Dateline: Beijing. July 31, 2006.
Headline: Wal-Mart Workers form 1st Union

For those who didn't see this piece, compiled by the The Chicago Tribune news service, Wal-Mart is under fire in yet another global theatre. This time, it's China, where the government-controlled All-China Federation of Trade Unions has campaigned to set up branches in a country in which Wal-Mart employs 30,000 people at 60 outlets. In case the words didn't convey it, I'll say it more strongly: the Chinese government has demanded that the company allow organized labor in its stores.

In a book titled Stonehouse, a Chinese monk has written these poetic lines:

"Dense fog and clouds you can't push apart
suddenly appear and suddenly depart
clever people can wear themselves out
sun lights the rocks the same as before."

"Pushing the clouds away to let the sun shine through," one interpreter has written, is an old Chinese metaphor for accomplishing something impossible. In markets throughout the world, Wal-Mart is now trying to push the clouds away.

The Bentonville, Arkansas, company that Sam Walton founded in 1962 has transformed retailing. It has changed how manufacturers package and sell their products to retailers. It has brought fame and fortune to some suppliers, incredibly small margins of return and business challenges to others, and even ruin for some who've failed to crack the Wal-Mart code. Through its colossal purchasing habits, it has forced among its suppliers a greater sense of corporate stewardship influencing their employment, supply chain and even their environmental practices. (Wal-Mart's decision early in its corporate history to force the elimination of paper packaging for personal products has helped save millions of trees globally.)

Wal-Mart has brought retailing to urban and rural communities that otherwise would have seen a dearth of options where boarded up properties, burned-out "big boxes" and bankrupt mom-and-pop retailers riddled the landscape. It has brought jobs, energy, activity, new options and, of course "Always Low Prices" to people who can't afford anything more.

As the company has grown, however, pushing the clouds away has become more than a metaphor.

The Wal-Mart some praise is for others an adversary. In his book titled The Wal-Mart Effect: How the World's Most Powerful Company Really Works - and How It's Transforming the American Economy, author Charles Fishman examines the good and the bad of the iconic retailer. The story of Wal-Mart, he writes, is about more than price-cutting and hard-nosed business. It's the story of how the American economy has changed over more than two decades and Wal-Mart's place at the epicenter of the globalization of business.

Wal-Mart was never expected to do battle with prospective neighbors, community leaders, elected officials, organized labor and competing retailers who have sought in skirmishes world-wide to contain this giant - and who portray its employment, pay and benefits practices as sub-standard. It has sent some suppliers into bankruptcy and forced jobs into overseas markets like China to ensure low prices, according to published reports. When Canadian employees sought to organize a Wal-Mart location, the company didn't negotiate; it simply closed the store and put embattled workers on the street. Wal-Mart recently shuttered in the dark of night an underperforming Sam's Club Warehouse in Natick, Mass., less than 12 hours after giving employees notice.

So now comes the first labor union in China; the sale of Wal-Mart operations in South Korea and Germany after the company miscalculated these markets; the adoption in states like Maryland and Illinois of a "big box" tax to impose penalties on companies like Wal-Mart that they believe may not provide adequate wages or benefits coverage for its employees; the guerilla-styled tactics of smaller, regional grocers and retailers doing their best to survive and wage war on Wal-Mart in key markets; and the marriage of activists, religious leaders, labor unions, community leaders and others to create initiatives such as "Wake Up Wal-Mart," a campaign to fight for improved conditions for employees.

There's a lesson here: Corporate values matter. Experience has taught us that corporations must carefully balance their business practices and decisions with the interests and values of the communities they serve - customers, employees, third party groups and others who have a voice or a vote that may determine their future. In this New Age of Corporate Social Responsibility, the pathway to progress is littered with the tattered brands of Enron, Snow Brand, Worldcom, Arthur Andersen and others that lost their way as clever people tried to push the clouds away and failed.

Trust is a fragile commodity. Once lost, it may never be reclaimed, no matter the value proposition or the legacy of past achievements.

