According to Mainwaring:

• 83% of consumers are willing to change their consumption habits if it can help make tomorrow’s world a better place to live.
• 61% have sought a brand that supports a good cause even if it was not the cheapest brand.
• 64% would recommend a brand that supports a good cause, up from 52% last year.
• 56% believe the interests of society and the interests of businesses should have equal weight in business decisions.
• 67% would switch brands if a different brand of similar quality supported a good cause.

The data point to a warning for companies that choose to ignore CSR and to an opportunity for those that embrace it. More and more consumers are factoring corporate social responsibility into their buying decisions.

Mainwaring believes the consumer drive for CSR will become unstoppable for three reasons:

1. Many consumers are frustrated and angry at corporations. “Millions of them have been personally affected by the relentless corporate drive for profit above all else, having lost their jobs. These are people who are now distrustful of corporations and intolerant of selfish behaviors that negatively affect their lives and their planet.”
2. Many consumers, especially Millennials, won’t tolerate corporations and brands that neglect purpose or weasel their way around being responsible citizens. If you “greenwash” (lie about the ecofriendliness of your products), “cause-wash” (advertise support for a cause that you actually do little or nothing to support), or “local-wash” (claim your products are locally made when they’re not), you will be vilified.
3. Consumers believe capitalism needs to evolve. “Consumers will increasingly seek to conduct their business transactions only with corporations and brands that practice purposeful capitalism with transparency, authenticity, and accountability throughout their entire supply and sales chains.”

To read more about CSR, click on these articles:

• Baldrige Model: How do you govern and fulfill your societal responsibilities?
• Sustainability: A Business Imperative
• Strategic Value of CSR
• Corporate Social Responsibility in 2010
• Save Money – and the Environment
• Not CSR: Shared Value

The answer is: Yes.

Such initiatives mark the intersection of sustainability and business, according to Dhiraj Rajaram in this HRB blog. He notes that the chain has 25 distribution centers across the U.S., which means it can cut millions of miles of transportation costs and emissions by optimizing its transportation routes.

The CEO of an analytics firm, Rajaram has noticed “a surge in interest among Fortune 500 companies for analytical models that help determine the impact of going green on their bottom line.” One-hundred-thirty of the Fortune 500 have officers at the level of vice president or higher who are focused on sustainability.

The Baldrige Criteria ask how “you contribute to the well-being of your environmental, social, and economic systems.” Rajaram suggests five ways to address the well-being of your environmental and economic systems by analyzing the impact of going green on your company’s financial performance:

1. Take a close look at your supply chain. Collect baseline measurements of the environmental impact of operations.
2. Establish short-term goals. Select an initial project where you can realize a quick impact by improving performance on the metrics you’ve collected.
3. Expand the initiative. If the project succeeds, expand it to other areas.
4. Communicate your vision. Share your goals and progress with employees, suppliers, and customers.
5. Engage the entire supply chain. “Begin with choosing the right vendors,” Rajaram writes, “then incorporate green compliance checks and choose vendors not just on price but also based on quality and environmental factors.”

To read more about sustainability, click on these articles:

• Sustainability: A Business Imperative
• Sustainability Forces Wheel
• 4 Parts of True Sustainability
• P&G Sets High Bar for Environmental Responsibility
• Porter: CSR Is Dead End

Pamela Hawley describes these benefits in her article on Fast Company about Danone and Grameen Bank in Bangladesh (“Corporate Social Responsibility: How You Can Profit – and Kick Poverty Out,” March 4, 2011). Grameen Bank pretty much invented microfinancing as a way of lending small amounts of money to those who had little, primarily women. Danone makes yogurt.

Danone wanted to enter the Bangladesh market so it partnered with Grameen to create a unique, community-based model. “Those of us who are involved in CSR know we need to have experts on the ground,” Hawley writes. “It’s important to establish local buy-in, which can take years of relationship building. And we need to have experience, or rely on those who do.”

