This week's Chicago City Council vote requiring big box stores like Wal-Mart and Home Depot to increase their minimum wage salaries to $10 per hour by 2010 is the latest example of how activists are having a lot more success in local communities than they have had at the federal government level.

Activists have tried to get the federal minimum wage level of $5.15 (set in 1997) raised for years, they've always failed to get the hundreds of Congressional votes needed. But in Chicago's City Council, all they needed was 26 votes to get the same measure passed.

Activists used the same technique to get the wages of hotel and restaurant workers raised in Santa Fe, New Mexico last year. And then those same hotel and restaurant owners who opposed the increase were forced into supporting a statewide minimum wage increase so that they wouldn't be economically disadvantaged versus competitors in others towns like Albuquerque and Taos.

Just as all politics are local, so too is activism.

Two bills in Congress that are being heard now will stiffen penalties and close loopholes that have allowed activists to break into animal facilities and receive only minor penalties from the courts.
S. 1926 sponsored by Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma and H.R. 4239 sponsored by Rep. Tom Petri of Wisconsin will help protect livestock producers, zoos, medical research facilities, kennels and other businesses where domestic and wildlife are involved.

The FBI ranks animal rights terrorism as one of the largest domestic terrorist threats in the U.S. So these bills will ensure that justice is fairly meted out if activists conduct criminal acts such as intentionally damaging property, causing bodily harm or placing people in reasonable fear of harm or death.

The activist group Animal Liberation Front (ALF) recently targeted a researcher at UCLA who is invovled in animal testing projects. ALF placed an explosive device outside of her home; unfortunately, they left it outside of the WRONG home and narrowly missed her 70-year-old neighbor.
The FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms have offered a $30,000 reward ... which hardly seems enough for a domestic terrorist event like this.

While we're all used to attending various trade shows and conventions for businesses, activists have conventions, too!

The Animal Rights annual convention is taking place August 10-14 in Washington DC.
Just like other groups they have an awards banquet, workshops, receptions and a banquet (I wonder what's on the menu?).

Some of the workshop topics are right out of PR School: Presentation Skills, Changing Behavior/feelings/beliefs, negotiating, mining the internet, conducting research, engaging the media, producing and airing videos and engaging ethnic minorities.

If you think these groups are not well funded, well organized and well trained, you'll be in for a big surprise.

Why is it that the U.K. is seeing a 50% drop in activist attacks on medical researchers at the same time that government figures show that animal experiments are at an all-time high?

It appears that U.K. government's new legislation aimed at curbing extremists, along with better policing and liaison with important stakeholders, is helping to combat the attacks. These are some of the same tactics that the UK authorities used to successfully thwart this week's airliner plots.

The truth is, terrorists are terrorists .... they aim to intimidate or bully others with force and illegal activities to force their point of view, rather than engaging in a public, democratic dialogue. Maybe the U.S. government will get some tips from the U.K. and use them effectively against terrorists of all kinds.

Chile's salmon industry and environmentalists, who have been ardent arch-enemies, are partnering to oppose a major dam project in southern Chile's Patagonia region.
Their opposition? A Spanish energy company called Endesa that controls more than 80% of the water rights in the Aysen region and which wants to build a series of dams to generate electricity. The dams will change the river flows and flood thousands of acres of natural wilderness.

While Chile is enjoying Latin America's highest sustained level of growth, its achilles heel is its domestic energy sources. Chile imports 90% of its energy, and its needs are rising. Without it, the country's economic growth will be strangled.

The activist group International Rivers Network has pledged "This is going to be a long battle, in the trenches, using every political and legal tactic possible." They want to preserve the natural beauty of the area. But without continued economic growth, who will build and finance the roads, airports, hotels, and workers that would be needed for tourism in the Patagonia region to flourish? It would seem that both groups would benefit from a compromise.

If you were looking for a tourism site for Newfoundland you might have found
www.tour-newfoundlandlabrador.com through one of the major search engines. Instead of finding recommendations of great restaurants or sightseeing tours, you'd find a website filled with anti-seal hunt messages and graphic images.