Wal-Mart understands this lesson. Today, it is working actively to assert new wage and benefit standards for its army of 1.3 million employees that ultimately will lift all boats in a rising tide. The Washington Post reported its response to the areas battered by Hurricane Katrina - $20 million in cash donations, 1,500 truckloads of free merchandise, food for 100,000 meals and the promise of a job for every one of its displaced workers - turned the company into "an unexpected lifeline for much of the Southeast and earned it near-universal praise at a time when the company is struggling" with its public image. Through its Wal-Mart and Sam's Club Foundation efforts, the company has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars in recent years to the communities it serves, with a special emphasis on supporting Hispanic and African American communities. On the sustainability front, the company has committed to investing $500 million in reducing greenhouse gas emissions; to being supplied 100 percent by renewable energy; to create zero waste; and to sell products that sustain natural resources and the environment - lofty goals, to be sure.

As Wal-Mart works achieves its goals for social responsibility and sustainability, new perspectives should emerge to balance its place among world leaders. Only time will tell whether the sun lights the rocks the same as before.

The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday on a $500,000 gift from 21st Century Oncology Inc. to endow a research chair at The Cleveland Clinic of Weston, FL. On the surface this may seem like a symbiotic public/private partnership ... until you realize 21st Century also is a vendor of the Clinic. It provides radiation therapy to Cleveland Clinic cancer patients.

Both organizations claim the research gift has nothing to do with the business relationship. And that very well may be true. Or, then again, it may be something more. Potential legal issues aside, at the very best this is a gray area that calls into question the ethics of both organizations.

It also is a stark reminder that when it comes to social responsibility (and the broader umbrella of corporate citizenship) we often operate without an owner's manual. It takes on many forms and many labels. And, that can create gray areas, but it doesn't have to.

As more and more companies look for ways to demonstrate or differentiate their corporate citizenship, the boundaries will continue to be tested. That's beneficial. Those who will succeed must begin by looking within their organziations. Corporate citizenship is first and foremost an expression of corporate character. As such, it defines an organization and drives reputation. What it must be -- above all else -- is authentic to remain above reproach. Anything less erodes trust.

Ultimately, the stakeholders of 21st Century Oncology and The Cleveland Clinic will decide if this is an example of best intentions innocently gone awry or checkbook philanthropy that oversteps the boundaries of acceptable corporate character. Regardless, it reminds us that corporate citizenship can not be gray. Simply look at the Journal article ("Cleveland Clinic Defends Gift From a Vendor") to confirm that both organizations are being judged through black and white lenses. And so too, is every other corporation when it comes to corporate citizenship.

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?

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?

What a brilliant idea. And it is one of the simplest I’ve seen in a long time.

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and it seems like the whole world is pink. You name a category, and at least one big player is offering a pink version of whatever-it-is this month.

So why not a soup company? And why would that be interesting?

It’s because it’s Campbell’s we’re talking about, and the fact that their iconic red and white soup cans…aren’t red and white anymore.

Yes, this month they’re pink, and you have to go to Kroger’s to find them. Kroger bought double its usual stock of Campbell’s Chicken Noodle and Tomato varieties this month (those are the ones sporting the pink label and pink ribbon) to support its partnership with the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. It’s a test program, and I think it will work. Wait to see lots more pink soup cans next October, on lots of retailers’ shelves.

We all know that linking with a cause works for brands. Our own CSR study, called “Doing Well By Doing Good,” finds that 67% of Americans believe that good corporate citizenship is a smart business strategy. That said, certain issues and causes may seem a little crowded. One might say this about breast cancer.

But Campbell’s move doesn’t seem me-too, or tired, or late to the discussion. Why is that? It’s because their red and white can, immortalized by Andy Warhol in the 70’s and barely changed since it was introduced 108 years ago, is just supposed to be red and white. The fact that this month it’s pink will turn heads and turns hearts—toward Campbell’s. Consumers will want to see these cans in their shopping carts and in their pantry. It will cause them to think differently about a brand they thought they knew.

That’s not just good cause marketing, it’s smart marketing period. And that’s exactly what the best cause marketing strategies are.

In our "Next 50 Years" booklet, we predicted that in the next decade Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) would become the staple of the PR industry. Based on recent developments, I don't think it will take that long. On a recent trip to China, I noticed that every multinational company doing business in that fast-growing market is engaged in some type of CSR program. Microsoft is providing computer training to laid-off workers. Kodak is providing scholarships to deserving young people from rural communities. IBM is creating learning centers in schools. And all of these efforts are getting coverage in the Chinese press.
Here in the US, the Wall Street Journal is running a weekly column on philanthropy, and the group Business for Social Responsibility created a special insert in the paper talking about the growing trend, with features on a dozen different companies.