The annual income of a Bangladeshi is $497. The country has one of the highest child and maternal malnutrition rates in the world. One cup of Danone yogurt would provide 30% of a child’s recommended daily nutrients.

Grameen Danone Foods Ltd. built a production plant near Bogra, Bangladesh. It branded the yogurt as “shokti,” which means strength in Bengali. It marketed the yogurt at a price even the poorest could afford. It bought milk from nearby micro-farmers and distributed the yogurt door-to-door through local, rural saleswomen. In an 18-mile radius of its plant, the company provided 1600 jobs.

Another characteristic of most CSR projects is the use of environmentally sustainable practices. Grameen Danone Foods created packaging that is biodegradable in a plant that uses solar energy.

Danone also set up Danone Communities, a fund for investors who want their money to have a social impact. Up to 20% of profits in the fund are invested in social businesses.

Danone is a for-profit company partnering with a nonprofit to expand its market while serving the nutritional and employment needs of a poor community. It’s taken five years to make this a viable enterprise, but the value to everyone involved, from Danone and Grameen to its employees to the people who eat the yogurt, is incalculable. That’s the future of CSR.

To read more about corporate social responsibility, click on these articles:

• Corporate Social Responsibility in 2010
• Sustainability: A Business Imperative
• 4 Parts of True Sustainability
• How to Build a Culture of Social Responsibility
• P&G Sets High Bar for Environmental Responsibility

FastCompany expert blogger Alice Korngold follows the CSR story. She identified four CSR trends in 2010 (“The Year in CSR: The Four Trends of 2010,” December 21, 2010):

1. Leadership matters. Korngold talks about the annual September meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative at which “scores of CEOs from global corporations” reported “on the completion of previous years’ multimillion dollar commitments and made new commitments to address global social, economic, and environmental challenges.” These are not tree-hugging dreamers but the kind of visionary leaders Baldrige applauds. “Corporate leaders with vision are recognizing that by advancing global solutions, they can create valuable renewable resources to their advantage, establish new markets for their companies, and otherwise unleash tremendous opportunities,” she writes.

2. Consumers care. According to the 2010 Cone Shared Responsibility Study, 84% of Americans believe their ideas can help companies create products and services that are a win for consumers, business, and society, but only half (53%) feel companies are effectively encouraging them to speak up on corporate social and environmental practices and products. The study also observed that “Americans hold companies accountable for a range of global issues that may impact their businesses.”

3. Measurement matters. It’s called “greenwashing” and “faking CSR,” and it doesn’t work. A company that says one thing and does another will get eventually get busted on the Internet. Here’s a recent example from a Minnesota business icon, Target. Last fall, Target made campaign donations to support the Republican candidate for governor who had a history of opposition to gay rights. Outrage forced Target’s CEO to apologize and promise a new process to review future political donations. Earlier this week, The Awl used documents filed with the FEC in October to show that Target continued to donate to anti-gay politicians after its CEO’s apology and promise (click here for article). By contrast, companies that truly pursue CSR establish their own metrics or participate in CSR networks like the Global Reporting Initiative and Social Accountability International. And they use performance on those metrics to show their commitment to and the value of CSR, rather than hollow words.

4. Accountability and integrity matter. “CEOs and boards must ensure that their communications are honest and candid,” writes Korngold. “They should assume that in today’s media environment, the truth will out.”

To read more about CSR, click on these articles:

• Sustainability: A Business Imperative
• 4 Parts of True Sustainability
• How to Build a Culture of Social Responsibility
• P&G Sets High Bar for Environmental Responsibility

This week, P&G announced that its ninth manufacturing plant—and its first in North America—earned the distinction of beneficially using 100% of its waste, with more than 60% recycled or reused and the rest converted to energy.