The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) is trying to punish the people and businesses in Newfoundland through economic terrorism .... destroying their tourism business in an effort to put pressure on those who are involved in the seal hunt. Unfortunately, it seems like lots of "mom and pop" businesses and B&B's who have nothing to do with the issue are bearing the brunt of this attack. That's unfortunate and unfair.

In our “Next 50 Years” booklet, we talk about the challenges associated with Globalization and the growing power of NGOs. The recent events in India have made these points painfully obvious for Coke and Pepsi.

It is hard to imagine two more global brands. Both companies’ logos are ubiquitous in almost every country in the world. But now in one of the world’s largest consumer markets, their primary products are on the verge of being banned. How could that happen? How could they let it happen?

It all began when an independent NGO, called the Centre for Science and the Environment, issued a report stating that both soft drinks contained harmful levels of pesticides. Following the report, the state of Kerala banned their sale. As the news spread, other states initiated similar restrictions until the ban reached quarter of India’s states. The bans have received widespread coverage accompanied photos Indian consumers tearing down Coke and Pepsi signs.

I will leave the analysis of what the companies did right and wrong to others but it should suffice to say that neither one was prepared for the speed and severity of the reaction to this activist group’s report. From newspaper accounts, it appears that their respective PR departments employed the same tactics for dealing with the issue that they would have used in Western countries with well crafted statements and independent tests. But in this case they didn’t work.

India is quickly becoming a modern democracy like the US, but the mindset of its people could not be more different. Western companies must understand these critical cultural differences if they are going to avoid problems like this in the future. Consumers across the globe are wielding more power than ever before, and consumer brands cannot afford to underestimate their impact on the marketplace no matter where they live.

The largest and best-funded animal activist group in the U.S., Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), announced today that they were joining forces with one of the more visible animal activist groups, the Doris Day Animal League. This follows HSUS mergers with the Fund For Animals in 2005 (founded by author Cleveland Amory) and the hiring of leaders of two other activist groups.

What does this mean for PR professionals? The HSUS is solidifying its position as the largest and most powerful animal rights group in the country with an annual budget of $103 million (double from last year) and 400 employees. Their in-house litigation team has more than 40 active legal cases in state and federal courts. Add to that the 180,000 members and supporters of the Doris Day Animal League, along with the legendary actress' media attraction, and you have a powerhouse organization that will be a formidable voice on any animal welfare issue in the world. If your company or organization is involved with animals in any way (food, clothing, testing, farming, hunting, pets, etc.), expect that this group will come knocking on your door sooner or later, and you need to be prepared.

Environmental activists have done a good job of scaring much of the U.S. population into thinking that drilling offshore for oil and gas will automatically lead to oil slicks lapping onto pristine beaches of Florida, the Gulf Coast or East Coast. Surfers in California publish blogs weekly warning of the dangers of offshore drilling.

And it's worked. Drilling on our Outer Continental Shelf, waters within 200 miles of our coast, has been off-limits to drilling since the early 1980's because of Congressional and Presidential bans. However, drilling could start just 50 miles off the Florida coast very soon .... by China and India, which have bought leases from Cuba, which had those rights under a treaty signed with the U.S. in 1977.

So drivers in China and India might well see a drop in the price of gasoline soon as a result of their new oil supply, while American drivers won't get any break since American companies aren't allowed to drill offshore. And do we think that the Chinese or Indian companies will be more responsible in preventing oil spills than American companies would be? No. Seems like a lose-lose situation to me that needs to be communicated more effectively to allow our own oil and gas companies the opportunity to help our own country be more energy-independent.

The annual meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are currently being held in Singapore. For the tiny city-state of Singapore, the meetings are a big deal – about 16,000 delegates, journalists and representatives from NGOs (or what the World Bank terms “Civil Society Organizations”) are attending, making it one of the biggest international gatherings ever held there.

The Singapore government pulled out all the stops to ensure a successful event: millions of dollars were spent beautifying what was already a pristine city (with blooming flowers in pot plants everywhere); hundreds of brand new BMWs chauffeured delegates around town; and a public campaign urged the republic’s four million citizens to smile at their visitors. In accordance with Singapore’s much praised standards of efficiency, the event has run like clockwork. To ensure the meetings weren’t disrupted by protests from activists, the Singapore authorities also made it clear that the country’s long-standing ban on public demonstrations would remain in place during the events.

