Why does NZ accept second best in business?
This article was published by the NZ Herald on February 4, 2020.
This article was published by the NZ Herald on February 4, 2020.
This article was published in the NZ Herald on December 23rd, 2019.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12295724
If you would like to read the full column – and can not access the NZ Herald or don’t want to takeout a subscription for just one article – please email me at: ron.ainsbury@gmail.com.
An article I wrote has been published in New Zealand Management – turns out it might be quite timely given the US Business Roundtable last week. Stop the debate and let’s see action.
https://management.co.nz/article/time-amend-why-companies-exist
Given the components that make up the competitiveness score it is unlikely that New Zealand could ever aspire to be top of the rankings. Our remoteness and size of domestic market are always going to count against us. But there are actions we could take to lift our relative score and climb a few notches.
If New Zealand wants to improve its ranking – what should it do?
A comparison with our neighbours across the ditch, just a few points higher, and Singapore, 2019’s #1 (which has a population almost on a par with ours), might be instructive. Where are we behind and can take steps to improve?
We need to remember that these are rankings and not an absolute score, nevertheless, the scores highlight where New Zealand should focus. The following table highlights Infrastructure as the first place we need to examine and take steps to improve.
Moreover, the tyranny of distance should not be an impediment. Why should New Zealand be behind Australia in health and environment?
There is a need to delve into how some of the Business Efficiency indicators are calculated. On one hand we score well against Australia when it comes to Management Practices and yet fall well behind in Productivity and Efficiency.
Time to investigate – are we being efficient and productive in our investments in health, education, and basic infrastructure?
Source: IMD World Competitiveness Center
Tagged New Zealand, Work Competitive IndexThere remains a strong widely-held belief among businessmen, entrepreneurs, and business students that the primary goal of a business is to maximise its profit.
Milton Friedman is often cited as the source of this view but they do a disservice to his 1970 paper “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits”.
First, the context. In the 1960s it had become popular for companies to support a range of charities – what was then termed Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Friedman argued that spending money on social causes unrelated to the core business was wrong and that instead the funds should be paid to shareholders as dividends who could then support charities of their choice, should they wish to. He was against such Corporate Philanthropy.
Perhaps CEOS thought they were following in the footsteps of great business philanthropists, such as Getty, Rockefeller, and Guinness. But mostly, these gentlemen gave away the money they had generated for themselves, their own money. Just as Bill Gates today gives away his own wealth and not Microsoft’s.
As Friedman says, in the article: “The situation of the individual proprietor is somewhat different. If he acts to reduce the returns of his enterprise in order to exercise his ‘social responsibility’, he is spending his own money, not someone else’s.”
Second, let’s look at the full quotation: “… there is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.”
How many CEOs, who rely on this quote to justify their pursuit of profits, do so in “open and free competition without deception or fraud”? Certainly not the US and European financial institutions who led the world into the Global Financial Crisis nor the Australian ones whose behaviour was severely criticised by the Hayne Royal Commission.
As Andrew Cornell, writing in ANZ Blue Notes, states: “Critically, it is the ‘rules’ of the game which are complex and, long term, rely on a social licence as well as black-letter regulation. Understood more broadly, the ‘rules of the game’ are not just black letter law but those principles which govern behaviour – they are set by society, by providers of capital, by staff, by customers.”
Modern businesses are not engaging in CSR (first make a profit and then give some back to society) and are world’s apart from the corporate philanthropists of the 1960s. They start with a clear consumer (or societal) purpose.
These and others are embedding environmentally-friendly and sustainable practices into their day-to-day operations as described in a recently-published book.
“All In: The future of Business Leadership” by D Grayson, C Coulter & M LeePublisher: Greenleaf 2018.
Should be required reading for all C-suite executives!
Tagged Business Case, Business Purpose, CSR, FriedmanIn this series of three brief articles, Ron Ainsbury, Visiting Fellow at the Cranfield School of Management and Senior Fellow at the Research Centre Business Innovation at the Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, sets out why and how New Zealand directors should be directing efforts to ensure that their businesses have a clear purpose and have the governance systems in place to ensure that the purpose is followed.
Perhaps, by focusing on purpose and embedding the culture and values to support that purpose, much of the unethical behaviour of corporations could be reduced and so much of the focus on the plethora of compliance rules, regulations and procedures minimised.