On Monday, November 13, the New York Times ran their section on CSR under the title of "Giving." In that 40+ page supplement, they profiled a whole range of programs from Bono's Red to Pierre Omidyar’s Network.

Every company seems to be focusing more resources and attention on its contributions to the community. In the New York Times, one retail executive was quoted as saying, “Philanthropy defines us more than anything else.”

As more companies join this powerful movement, the competition for coverage will become more intense. Now that Warren Buffet has raised the stakes with his $30 billion contribution to the Gates Foundation, it will require greater commitment to attract the public's attention and with names like Angelina Jolie, Bill Clinton and Richard Branson grabbing the headlines, it will be harder for the average non-profit to break through the clutter.

As we move into the future, more media – online and off – will chronicle corporate contributions to society. Increasingly, PR's job will be to help corporations find the appropriate way to merchandise their good deeds, without commercializing their goodwill.

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.

Those of us in the baby boomer generation, and perhaps those who followed, remember the cautionary rule for traffic safety we learned in school: “Stop, look and listen, before you cross the street.” The same basic concept can apply to managing crises or volatile issues. When companies find themselves under attack, they often scramble to do damage control without really addressing the underlying problem. Instead, they need to do the things that fall naturally under the simple mantra of “Stop, Look and Listen” in order to truly resolve the issue and preserve the company’s reputation.

Stop…doing what you’re doing. Whether it’s bad business practices that have now come back to bite you, or personal missteps that reflect poorly on the company, the only way you truly fix the problem is to stop doing it. Obviously the rule does not apply to crises that are beyond your control, but in those instances, the public is much more forgiving.

Remember, the true measure of a company’s reputation is how it behaves when others aren’t looking; so if you do things that are ethically or morally inappropriate, providing “key messages” will get you nowhere if fundamental change is not made.

Look…at the issue from all angles and see how you can right things.
Critical self-examination can be a painful process, particularly when a company has been accused of wrong-doing or is the subject of negative publicity. The natural inclination is to go into a defensive posture and make justifications for why the situation occurred. However, the smart company will step back, look at the issue, figure out how it got to this point, determine what changes can be made to rectify it and come up with honest explanations for what cannot be changed.

Your constituents and the public as a whole can be understanding, and even forgiving, in a crisis if you are candid in your admission of your failings or shortcomings, and you make an honest effort to right the wrong. They will accept your limitations if your explanations are credible and they see that you are committed to doing the right thing.

Listen…to your constituents – internal and external. With issues management, it is important to consider all audiences impacted by the situation and its resolution. Too often, companies only consider their investors or the media. However, employees are usually shaken by crisis and their morale becomes a factor; vendors or partners will have questions and their confidence in you can flag; and certainly, customers can turn their loyalty on a dime over a problem.

In crisis or issues management, the first step should be to list every possible audience involved or affected. Then consider what each one’s concerns will be with regard to the situation and what their individual communication needs will be. Are they worried about their job? Do they need to hear from you as the CEO? Should they hear from you in person or will a reassuring email or company-wide voice mail be sufficient. It’s not enough, though, to reach out to your audiences; there must be a mechanism in place for a two-way dialogue because your audiences want to be heard.

Then, it’s important to listen. What is the feedback to your communications? Are there valid suggestions for making changes? By carefully listening, you can determine whether your efforts for reform or remediation are making a difference and ultimately restore trust among your constituents.

There are certainly no hard and fast rules when it comes to crisis and issues management because every situation is different. But there are some elementary guidelines to follow that can help you navigate a bumpy road.

First and foremost is to do the right thing. Even with investor demands to turn higher profits, or management pressures to gain great efficiencies, a company must ultimately operate ethically and have faith that the rest will fall into place. And operating ethically means doing the right thing, fixing things when you don’t, and listening to the people who matter. Taking the time to stop, look and listen before you cross the street can save your life. Doing the same with your business can save your reputation.

Posted by Jean Gonsoulin

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

Even though, according to the World Bank, the average annual income in is only $2,230, "communist" China has 106 billionaires, second only to the US. Not to mention 500,000 millionaires. But due to ancient religious and family traditions and government interference, personal philanthropy is a radical concept.

According to the Wall Street Journal Asia, that trend is changing. Chinese business men like Li Ka-shing, Asia's richest man, is donating one third of his fortune or $10 billion to his foundation to fund charitable projects around the globe -- making it the third largest foundation in the world.