So far, so good. But then the government went a step too far and decided to prevent 27 NGO activists, who had been accredited to the meetings by the World Bank, from entering the country. The reason given was “security concerns”.

The result? The World Bank accused Singapore of reneging on an agreement to allow activists in, made three years ago, when Singapore was chosen as the meeting venue. And the majority of the 160 NGOs accredited to the meetings, comprising a total of 500 delegates, decided to boycott the event.

In unprecedented criticism, World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz said the move had done “enormous damage” both to the Bank (which has been trying hard to cultivate a softer image and build better relationships with NGOs around the world) and to Singapore … “a lot of that damage has been to Singapore and it’s self-inflicted.”

The stinging rebuke and the outrage from NGOs became the focus of attention for the thousands of journalists attending the meeting. Despite the urgings of government ministers to look at the “big picture”, the efficient logistics of the conference were overshadowed by stories about the “repressive” and “authoritarian” nature of Singapore.

Two days later, the Singapore authorities partially reversed their stance and said they would allow 22 of the 27 banned activists into the country. But for most observers, this was a case of too little, too late.

The lessons from all of this? Little things count for a lot in the PR business. The 22 banned activists might represent only a tiny fraction of the total attendance in Singapore, but the symbolism of the banning overshadowed everything else.

Additionally, in today’s world engagement with stakeholders - no matter what their politics or attitudes - is critical to any successful PR campaign. Not to do so is a risky business – as Singapore has found out to its cost …

Submitted by Andrew Pirie

Well, well, well...sometimes validation comes from the strangest places. Maybe I've just been watching the PR flack's "Director's Cut" of the classic flick, Miracle on 34th Street, where in a fit of charity and bonhomie Macy's starts sending customers to Gimbels, but I was gratified to read that Fleishman-Hilliard just recently stumbled upon an insight that GolinHarris discovered, documented and has been tracking for four years now, since 2003:

When it comes to business earning its stripes as a good corporate citizen, Americans believe that the litmus test and job #1 is how a business values and treats its employees!

Preposterous you say? Well, if you don't take my word for it, then take Fleishman-Hilliard’s and the National Consumers' League, as reported by the Grey Lady herself in a business story slugged, “Corporate Conscience Survey Says Workers Should Come First,” (NYT, 31 May 2006).

Here's the wood: "Far more American consumers consider the way companies treat their employees a good indicator of their social conscience than their philanthropy.”

Isn’t that interesting.

GolinHarris' annual "Doing Well by Doing Good" corporate citizenship survey discovered way back in 2003 that "how a business values and treats its employees" is one of the top two drivers of corporate citizenship, right up there with "ethical, honest, transparent and accountable executives and business practices," so sayeth nearly two-thirds of Americans.

More importantly, "how a business values and treats its employees" is no random blip on the corporate citizenship radar screen, a reputational UFO of little consequence to the traffic controllers of corporate social responsibility, charitable giving, strategic philanthropy, cause marketing, community relations, issues management and SarOx compliance.

Quite the contrary: The trend is significant, stable and sobering.

The chart below is a trend analysis from all four GolinHarris "Doing Well by Doing Good" corporate citizenship surveys...including a sneak peak at our just completed and - ssshh - not yet released 2006 study.

"Values and Treats Employees Well and Fairly"

2006 (5,000 Americans)

Importance: 69% - Rank: 1 of 12 corporate citizenship drivers

Excellent/Good Brand Performance (150 brand average): 48% - Gap: -21%

2005 (3,500 Americans)

Importance: 66% - Rank: 1 of 12 corporate citizenship drivers

Excellent/Good Brand Performance (108 brand average): 51% - Gap: -15%

2004 (1,000 Americans)

Importance: 64% - Rank: 2 of 12 corporate citizenship drivers

Excellent/Good Brand Performance (75 brand average): 52% - Gap: -12%

2003 (500 Americans)

Importance: 61% - Rank: 2 of 12 corporate citizenship drivers

Excellent/Good Brand Performance (30 brand average): 54% - Gap: -07%

Gee, think there’s a pattern here?