Questions for Leaders
These are the fundamental questions that a board (or the CEO) should be able to answer.
Q What is the purpose of this business or organisation?
Follow Simon Sinek’s directive – “Start with Why?”[1]Why do we exist? A statement of purpose is not to be confused with a Mission Statement. The difference is neatly explained in an HBR article by Bruce Jones of the Disney Institute: “Purpose answers Why, Mission answers What”.
Is the purpose expressed in a simple, easy-to-understand way? There are now many examples of well-expressed purpose statements.
If the purpose is not clearly stated then the Board should work with the CEO to develop a meaningful purpose – one that is consistent with the operations of the business. There are several guides as to how to do this, for example, https://www.blueprintforbusiness.org.
Q Is the purpose supported by a set of values that define our organisation’s behaviour?
These should not be just words but should drive the way the business develops its strategy and manages its operations on a daily basis. Values can help drive the business. As Xerox CEO, Anne Mulcahy reported corporate values “helped save Xerox during the worst crisis in our history.”
New Zealand’s Z Energy has a clearly-explained set of values which provide a great example for others to follow.
Figure : Z Energy Values
Q. Does purpose underpin our current strategic plan and goals?
Does the CEO and the Senior Leadership team promote the purpose and values in the way they run the business or are these just mouthed? Does it drive strategy development? Underpin operations? The following slide was part of Unilever CFO Graeme Pitkethly’s presentation to investors in Singapore, December 2015 and is typical of many Unilever presentations to investors and shows how Unilever’s simple purpose statement underpins their business – resulting in returns to investors.
Figure: Unilever’s Strategy explained
Q Do we have a culture that is in synch with our purpose and values?
Sir Winfried Bischoff, Chairman, Financial Reporting Council states clearly that “establishing a company’s overall purpose is crucial in supporting the values and driving the correct behaviours. The strategy to achieve a company’s purpose should reflect the values and culture of the company and should not be developed in isolation.”
A key underpinning of art of the culture of the company will be the mindset that the Board and Leadership team adopts. Examples (not exhaustive) of mindset questions include:
Q. Am I satisfied that our board has sufficient oversight of these activities?
There are several different ways in which a board may exercise oversight, for example, appointing a sub-committee to be responsible, appointing a lead director, appointing a below board committee headed by a director. There are many guides available on line that will help the director, for example:
Q. Are we being open and transparent in what we do?
In our reporting are we making our customers, our people and our investors fully aware of our purpose, values and strategy to ensure that our activities are seen to be genuine and not just greenwashing or sustainability-washing?
The trend towards integrated reporting is developing with companies publishing just one report and not a ‘sustainability’ or ‘citizenship’ report separate from the financial report. See, for example Heineken’s 2017 Annual Report[2]: “Through “Brewing a Better World”, sustainability is embeddedin the business and delivers value for all stakeholders.”
Conclusion
New Zealand leaders of businesses, large and small, need to put aside the “profitability first” philosophy that dominates businesses today.
By focusing their businesses on purpose and embedding the culture and values to support that purpose, much of the unethical behaviour of corporations could be reduced and so much of the focus on the plethora of compliance rules, regulations and procedures minimised.
[1]https://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action
[2]Available at www.theheinekencompany.com
Tagged Business Purpose, Corporate Culture, ESG Risks, Governance, Leadership, SustainabilityIn this series of three brief articles, Ron Ainsbury, Visiting Fellow at the Cranfield School of Management and Senior Fellow at the Research Centre Business Innovation at the Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, sets out why and how New Zealand directors should be directing efforts to ensure that their businesses have a clear purpose and have the governance systems in place to ensure that the purpose is followed. In this second article we look at the evidence that businesses that do embrace responsibility and sustainability outperform competitors.
The Business Case
Business leaders, seduced by the lure of shareholder value maximisation, often proffer multiple excuses for not taking more positive action on ESG[1]issues, that they can’t afford it. Costs will go up. We are too small. Yes, we understand the triple bottom line – but for now it needs to be profit first, people and planet can come later, when we can afford it.
Yet, the evidence reveals these to be false arguments. Businesses that are embedding responsible and sustainable business practices show, lower costs, higher employee engagement and productivity and improved returns.
It may seem strange to have to set out a business case for being responsible and sustainable. Keith Weed, Unilever’s Chief Marketing Officer, has said “I’d love to see the business case for being unsustainable!”
