costello
57. Jim Koch
58. Jim Tyree
59. Ken Livingstone
60. Kathleen M Hamann
61. Victor Marrero
62. Ben Popken
63. Howard Schultz
64. Klaus Töpfer
65. Harry Halloran
66. Le Hien Duc
67. Peter Kinder
68. Bernard Listiza
69. Joseph Keefe
70. Magnus Berglund
71. Manny A. Alas
72. Max Bazerman
73. Bob Langert
74. Patrick Fitzgerald
75. Thomas Boone Pickens
76. Dave Welch
77. Edward J. Zore
78. R. Edward Freeman
79. Mr. Frédéric Wehrlé
80. Greg Valerio
81. Chris MacDonald
82. James Goodnight
83. Brenda C. Barnes
84. Simon Ho
85. Gavin Newsom
86. Nobutaka Machimura
87. Anders Dalhvig
88. Odell Guyton
89. David Crawford
90. Patricia Werhane
91. Paul Newman
92. Barbara Krumsiek
93. Amy Domini
94. Richard McClellan
95. Rob Cameron
96. Harry Woolf
97. Tensie Whelan
98. Jack Grynberg
99. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
100. Kim Hun-sung and Park Jin-shik
________________________________________
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Social Entrepreneur
Hello Group , I found a interesting website about Social Entrepreneur.
Claudia B
Home
What is a Social Entrepreneur?
Social entrepreneurs are individuals with innovative solutions to society’s most pressing social problems. They are ambitious and persistent, tackling major social issues and offering new ideas for wide-scale change.
Rather than leaving societal needs to the government or business sectors, social entrepreneurs find what is not working and solve the problem by changing the system, spreading the solution, and persuading entire societies to take new leaps.
Social entrepreneurs often seem to be possessed by their ideas, committing their lives to changing the direction of their field. They are both visionaries and ultimate realists, concerned with the practical implementation of their vision above all else.
Each social entrepreneur presents ideas that are user-friendly, understandable, ethical, and engage widespread support in order to maximize the number of local people that will stand up, seize their idea, and implement with it. In other words, every leading social entrepreneur is a mass recruiter of local changemakers—a role model proving that citizens who channel their passion into action can do almost anything.
Over the past two decades, the citizen sector has discovered what the business sector learned long ago: There is nothing as powerful as a new idea in the hands of a first-class entrepreneur.
Why "Social" Entrepreneur?
Just as entrepreneurs change the face of business, social entrepreneurs act as the change agents for society, seizing opportunities others miss and improving systems, inventing new approaches, and creating solutions to change society for the better. While a business entrepreneur might create entirely new industries, a social entrepreneur comes up with new solutions to social problems and then implements them on a large scale.
Historical Examples of Leading Social Entrepreneurs:
Susan B. Anthony (U.S.): Fought for Women's Rights in the United States, including the right to control property and helped spearhead adoption of the 19th amendment.
Vinoba Bhave (India): Founder and leader of the Land Gift Movement, he caused the redistribution of more than 7,000,000 acres of land to aid India's untouchables and landless.
Dr. Maria Montessori (Italy): Developed the Montessori approach to early childhood education.
Florence Nightingale (U.K.): Founder of modern nursing, she established the first school for nurses and fought to improve hospital conditions.
Margaret Sanger (U.S.): Founder of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, she led the movement for family planning efforts around the world.
John Muir (U.S.): Naturalist and conservationist, he established the National Park System and helped found The Sierra Club.
Jean Monnet (France): Responsible for the reconstruction of the French economy following World War II, including the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). The ECSC and the European Common Market were direct precursors of the European Union.
To read more about social entrepreneurship, click here.
Email this page
About Us | What We Do | Our Impact | Get Involved | Press Room | Resources | Contact Us | Site Map
Ashoka International Websites | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
Claudia B
Home
What is a Social Entrepreneur?
Social entrepreneurs are individuals with innovative solutions to society’s most pressing social problems. They are ambitious and persistent, tackling major social issues and offering new ideas for wide-scale change.