Not only is "values and treats employees well and fairly" consistently at the top of heap in importance, but Americans perceive business performance as anemic. . .and weakening year to year!

And if I were a betting boy, I'd double-down on "values and treats employees well and fairly" continuing its upward trajectory as more and more businesses begin to rethink, rework and retreat from the "Social Contract" that - arguably - has been the engine of American economic prosperity since World War II.

I know it sounds counter intuitive to place "values and treats employees well and fairly" to high in the Maslovian corporate citizenship hierarchy of needs because we’re conditioned to think in artificial boxes and silos of “charitable giving,” “strategic philanthropy,” “community relations,” “issue management” “EHS/sustainability,” “corporate social responsibility” and “cause marketing” -- not the holistic and integrated character of the brand’s reputation, value proposition, and stakeholder relationships that GolinHarris advocates.

That's why in this year's corporate citizenship survey we decided to push the issue front and center. We asked all 5,000 Americans if they agreed or disagreed with the following statement, allowing them to position themselves on a 10 point scale of "Very Strongly Agree" to "Very Strongly Disagree."

"A company's relationship with its employees is fundamental to a company's corporate citizenship.

Agree 73%

Strongly Agree 42%

More Agree than Disagree 30%

Mixed 22%

Disagree 05%

More Disagree than Agree 03%

More Agree than Disagree 02%

So, as we think about the Next 50 Years of Public Relations, let's not accept the old "RCA Victor" dog look that 9 out of 10 of our clients give us when they eyeball "treats employees well and fairly" high priority topic for discussion developing in corporate citizenship strategies.

(Perhaps some of you are old farts like me and can remember the venerable RCA Victor logo of the dog tilting its head in befuddlement upon hearing his master's voice bellowing from the victrola's horn).

But then, I'm just the numbers guy, pledged to confuse and confound through obfuscation and obtuseness through the fine art of lies, damn lies and statistics.

What say ye PR practitioners, professionals and pundits?

Did Fleishman-Hilliard award GolinHarris a supreme compliment and prove that old saw, "imitation is the greatest form of flattery" in concluding "far more American consumers consider the way companies treat their employees a good indicator of their social conscience than their philanthropy," or do we both have our statistical heads stuck way up in that place where the sun don't shine?

As we have noted, there are more than 2 million NGO's in the US. By contrast, as recently as 1999, there were a mere 6,000 in China. In seven short years, that number has grown exponentially to more than 150,000. Because international NGO's are not allowed to raise money in China, many of the larger NGO's are actually owned by the government. Ironically, they are called Gongos -- government-owned, non-governmental organizations. Make sense? They absorb 85 percent of all donations.

Speaking of donations, in the US, charitable giving almost equals 2% of the GDP, while in China that number is much lower at only 0.05%. Most of the corporate contributions come from multi-nationals like IBM who create learning centers in schools or Microsoft who provides computer training for the unemployed. Leading domestic companies contribute less than 0.3% of their post tax income to charity compared to the Fortune 500, which averages about 2%.

For now, giving in China is less about social change and more focused on family and government projects. But in the coming decades, Chinese companies will realize that CSR can be an important business strategy especially as they establish their brands in the West.

Americans are not happy with their federal government, and Tuesday’s mid-term election is expected by most experienced prognosticators to give Democrats a slim majority in the House, picking up between 20 to 35 seats.

Voters cannot seem to get over the Iraq War, President Bush’s low job ratings, Republicans’ self-inflicted scandals, opposition to stem cell research and our nation’s high budget deficit. The most conservative Republican voters are expected to stay home, Independents who do cast ballots are more likely to vote Democratic, and the Democrats smell victory and majority control of the House – something they have not enjoyed since 1994.

A bevy of Gubernatorial races and wide-ranging state ballot initiatives (from pot to slots) will turn out more Democrats at the polls, adding fuel to the fire for a return to power by Democrats in the House. Gambling, same sex marriage, voting rights for former prisoners, dove hunting bans, medical marijuana and inducements for voters to win money through a lottery are some of the issues for voters to consider.