Other wealthy Chinese are following in his footsteps donating millions to address issues in agriculture, education and health care.

Concerned about the growing gap between the rich and poor, the Chinese government is becoming more accepting of the donations and it is almost mandatory that US businesses entering China take part in some form of community involvement.

However, unlike in the US, all donations must pass through the government and Chinese charities are not required to provide any information on their financials. This means that most people stick to politically correct causes like healthcare.

It will be interesting to see how China comes to define its own non-Western brand of philanthropy as the country’s wealth continues to grow.

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."

A recent New York Times article on embedded giving (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/washington/16giving.html?_r=1&oref=slogin), explores Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) announcement of plans to introduce federal legislation this week to better regulate this fast-growing fund-raising practice, which involves building a gift to charity into everyday purchases. This fundraising tactic is often abused -- some programs fail to disclose what part of a transaction will go to charity, others fail to name the charity that will benefit (or even notify them!), and often, consumers have no way of knowing if their money actually went to charity and how much was raised overall. Menendez is exploring measures to address all of these issues.

This legislation would be an important national step toward helping consumers have a better understanding of how their dollars are being used – and ensuring that charity is not being used solely as a sales/marketing/PR tactic. (For example, when a company positions itself as a leader in the struggle to eradicate breast cancer while actually engaging in practices that may be contributing to rising rates of the disease, it’s knownn as “pinkwashing.”)

Some nonprofits do have in-house legal counsel who can deal with companies who use their names without permission – but if they don’t know about it beforehand, all they can do is issue a cease-and-desist and consider further legal action, they can’t put the horse back in the barn after a company has publicly claimed an association with them and their mission. New Jersey’s new (2006) regulations could be a model for federal legislation; they require all embedded giving programs to provide the state with copies of the contract between the charity and the retailer at least 10 days before they start; retailers and manufacturers involved in the program must also report the amount raised; and the charities involved must report how much was actually given to them.

2008 has clearly been the year for China to be featured daily in the global media. The intensive coverage began on a positive note months back as the Olympic fever began, but then turned fairly negative as protestors targeted the Olympic torch relay as it crossed the globe to air concerns on various China domestic matters, most notably Tibet. It's been interesting to read the global media coverage compared to the domestic Chinese media coverage on both of these key events. To hear both sides of the story has been fascinating. This is the kind of stuff which doctoral students live for, and I'm sure someone is already writing that thesis right now.

Sadly, though, China is now dominating the global news once again but this time following this week's devastating earthquake in Western China. As I write, the death toll is reaching nearly 15,000 but we all are braced for the reality that this toll will dramatically increase in the hours and days to come.

Unlike SARS, there does not seem to be debate on how open the Chinese media have been during this tragedy. In fact, it's in many ways been a demonstration of how far China has really progressed. Within an hour of the disaster, President Hu Jintao had called for all-out rescue efforts. By early evening, Premier Wen Jiabo had already arrived in Sichuan province. Premier Wen Jiabo then visited those areas not simply for photo opportunities but to ensure the rescue work was progressing and he was personally comforting victims, in particular children. In respect of the tragedy, the Olympic Torch relay was scaled back and donations collected along the route. Further, China readily welcomed offers of international aid, not as a sign of weakness to accept help but in the spirit that any and all help is appreciated.

For global critics of Chinese journalism, it would be interesting to hear how they now regard China's openness. Since the tragedy struck, China has been delivering comprehensive coverage of the tragedy and essentially giving international media free reign to cover the aftermath. While the world's sympathy is with China today, one would expect questions soon to follow regarding building safety standards, food and water supplies and other matters. But China isn't focused on potential criticism today, it's focused on saving lives right now. One would expect China to receive high marks with freedom of the press for this disaster. In fact, some readers of international media have already complained about the graphic images of the dead. A number of readers in Hong Kong's South China Morning Post described the front page images of dead children's bodies as highly inappropriate – one reader said “I was saddened and horrified to be confronted with the graphic and frankly gratuitous image of dead children's bodies on the front page…”

Though these are difficult stories to read and images to see, it's critical that the world see the devastation in detail… and in the process, a different side of the Chinese people's hearts and souls. It's also important to look at the actions of the central government and local authorities who have acted with great care and speed during the nation's hour of need. Without question, the media have been able to document every step.

For once, global community, let's applaud China's press… no one could have been more open or accommodating than they have been since their worst earthquake in over a generation.