Rather than leaving societal needs to the government or business sectors, social entrepreneurs find what is not working and solve the problem by changing the system, spreading the solution, and persuading entire societies to take new leaps.
Social entrepreneurs often seem to be possessed by their ideas, committing their lives to changing the direction of their field. They are both visionaries and ultimate realists, concerned with the practical implementation of their vision above all else.
Each social entrepreneur presents ideas that are user-friendly, understandable, ethical, and engage widespread support in order to maximize the number of local people that will stand up, seize their idea, and implement with it. In other words, every leading social entrepreneur is a mass recruiter of local changemakers—a role model proving that citizens who channel their passion into action can do almost anything.
Over the past two decades, the citizen sector has discovered what the business sector learned long ago: There is nothing as powerful as a new idea in the hands of a first-class entrepreneur.
Why "Social" Entrepreneur?
Just as entrepreneurs change the face of business, social entrepreneurs act as the change agents for society, seizing opportunities others miss and improving systems, inventing new approaches, and creating solutions to change society for the better. While a business entrepreneur might create entirely new industries, a social entrepreneur comes up with new solutions to social problems and then implements them on a large scale.
Historical Examples of Leading Social Entrepreneurs:
Susan B. Anthony (U.S.): Fought for Women's Rights in the United States, including the right to control property and helped spearhead adoption of the 19th amendment.
Vinoba Bhave (India): Founder and leader of the Land Gift Movement, he caused the redistribution of more than 7,000,000 acres of land to aid India's untouchables and landless.
Dr. Maria Montessori (Italy): Developed the Montessori approach to early childhood education.
Florence Nightingale (U.K.): Founder of modern nursing, she established the first school for nurses and fought to improve hospital conditions.
Margaret Sanger (U.S.): Founder of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, she led the movement for family planning efforts around the world.
John Muir (U.S.): Naturalist and conservationist, he established the National Park System and helped found The Sierra Club.
Jean Monnet (France): Responsible for the reconstruction of the French economy following World War II, including the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). The ECSC and the European Common Market were direct precursors of the European Union.
To read more about social entrepreneurship, click here.
Email this page
About Us | What We Do | Our Impact | Get Involved | Press Room | Resources | Contact Us | Site Map
Ashoka International Websites | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
Monday, March 2, 2009
Corporate Citizenship
Corporate Social Responsibility News
10.16.2008 - 12:24pm ET
CSR News from: Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship
News Categories: Corporate Governance
CSR - General
Perception of Corporate Responsibility Linked to Reputation
Boston College Center and Reputation Institute release new research Top 50 companies recognized – Google listed as No. 1
(CSRwire) CHESTNUT HILL, MA. - October 16, 2008 - A new ranking of the top 50 companies in the United States that the public distinguishes for corporate social responsibility was released today by the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Reputation Institute.
Google, Campbell Soup, Johnson & Johnson top the 2008 Corporate Social Responsibility Index (CSRI). Rounding out the top 10 are: Walt Disney, Kraft Foods, General Mills, Levi Strauss, UPS, Berkshire Hathaway and Microsoft.
The ranking was created using data principally collected for Reputation Institute's 2008 Global Pulse Study. In creating this first CSRI, the researchers used a subset of survey results that focused on more than 200 companies with a dominant presence in the United States and believed to have a reasonably high recognition factor with the general public. The data used focused on the public perception about a company's corporate citizenship, governance and workplace practices. Get copy of the report on Corporate Reputation and Social Responsibility Rankings at www.BCCorporateCitizenship.org.
'Although the survey was taken before the Wall Street collapse, the U.S. findings show that corporate governance—ethics and transparency—are increasing in their importance to overall corporate reputation," said Philip Mirvis, senior research fellow for the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship.
"This is the first time we see how the public votes on how companies operate as corporate citizens,"said Mirvis referring to the survey that asked the public to judge a company on how it treats employees, its ethics, and its community involvement and respect for the environment.
By focusing on the three dimensions of corporate citizenship, governance and workplace practices surveyed for the larger Global Pulse Study, Reputation Institute and the Boston College Center were able to gain greater insight into the combined influence on reputation of social programs, management practices, and employee relations.