The House is currently made up of 229 Republicans, 201 Democrats, 1 Independent and 4 vacancies, including Mark Foley (R-FL) who resigned after the recent page scandal, former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) who was indicted, Bob Ney (R-OH) who pleaded guilty to inappropriate favors for lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and Bob Menendez (D-NJ) who was appointed to the Senate by former Senator and now Governor John Corzine.

One non-partisan pollster shows 349 of 435 House seats as either solid Democratic or Republican, so less than 100 seats even have a chance to switch party control. There are 11 open Democratic seats and 21 open Republican seats, where Members have resigned, retired or are running for other offices.

A mid-term election switch of 15 seats would propel the Democrats to a majority, and everyone is expecting this outcome. Potential Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has already pledged to bring civility back to the House. She wants to run the chamber in an equitable manner, proposing dozens of rule changes that would offset “the tyranny of an overreaching GOP majority.” Some of Rep. Pelosi’s proposed changes include allowing more amendments to bills on the House Floor, along with restrictions on trips by Representatives, no fundraising from January to June each year to focus more on business and less on getting re-elected, and the creation of an outside ethics panel to review future Member violations.

The election of leaders in the 110th Congress and proposed rule changes will set the tone for business over the next two years in the House. The slim majority that will be held by Democrats will allow the “Blue Dog” Democratic bloc to control the balance of power on many issues. Blue Dog Democrats are social and economic conservatives and centrists in the United States Democratic Party. The Blue Dog Coalition is a reference to the "Blue Dog" paintings of Cajun artist George Rodrigue of Lafayette, Louisiana; the original members of the coalition would regularly meet in the offices of Louisiana representatives Billy Tauzin and Jimmy Hayes, both of whom had Rodrigue's paintings on their walls (and both of whom later switched to the Republican Party).

The Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1994 under the 104th Congress as a way for more conservative Democratic Members of Congress to have a unified voice in Congress. It currently has 37 members.

Another development to watch for after the election is political party switching that might alter the landscape. Majority-minority numbers are significant for Committee assignments, the legislative agenda and the ability to override Presidential vetoes.

Democrats are not as smug about the election in the House as to be measuring for draperies in their newer, larger majority offices, but the nation’s mood for change in the House is very real.

Michael Fulton joined GolinHarris in 1988 after working 10 years for two Members of the House, and he heads up our agency’s Government Relations Practice.

The election today will bring a few new faces to the United States Senate and a few more Democrats, but it takes more than that to change an institution that was designed to resist change, trends and flashes of political pique. The Republicans have held the majority in the Senate since 1994, except for a short period of time when, in 2001, Sen. Jeffords of Vermont changed parties and gave the majority to the Democrats - who promptly handed it back to the Republicans two years later.

So what happens? There are 33 Senate seats that will be decided today: 17 Democrats, 15 Republicans and 1 Independent (the aforementioned Jeffords of Vermont). A few of the Senate's characters will be retired today. Democrats are poised to take seats in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Strong Democratic contenders are challenging the GOP hold of Senate seats in Missouri, Montana, Tennessee and Virginia. And an appointed Democrat in New Jersey struggles to hold his seat against a young, charismatic Republican steeped in NJ politics. One thing is for sure. The Democrats will not win all of these seats. They will win 2 of those last 5 for sure and maybe a third. So, even if they hold New Jersey - the Republicans will maintain a narrow 51-49 majority.

Why can’t the Democrats capitalize on an unpopular war that is inextricably tied to an unpopular President and a Republican party awash in scandal? It takes more than a few key issues trending in one direction to nationalize an election. Despite the Democrats best efforts this is not a national election. Tip O’Neill said that all politics is local and you will see that on display today – in spades. Ohio and Pennsylvania, both to be lost by Republican incumbents, are not surprising states to find strong Democrats - look how close the presidential election was there in 2004. More importantly in Ohio, GOP politics has become a sewer of corruption and that, combined with an uncharismatic, unpopular incumbent will give the Democrats a sure victory in that state. Pennsylvania is a blue state with a very conservative Senator who has high negatives and who finds himself running against a moderate, pro-life Democrat who is the son of a well-liked former Governor. No national issue there either.