The evidence is now conclusive. As the late Ray Anderson said – it is a better business model.[2]
In 2010 Britain’s Business in the Community recognized a divide between those that “embrace sustainability-driven strategy and management, and those that don’t. These ‘embracers’ are the businesses that will survive and thrive”. BITC commissioned the Cranfield School of Managementto compile the business benefits for being a responsible business, “to help those currently at an earlier stage of the journey”. The study[3]demonstrated seven ways in which business benefits:
Since that study, several further research papers have highlighted the benefits. In 2011 a Harvard study[4]provided “evidence that High Sustainability companies significantly outperform their counterparts over the long-term, both in terms of stock market as well as accounting performance.”
In 2014 a study by the Smith School at Oxford Universityand Arabesque Asset Managementshowed that Companies with strong sustainability scores show better operational performance and are less riskyand that Investment strategies that incorporate ESG issues outperform comparable non-ESG strategies.[5]
In 2015 Project ROI[6]built on the 2010 BITC findings cited above and provided detailed economic analyses on business benefits:
The report concluded that a “more productive approach will be to develop business-aligned and integrated CR strategies.”
In January 2016 the Financial Times highlighted a report[7]by HBR Analytica and EY’s Beacon Institute that found “companies with a purpose beyond profit tend to make more money.”
In 2017 in a HBS Whiteboard session Andrew Winston[8]neatly summarises the arguments in “The Business Case for Sustainability.” No wonder then that so many leading global businesses are not just dabbling with ESG issues but going “All In”[9].
When Larry Fink, the CEO of the world’s largest investor, Blackrock, writes to the CEOs of companies he invests in and urges them to find their purpose and that the “board is essential to helping a company articulate and pursue its purpose” purpose – it is time for NZ Boards to sit up and take action.[10]
[1]Environmental, Social, and Governance issues.
[2]https://www.ted.com/talks/ray_anderson_on_the_business_logic_of_sustainability
[3]The Business Case for being a responsible business” 2011 available on www.bitc.org.uk
[4]The Impact of Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Processes and Performance by Robert G. Eccles, Ioannis Ioannou, and George Serafeim HBR Working Paper 2011
[5]From the stockholder to the stakeholder:How sustainability can drive financial outperformance”by Smith School, Oxford Universityand Arabesque Asset Management 2014
[6]Project ROI Defining the Competitive and Financial Advantages of Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability by IO Sustainability and Babson College 2015
[7]https://www.ft.com/content/b22933e0-b618-11e5-b147-e5e5bba42e51
[8]https://hbr.org/video/5415413929001/whiteboard-session-the-business-case-for-sustainability
[9]“All In: The Future of Business Leadership” by David Grayson, Chris Coulter, Mark Lee Greenfield Publishing 2018
[10]https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/larry-fink-ceo-letter
Tagged Business Case, ESG Risks, Purpose, SustainabilityIn this series of three brief articles, Ron Ainsbury, Visiting Fellow at the Cranfield School of Management and Senior Fellow at the Research Centre Business Innovation at the Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, sets out why and how New Zealand directors should be directing efforts to ensure that their businesses have a clear purpose and have the governance systems in place to ensure that the purpose is followed.
Perhaps, by focusing on purpose and embedding the culture and values to support that purpose, much of the unethical behaviour of corporations could be reduced and so much of the focus on the plethora of compliance rules, regulations and procedures minimised.
The Purpose of Business
The IOD’s Four Pillars of Governance Best Practice, states that ‘Corporate governance exists to help organisations achieve their fundamental purpose … typically to maximise shareholder value.’ Why?
This focus on short-term profit and maximising quarterly shareholder value has grown since the US Economist Milton Friedman first stated “there is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.”
As a result, since then, most business schools, business commentators and analysts have developed and used various profitability measures such as quarterly earnings per share, to gauge the success of businesses, and stock market investors narrow their focus even further, sometimes to daily profit expectations.
But shareholder value is not a legal requirement. The NZ Companies Act 1993, 131 (1) states that ‘A director of a company, when exercising powers or performing duties, must act in good faith and in what the director believes to be the best interests of the company.’ Australian, US, and UK laws reiterate this, using ‘best interests of the shareholders’ as the guideline for a director’s decision-making.