These three measures account for more than 40 percent of a company's reputation, according to Reputation Institute’s analysis. This makes it critical for companies to communicate how they support good causes, protect the environment, treat their employees, and run their business ethically.
On a scale of 1-to-100, top-ranked Google scored 80.84. With the exception of Berkshire Hathaway, consumer-oriented companies made up the majority of the top 20 CSRI performers. Only a few business-to-business focused companies were included in the top 50: Cisco Systems (70.96), Sun Microsystems (70.70), Express Scripts (70.32), Deloitte & Touche (70.12) and Boeing (69.88). The general public tends to rate makers of consumer products, computers, and beverages higher along social dimensions. Industries that fall below the global average include construction/engineering, finance, utilities and telecommunications.
Reputation Institute has been measuring corporate reputations rigorously since 1999 using an approach based on: 1) a carefully developed model of what constitutes reputation; 2) a rigorous process that ensures representative results, and 3) a process of analysis that standardizes output that enables international and cross-industry comparisons. Reputation Institute publishes its annual results with Forbes.com.
About the Global Pulse 2008 Study
The CSRI was created using data collected for Reputation Institute's Global Pulse 2008, which was conducted online between February and March of 2008. A Pulse score is a measure of corporate reputation calculated by averaging perceptions of four indicators of trust, esteem, admiration and good feeling obtained from a representative sample of at least 100 local respondents who were familiar with the company. Scores range from a low of 0 to a high of 100, Pulse scores that differ by more than +/-0.5 are significantly different at the 95 percent confidence level. The global mean for all companies included in the study was a 64.2.
About the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship
The Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship is a membership-based research organization associated with the Carroll School of Management. It is committed to helping business leverage its social, economic and human assets to ensure both its success and a more just and sustainable world. As a leading resource on corporate citizenship, the Center works with global corporations to help them define, plan, and operationalize their corporate citizenship. Through the power of research, executive education and the insights of its 350 corporate members, the Center creates knowledge, value and demand for corporate citizenship. The Center offers publications including a newsletter, research reports and white papers; executive education, including three Certificate programs; events that include an annual conference, roundtables and regional meetings; peer-to-peer learning forums and a corporate membership program.
www.BCCorporateCitizenship.org
About Reputation Institute
Reputation Institute is a private advisory and research firm specializing in corporate reputation management. With offices and associates in more than 20 countries, Reputation Institute provides knowledge-based consulting services to some of the most respected companies worldwide. Its consulting teams regularly help global clients assess value and act on their reputations by providing strategic analysis and direction, as well as relevant assistance in developing and implementing reputation measurement and management systems. Reputation Institute also identifies best practices from original research, and shares its cutting-edge findings with clients and members through engagements, seminars, conferences and publications. The Global Pulse is Reputation Institute's flagship research study conducted annually with some 60,000 consumers in 27 countries from whom emerge detailed ratings of the reputations of the world's 1,000 largest companies. Each year, the results of this study are featured in leading business publications around the world. Visit ReputationInstitute.com to learn more about how you can unlock the power of your reputation.
www.reputationinstitute.com
10.16.2008 - 12:24pm ET
CSR News from: Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship
News Categories: Corporate Governance
CSR - General
Perception of Corporate Responsibility Linked to Reputation
Boston College Center and Reputation Institute release new research Top 50 companies recognized – Google listed as No. 1
(CSRwire) CHESTNUT HILL, MA. - October 16, 2008 - A new ranking of the top 50 companies in the United States that the public distinguishes for corporate social responsibility was released today by the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Reputation Institute.
Google, Campbell Soup, Johnson & Johnson top the 2008 Corporate Social Responsibility Index (CSRI). Rounding out the top 10 are: Walt Disney, Kraft Foods, General Mills, Levi Strauss, UPS, Berkshire Hathaway and Microsoft.