The majority in the Senate is important, to be sure, but it has a different significance than the majority in the House. Arcane Senate filibuster rules give the minority party a strong hand in deciding the fate of legislation - it takes 60 votes to get anything done. So the majority party sets the agenda and decides the floor schedule, but they don’t rule with the absolute authority of their House colleagues. In recent history the Republican moderates who cross over to vote with Democrats outnumber the conservative Democrats who move to the right. In practical terms this means that either there will be utter gridlock and nothing gets done - we've seen many examples of that in the last few years. Or, there is room for compromise and strong leaders on both sides of the aisle can forge consensus agreements.

And in that latter scenario is the key to Republican salvation. As much as they need a majority in the Senate, they need a strong leader who has the perspective and skills to drive a bipartisan agenda and legislate. The marriage of convenience between the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives’ that was consummated in the early 1980’s is falling apart. As soon as the divorce is final, the new Senate leader can work with the fiscal conservatives and the moderates to carve out middle ground that will bring about consensus.

Later this week, we will have more on the Senate and House results, winners and losers, and the issues to watch for in the early days on the next Congressional session.

I just read an article in PR Week about a new study by Ketchum and University of Southern California's Annenberg Strategic Public Relations Center that shows that..."traditional and local media still carry a great deal of influence with consumers."

The "Media Myths & Realities" survey "compares the media habits of 1,490 Americans with the practices of 500 corporate communications professionals.... nearly 74% of consumers get their information from local TV news, while approximately 69% [including young adults] read the local newspaper."

It was heartening to me to read, in this age of new media and clients demanding the latest and newest, that this survey proves that traditional media is still alive and well and should absolutely continue to be part of a broad media mix.

DotheRightThing.com offers a new bullhorn for consumers to report and rate the positive and negative impacts that companies are making everyday.

With a Digg-style news story sharing interface, users are encouraged to share news and stories about companies while simultaneously rating how a particular item is contributing to the world in a positive or negative way.

Nearly 80 companies, from Apple to Patagonia to Wal-Mart, have been rated and reviewed by this small but growing community of users. Though this site is less than a year old and its overall body of ratings is limited, it offers interesting insights into how John Q. Public feels about the impacts of a corporation's actions on social and environmental issues.

Regardless of the ultimate success of DotheRightThing.com, this obvious extension of online social media provides a new activist voice for the Internet masses that could one day provide meaningful and measurable data that truly impacts the actions and financial performance of corporations.

One day in the future, could such social and environmental ratings prove to be as important to investors as Hoovers and Reuters financial data? And for public relations, won't maintaining high ratings on such sites be a key advisory service that agencies provide for clients? We'll soon see.

Activists have been so unsuccessful at getting federal laws passed that they've found easier marks: city councils and some state legislatures.

Most notable of these has been Chicago City Council's ban on the sale of foie gras in city restaurants (which many restaurateurs have cleverly dodged by "giving away" foie gras with the purchase of "certain" salads, etc.

Following on Chicago's heels was the New York City Health Department's attempt to ban transfats.

Now, animal rights activists have gotten bills introduced in at least five state legislatures to ban the use of cages for egg-laying chickens. No matter that nearly all of the leading animal welfare and animal behavior scientific community considers these cages to be humane and in many ways better for the hens and the quality of consumers' eggs. Research shows that the hens are healthier, live longer and produce more and better eggs when they are raised in conventional cage production farms. Plus, eggs produced in this manner are 50% less expensive for consumers.

The political process is inherently social. From the legendary smoke-filled rooms of Washington to local town hall meetings where issues are discussed and candidates sized up, politicians have always relied on spurring word of mouth in social networks to get out the vote.

The Internet has played an increasing role in the political process in recent years, with significant fund raising taking place on the Web, and candidates taking their message directly to constituents through blogs and video (both official and accidental) on sharing sites like YouTube.

Now, reality TV heavyweight Mark Burnett ("Survivor" and Trump's "The Apprentice") is teaming up with one of the world's biggest online social networks -- MySpace -- for a new reality endeavor focused on the political process.

The new effort -- "Independent" -- is designed to help engage younger audiences typically less involved in the political process by allowing anyone to declare their candidacy for a political post. Individuals can throw their hat into the ring by submitting a short stump speech on MySpace Video, receiving nearly instant feedback from other MySpace users.