In recent years the wisdom of focusing a businesses’ purpose on shareholder value has come into question. Martin Wolf writing in the Financial Times wrote: “Almost nothing in economics is more important than thinking through how companies should be managed and for what ends. Unfortunately, we have made a mess of this. That mess has a name: it is “shareholder value maximisation”. Operating companies in line with this belief not only leads to misbehaviour but may also militate against their true social aim, which is to generate greater prosperity.”
This view has been repeated in several articles, for example, James Montier of the global investment firm GMO wrote a well-researched article in which he demonstrated that
shareholder value maximization is “The World’s Dumbest Idea”.
It is time business went back to basics. With a few exceptions, businesses start when an entrepreneur sees a situation where a group of people can have a problem solved. As Peter Drucker once put it, “The purpose of business is to create and keep a customer.”
Creating and keeping customers could mean offering a new product or service that is cheaper, or of higher quality, longer-lasting, is disposable, offers superior performance, offers faster performance, and so on. In each case there is a group of people who are willing to pay for this innovation. If we look at the successful companies of today and trace back to how they first started, we see this clearly:
Each of these companies ventured into unethical behaviour, I assert because as they grew their governance focus shifted from purpose, values, and culture to short-term profitability, most probably as a result of stock market pressures.
Of course, there are many people who start a business simply dreaming they will become rich, but unless they find a market and provide an innovative solution, they won’t. If the entrepreneur manages the new businesses efficiently, then she or he earns a profit on the investment.
Drucker sets out three purposes of profit:
The way to ensure the sustainability of the enterprise is to reinvest in innovation and meeting consumer needs.
Some continually argued against this profit-centred approach. Charles Handy, in the Michael Shanks Memorial Lecture in 1990 argued “To say that profit is a means to other ends and is not an end in itself is not a semantic quibble, it is a serious moral point.” And went on to address the purpose of business.
In recent years there has been a move away from Friedman’s profit-centred focus as business leaders have rediscovered the power of purpose. While John Elkington’s “People Planet Profit” may have started a trend towards businesses taking a lead in being socially responsible (CSR ) this new focus on purpose is not CSR it is central to the business. As David Grayson and others argue in their recently-published book, it is about companies going All In” (“All In: The Future of Business Leadership” by David Grayson, Chris Coulter and Mark Lee. Routledge 2018).
In October 2014 Coca-Cola Enterprise sponsored a “Future for Sustainability” Summit and commissioned a Cranfield School of Management and the Financial Times study, entitled ‘Combining Profit and Purpose’.
In a recent article, the strategy guru, Michael Porter wrote: “A big part of the problem lies with companies themselves, which remain trapped in an outdated approach to value creation that has emerged over the past few decades. They continue to view value creation narrowly, optimizing short-term financial performance in a bubble while missing the most important customer needs and ignoring the broader influences that determine their longer-term success. How else could companies overlook the wellbeing of their customers, the depletion of natural resources vital to their businesses, the viability of key suppliers, or the economic distress of the communities in which they produce and sell? How else could companies think that simply shifting activities to locations with ever lower wages was a sustainable “solution” to competitive challenges?
The role of Purpose is thoroughly set out in a seminal book “The Power of Purpose” by John O’Brien and Andrew Cave, required reading for every CEO and Director, indeed, for anyone interested in starting or running a successful enterprise, whether for profit or not.
Even in the world of investment finance, where the purpose of investing is purely for profit, we see a realisation of the importance of Purpose. Earlier this year Blackrock’s Larry Fink encouraged CEOs to reconsider their purpose writing “Without a sense of purpose, no company, either public or private, can achieve its full potential.”
“The bottom line result is that purpose-driven, people-centric, values-driven companies outperform. Not just because they do better sustainably over time, but because they avoid the risk. They avoid the Volkswagen and the Tesco problems, and they avoid the thing that wipes 30% off their share prices.” Ann Francke, CEO, CMI
Instead of criticising those who have signed up to the New Zealand Climate Leaders’ Coalition we should all be encouraging all business leaders to go further and focus on the wide range of ESG risks and ensure that their individual businesses have a clear purpose. NZ directors may find that they will need to spend less time on compliance.
Next
In the second article in the series Ron will present the evidence that businesses that focus on purpose and manage responsibly and sustainably, taking into account their potential impact on a wide range of stakeholders, generate superior returns for their investors.
Tagged ESG Risks, Purpose, Responsibility, Role of Profit, Shareholder Value, Stakeholder Value, Sustainability