The ranking was created using data principally collected for Reputation Institute's 2008 Global Pulse Study. In creating this first CSRI, the researchers used a subset of survey results that focused on more than 200 companies with a dominant presence in the United States and believed to have a reasonably high recognition factor with the general public. The data used focused on the public perception about a company's corporate citizenship, governance and workplace practices. Get copy of the report on Corporate Reputation and Social Responsibility Rankings at www.BCCorporateCitizenship.org.
'Although the survey was taken before the Wall Street collapse, the U.S. findings show that corporate governance—ethics and transparency—are increasing in their importance to overall corporate reputation," said Philip Mirvis, senior research fellow for the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship.
"This is the first time we see how the public votes on how companies operate as corporate citizens,"said Mirvis referring to the survey that asked the public to judge a company on how it treats employees, its ethics, and its community involvement and respect for the environment.
By focusing on the three dimensions of corporate citizenship, governance and workplace practices surveyed for the larger Global Pulse Study, Reputation Institute and the Boston College Center were able to gain greater insight into the combined influence on reputation of social programs, management practices, and employee relations.
These three measures account for more than 40 percent of a company's reputation, according to Reputation Institute’s analysis. This makes it critical for companies to communicate how they support good causes, protect the environment, treat their employees, and run their business ethically.
On a scale of 1-to-100, top-ranked Google scored 80.84. With the exception of Berkshire Hathaway, consumer-oriented companies made up the majority of the top 20 CSRI performers. Only a few business-to-business focused companies were included in the top 50: Cisco Systems (70.96), Sun Microsystems (70.70), Express Scripts (70.32), Deloitte & Touche (70.12) and Boeing (69.88). The general public tends to rate makers of consumer products, computers, and beverages higher along social dimensions. Industries that fall below the global average include construction/engineering, finance, utilities and telecommunications.
Reputation Institute has been measuring corporate reputations rigorously since 1999 using an approach based on: 1) a carefully developed model of what constitutes reputation; 2) a rigorous process that ensures representative results, and 3) a process of analysis that standardizes output that enables international and cross-industry comparisons. Reputation Institute publishes its annual results with Forbes.com.
About the Global Pulse 2008 Study
The CSRI was created using data collected for Reputation Institute's Global Pulse 2008, which was conducted online between February and March of 2008. A Pulse score is a measure of corporate reputation calculated by averaging perceptions of four indicators of trust, esteem, admiration and good feeling obtained from a representative sample of at least 100 local respondents who were familiar with the company. Scores range from a low of 0 to a high of 100, Pulse scores that differ by more than +/-0.5 are significantly different at the 95 percent confidence level. The global mean for all companies included in the study was a 64.2.
About the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship
The Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship is a membership-based research organization associated with the Carroll School of Management. It is committed to helping business leverage its social, economic and human assets to ensure both its success and a more just and sustainable world. As a leading resource on corporate citizenship, the Center works with global corporations to help them define, plan, and operationalize their corporate citizenship. Through the power of research, executive education and the insights of its 350 corporate members, the Center creates knowledge, value and demand for corporate citizenship. The Center offers publications including a newsletter, research reports and white papers; executive education, including three Certificate programs; events that include an annual conference, roundtables and regional meetings; peer-to-peer learning forums and a corporate membership program.
www.BCCorporateCitizenship.org
About Reputation Institute
Reputation Institute is a private advisory and research firm specializing in corporate reputation management. With offices and associates in more than 20 countries, Reputation Institute provides knowledge-based consulting services to some of the most respected companies worldwide. Its consulting teams regularly help global clients assess value and act on their reputations by providing strategic analysis and direction, as well as relevant assistance in developing and implementing reputation measurement and management systems. Reputation Institute also identifies best practices from original research, and shares its cutting-edge findings with clients and members through engagements, seminars, conferences and publications. The Global Pulse is Reputation Institute's flagship research study conducted annually with some 60,000 consumers in 27 countries from whom emerge detailed ratings of the reputations of the world's 1,000 largest companies. Each year, the results of this study are featured in leading business publications around the world. Visit ReputationInstitute.com to learn more about how you can unlock the power of your reputation.
www.reputationinstitute.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)