The online component will be linked up with a television program (network still TBD, but a fair chance FOX will pick it up) and viewers will determine the issues candidates should address via weekly voting. The winner of the competition scores $1 million for their campaign war chest.

While it's hard to imagine a MySpace-spawned candidate could break into the closed circles of politics in the US today, "Independent" is an interesting way to engage voters of the future and empower them to get involved in the political process.

One has to believe that Republican and Democratic strategists will keep a close eye on the process to learn what's working and what falls short in social campaigning online.

Under mounting public pressure, the Chinese government recently dismanted a government-supported Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) that was dispensing oral health education and product endorsements.

The National Committee on Oral Health was found out to be asking companies for "donations" and "sponsorships" after it endorsed certain products. The group was collecting million in dollars each year in exchange for allowing companies to feature their seal of approval. Apparently this "certification" violated Chinese laws, but the NGO had been doing this for nearly 15 years without complaint. It's also quite common in other professional organizations in China, as it is in many other countries. Was the recent food safety scares of ingredients in toothpaste and pet food coming from China to blame for this heightened scrutiny of this NGO? Will it lead to the Chinese government auditing other NGOs?

Imagine if that happened in the U.S. Most NGOs operating in the U.S. fiercely guard their revenue streams with the cloak of confidentiality. Are there quid pro quos involved here as well? Many people wonder.

While Madonna may have been one of the trendsetters that sparked the world’s obsession with bottled water, it may very well be celebrities like Sarah Jessica Parker and Alice Waters of famed Berkeley eatery Chez Panisse, that will help undo it.

An article in July’s issue of Fast Company, “Message in a Bottle,” has been a big topic around the water cooler as it is passed around en masse. Americans spent $15 billion on bottled water last year, with numbers rising in 2007 and projections that consumption will surpass soda in a decade. Further, over 38 billion water bottles a year – more than a $1 billion in plastic – are tossed into landfills. Bottled water is becoming a heated topic. And may become an integral part of the global warming conversation, like hybrid cars and compact florescent lamps (CFLs).

The Fast Company article may just be the tip of the iceberg. Several NGOs, like Food & Water Watch, Corporate Accountability International’s ThinkOutsideTheBottle.org, and Natural Resource Defense Council are moving bottled water to the top of their agendas, urging consumers to contact companies like Nestlé and PepsiCo, or sign pledges not to drink bottled water. In response, the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) and the American Beverage Association are fighting back with media campaigns that explain what the industry is doing.

But the momentum may be moving in the other direction. As concern about global warming becomes top of mind with the public, guilty consumers will look for easy ways to reduce their carbon footprint. As suggested by Al Gore, changing light bulbs is something anyone can do. So is drinking tap water. Because, if between songs on her next tour Madonna sips water from a pitcher instead of a plastic bottle, people will notice.

Submitted by Fred Cook

A new study being completed by UC Davis may show that eating "local" could actually harm the environment. How could that be, you ask?

Sure, local foods usually are fresher. And it's good to support farmers, especially neighbors and local ones. But there's a reason that large, industrialized modern U.S. farms provide more food at lower cost than farmers anywhere else in the world ... it's called "efficiency." And it turns out that's one of the advantages of large, modern U.S. farms ... they're very efficient in shipping and delivering our food to grocery stores, restaurants and other places where we consumers buy it every day. This efficiency lowers the "carbon footprint" of these foods being shipped to grocery stores and restaurants, compared to the small, local farmers who drive their pick-up trucks, SUV's and other less efficient vehicles to stores, restaurants, farmer markets, etc. ... each with just a small load of produce, fruits and vegetables or eggs.

While it's easy to support small, local farmers .... remember that "big" doesn't mean "bad" when it comes to farming. Sometimes it actually means "better."

Activists have been deluging city councils recently, demanding that they ban bottled water in the cities. Activists say that these bottles are bad for the environment, that they use too much energy to make and fill our overtaxed landfills. To the activists' delight, city councils are rolling over to the activists' demands. Dozens of city councils have adopted bans of bottle water in municipal buildings and meetings.
The problem with this approach is this: without bottled water, consumers drink canned soft drinks, bottled fruit juices, or bottled sports drinks. 70% of the beverages that consumers drink come in packages. Shouldn't these city councils ban all packaged beverages then? Come to think of it, shouldn't they also ban all packaged food? Of course not. So why single out bottled water, which is actually healthier than many of its competitors?