P&G’s vision is to have zero manufacturing waste going to landfills from any of its plants anywhere in the world. It is moving toward that vision through its Global Asset Recovery Purchases (GARP) program, which uses internal innovation and external partnerships to help plants reach the zero waste goal. In the case of the latest plant, a feminine care facility in Auburn, Maine, the GARP team partnered with a provider to sort recyclable materials and convert non-recyclable materials to energy through incineration. The electricity from the incineration is used by the incineration facility with the excess sold to the local power company. According to P&G, in the last year “the GARP team has diverted tens of thousands of tons from landfills while delivering tens of millions of dollars in cost recover to the company” (“P&G Announces Its First North American Manufacturing Plant to Achieve Zero Waste to Landfill,” IW Staff, IndustryWeek, December 6, 2010).

To read more about Baldrige and the environment, click on these articles:

• Do You Know Your Externalities?
• Sustainability: A Business Imperative
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Another Case of Corporate Irresponsibility

The question seems particularly relevant in the wake of the recent egg recall, which followed high-profile problems with lettuce, peanuts, spinach, and peppers. When it comes to the potential for adverse impacts on society, food safety ranks right at the top—which makes the behavior of many in the food industry appalling.

“The food industry is jeopardizing U.S. public health by withholding information from federal food-safety investigators or pressuring regulators to withdraw or alter policies designed to protect consumers,” stated a recent article in Reuters. (“Industry Sway Endangers U.S. Food Safety,” Reuters, September 15, 2010)

The Union of Concerned Scientists sent a survey to about 8,000 people working on food safety at the FDA and the USDA. About 1,700 responded, with 60% identifying themselves as inspectors. One-fourth of the respondents had “seen corporate interests force their agency to withdraw or modify a policy or action designed to protect consumers during the past year.” Not during their careers as inspectors but just in the last year.

Thirty-eight percent said that “public health has been harmed by agency practices that defer to business interests.” Nearly a third mentioned one reason these agencies defer to business interests: The people making the decisions used to work for the food or agriculture industries.

The article quotes Dean Wyatt, a USDA veterinarian who oversees federal slaughterhouse inspectors: “Upper-level management does not adequately support field inspectors and the actions they take to protect the food supply. Not only is there a lack of support, but there’s outright obstruction, retaliation, and abuse of power.” Wyatt should know: He was demoted by the USDA for documenting violations.

The majority of companies in the food and agriculture industries do their best to answer the Baldrige question within a system that is obviously broken. Business interests supersede consumer interests whenever the people making the decisions defer to what is best for companies. The only way to fix this system is to remove these conflicts of interest and to refocus the FDA and USDA on their primary mission, which is to protect the public health.

To read more about social responsibility, click on these articles:

• Guided by Your Culture
• BP and Oil Company Irresponsibility
• Do You Know Your Externalities?
• Sustainability: A Business Imperative
• How to Build a Culture of Social Responsibility

Where is that energy going to come from? Who will control the sources? How much will it cost? How will it affect your organization? How will it affect consumer needs, governments, healthcare, and education? Since the increase will be steady for the next 25 years, the impact will be felt along the way and not just in 2035. Your strategic planning process should consider that impact.

Of course, any increase in energy usage means an increase in carbon dioxide emissions, which is a key cause of global warming. The EIA predicts such emissions will jump by 43%.

How will global warming affect your organization? How will it affect your customers, employees, and suppliers? Your strategic planning process should consider this, too.

The EIA’s report is based on the assumption that current policies are unchanged. That seems to be a safe bet, at least until we’re faced with an end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it scenario. Based on its recent history, the U.S. government will drag its heels until other countries are using more energy than we are and spewing out more pollution that we are and then it will suddenly want to address the issues. That probably won’t take 25 years but you should still make sure your organization is as prepared as possible for energy shortages and global warming.

You can read a synopsis of the EIA report here.

To read more about how to develop an effective strategic plan, click on these articles:

• Be Prepared
• Identifying Potential Blind Spots
• Developing Agility on 3 Fronts
• Making Your Organization Adaptable
• Anticipating Disruptive Change