Don't city council members believe that their constituents can make educated, informed decisions about their own food and beverage purchases?

The Wall Street Journal recently reported on Facebook's impact on political activism in the Arab world. Over the past few months, more than 70,000 Egyptian citizens joined a group on the popular social networking site where they discuss government policies, plan protests, and form alliances to stimulate social change.

With nearly 1.4 billion humans now connected via the Web worldwide, digital communication tools have become staples of modern day activism.

Governments are taking notice, going so far as arresting dissidents for their online activities. In severe cases, security forces have even shut down electronic modes of communication in an effort to prevent discourse or civil unrest.

Last month, a student from UC Berkeley was detained in Egypt for snapping pictures of a political demonstration. Minutes after his arrest, the young man used his mobile phone to send news of his detainment to followers around the world. Using micro-blogging tool Twitter, he quickly decreed, "ARRESTED" from his mobile phone. Friends and supporters immediately contacted the U.S. Embassy and news outlets. He was released the next day.

A Snapshot of the Detained Activist's "Tweets"

Dubai has already blocked Twitter nationwide, according to ZDNET.

Efforts by governments, NGOs and big businesses to squelch contrarian voices are increasingly ineffective in the digital age, when younger citizens have literally grown up sharing ideas openly online. By closing modes of communication, groups literally fan the flames of dissenters and drive more dialogue about hot issues, not less.

This reliance on digital tools to communicate, share, and congregate will surely expand. Our own research on trusted information sources (referenced on this blog previously) illustrates the growing importance of "social" media tools and channels -- particularly for citizen influencers -- who increasingly embrace the use of technology to share thoughts with others.

Governments, businesses and all varieties of organizations need to be prepared to take part in these lively discussions online. The days of simply "pulling the plug" may be drawing to a close. With more global scrutiny on censorship and interference with communication, the only way to influence conversations is to join them.

When I arrived to China, I was amazed by the high utilization of instant messengers. People not only use it as a quick means of communication, but it also serves as an excellent information dissemination tool (not to say, as a good back-up when email systems breakdown). The most popular IM are MSN and QQ, and Yahoo is seldom used locally due to low penetration rates.

MSN is widely used in our office and I can understand why. The tool is highly customizable, and has certain amenities that allow personalization. Users can write a personal note next to their ID, and their friends would see it. I see sometimes good wishing notes, or just plain announcements such as "My new cell phone number is XXX."

To set aside the benefits and threats of MSN usage in an office environment, recent incidents that affected China locally and globally has made MSN a tool to voice users view points. Just let me pick two examples: the Olympic torch relay and the recent earthquake in Sichuan.

During the Olympic torch relay, many demonstrations were held overseas to voice their "anti-China" sentiments, and those graphic videos of demonstrators trying to disrupt the relay were beemed back to China. This caused nationwide uproar, and together with CNN's remarks and news that Carrefour's owner supported the Dalai Lama, really brought up the nationalism sense among Chinese. In a few days after all these incidents, a trend got started, where a "red heart" symbol could be installed along your MSN ID through a few simple clicks. The heart symbolized "Love and Proud of China" and very soon, I could see my MSN friends all with hearts in front of their ID. It felt like an unspoken solidarity, a digital and quick way for people to show their point of views. Even though it was noise-less, but the visual impact is there!!

Just two days ago, with the Sichuan earthquake affecting all of us, another trend got started. This time, it had money attached. MSN partnered with Toyota, and to show our compassion and support to those who were affected by the earthquake, for every "rainbow" that was installed in front of the MSN ID, Toyota would donate a RMB 0.1 (1cent US). And within a couple of hours, over 800,000 people have signed up and join the parade of rainbows. To me, this is not only a remarkable effort by a Japanese company trying to show solidarity (remember, China and Japan have historical conflicts that are still not fully resolved), but also how an "old" industry tries to embrace new technology, and achieving good will and CSR along the way.